The case you cite is an aberration. The vast majority of pharmaceuticals cost a lot because of the high costs of R&D not only for that particular drug, but because those drugs must also "subsidize" all the many unsuccessful development efforts.
For example, a big drug company like this could improve its reputation by releasing this info for the benefit of the human race, and then collecting 'social credits'.
Okay, so who issues these social credits and what can you do with them? If the gov't just issues social credits like nuts, then they're worth absolutely nothing. But there's really no other body which is capable of doing this job. So what you're proposing is that a company spent x billions of dollars working on a drug, then turning it over to the gov't (public) for these "social credits." I suppose you're saying that the company could exchange these social credits for things like goods and services?
We already have such a "currency" available in the US. It's called "money." That's exactly how money works. The only thing you're proposing is that the gov't (the public) take the risk that the drug will be a failure, cause cancer, accidentally interact with common otc medications rather than the pharmaceutical company taking that risk. Because that's exactly what the gov't will be doing. They'll be buying the drug from the company (at a not inconsiderable cost, I'm imagine) and assuming all the risk. The downside to this is that if the drug not only fails, but turns out to be harmful in some unforeseen way, the people harmed by the drug will almost certainly not be able to recover any damages from the patent owner (the gov't/the people) since the federal gov't is notoriously difficult to sue and win. So the real people taking the risks of this scheme of yours are the people who use the drug and have no recourse if things don't go well.
The solid state memory buffer on the ipod is good for something like 20 minutes before it has to hit the drive again. How many downhill runs can you find where you can ski b*lls to the wall for more than 20 minutes straight? The iPod is very ruggedly built. I've dropped the thing from chest height while jogging onto concrete, and all it got was a few scratches. It was still playing when I picked it back up and plugged by headphones back in.
My brother enjoyed fencing in his Sims next to a coffee machine and forcing him to drink coffee constantly, without sleeping. Eventually, his Sim died and turned into a bubbling mass of organic mush. How's that for inventive?
Obviously you never played Castle Wolfenstein on an Apple ][
That game rocked. It scared the piss out of me!
I also loved Olympic Decathlon for the Apple ][, which sounds like it was the precursor for the Track and Field game that was noted earlier.
Trivia: Does anybody remember who made Olympic Decathlon?
The postal carriers in the Tampa Bay area have also been experimenting with them. I haven't heard about them recently, but a couple quotes from carrier on these things is that they're kinda neat, but it doesn't actually save them much time. The time they normally spend walking they're also able to sort and prepare mail along the way. There's no way they can do that while operating a Segway, no matter how intuitive these things are supposed to be. So they had to ride to the next house. Stop and fish out the mail for the address and put it in the mailbox. Repeat as needed.
The early trials seemed to show that it took just as much time to deliver the mail on Segway as it did on foot. I don't know if they've gotten any faster at it.
Maybe Im not part of the target demographic, but I have a nice widescreen, I have a Tivo, I have a CD player capable of mp3 playback, I have a 2/3 pulldown DVD player which gives me better quality than any PC ever will, and I have a Denon sound system.
You are in the target demographic, but you just don't know it. Whether or not it suits you in particular is another matter. While we're comparing units, I've got a very nice home theater system with thousands of dollars in speakers and a front projector and a 8 foot wide screen, and the source is almost completely driven from my htpc. The 160 hour Tivo is also piped through the htpc. My 6000 tracks of vorbis files are available on the network to my htpc.
Software dvd decoding has advanced to the point that it equals pretty much even the most absurdly expensive hardware players, and for those with projectors it provides better scaling than anything but the best Faroudja chips. Unfortunately, all the best software for htpc's are currently available mostly for Windows and a box of similar functionality is still quite a ways off.
You should at least give it a chance. Go to AVS Forums HTPC section for more information. In short, a media center pc gives you the best of all worlds (including remote control operation and several well-designed simple interfaces) without the cost of audiophile level gear.
First, if you are buying one to watch DVD movies then first DO NOT BUY an XGA or and SXGA model, instead buy the cheaper 800x600 model. Why? because it will look much better. the reason is simple, 800x600 is nearly perfectly matched to the resolution of a dvd.
Lots of good advice on front projectors, but I take issue with this one. Higher resolution is in general better. The problem of not matching dvd resolution is not an issue if you have an htpc, which it sounds like you do. Software dvd players and video drivers can easily scale between resolutions quite easily without any noticeable artifacting.
Personally, I've had my LCD projector (which doesn't quite have the blacks that DLP has, but the lumens for the price was quite nice) for almost a year now. I go into these electronic stores, look at these "big screen tv's" and wonder how anybody can watch movies on anything so small. LoTR on a 100" screen. Now that's home theater!
Re:Misunderstandings....
on
Complications
·
· Score: 2
A note on medical malpractice litigation:
Studies have shown that, in general, whether or not a doctor wins or loses a lawsuit has nothing to do with whether or not a mistake was made. The only significant determinant in the outcome of a lawsuit and the amount of damages is the severity of the patient's outcome.
Stop and think about that for a moment. A physician can make a correct diagnosis, prescribe the right treatment, and follow-up correctly, but the thing that'll make up the jury's mind is how bad the patient looks when they see him/her. If the jury sees somebody who has suffered greatly, they look for someone to pin the blame on, and the only person presented to them is usually the treating physician. By default, the doctor must be guilty/liable.
Apply that to your own jobs and see how you'd feel about working in that kind of environment. Most of you are techies, coders, etc. Suppose that you wrote a database program which worked perfectly (ha!). Then due to some hardware problem, it blows up and tons of data is lost, pensioners don't get their checks, convicted murderers get released into the public, whatever. If it worked the same way as in med-mal litigation, you'd probably lose and get sued for millions of dollars of damages to countless plaintiffs.
Malpractice insurance costs have risen dramatically in the last two years, to the point where some states are in a physician shortage crisis, because they've driven out all the doctors who used to live there. I practice in Florida, and we're quickly running out of obstetricians to deliver babies because they can't afford the insurance costs. The costs of insurance for our group (not OB/Gyn thankfully) have more than doubled in the last two years, but it's been worse for some other specialties.
When I moved here, I rented a place from an anesthesiologist who was in the process of moving to another state. Why? Malpractice insurance costs and the legally hostile work environment.
For those that stay, that means that there's even more work to go around, but less pay since the Medicare/Medicaid have cut reimbursements by at least 3-4% for all specialties (on top of increasing malpractice insurance costs), some specialties much higher. This country is driving physicians out of needy areas, and if things keep going this way they'll start driving physicians out of medicine entirely.
So next time you work like hell to avoid your duty to serve on a jury, think carefully about the people you're leaving behind on the juries. Before medicine, I myself served as a jury member in a med-mal case, and found that the people that serve on juries (even in San Francisco) are cows, easily swayed by the glib words of the plaintiff's attorney. If you won't serve as the voice of reason on a jury, don't expect to see any rationality in the outcomes, and don't complain about the high cost of medical care.
Re:From personal experience
on
Complications
·
· Score: 2
Back when I was in school, a neonatologist estimated that the cost to society (all parties involved) of the average neonate in the neonatal ICU was somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000. So I'd definitely say you've gotten your money's worth on your insurance.
- The unusual, unnerving, yet strangely attaching character of Dr. Susan Calvin. She's central to the stories as she bridges the gap between robots and humans. I know Will Smith has a lot of talent, but I don't think he can play her role effectively. She's supposed to be plain, cold, arrogant and inflexible. I don't know of any American actress who matches this description.
Linda Fiorentino? Well, except for the "plain" part, but makeup can dull even the shiniest penny.
Actually, that wouldn't be such a great idea, considering the fact the tablet PCs would need to remain updated. How would you ask? I'm pretty sure the majority of people on here would reply to my question with "wireless netwworking". However, do remember these are hospitals we are talking about and you're not even allowed to carry regular mobile phones around due to interference with possibly sensitive equipment. (at least not here in The Netherlands) Do you think they'd allow the building to be saturated with possible harmful wireless transmission?
Actually, at the hospitals I've worked at, they already have wireless networks saturating the airways. Some of them still won't let you use your cell phone, but that prohibition seems to be falling by the wayside as well.
IANAPL, but I don't think the offending patent is the one you linked to. The one you linked to only claims to patent particular methods of detecting a particular DNA sequence. Instead, try this one. This one includes in the "Claims" section actual DNA sequences, rather than merely the methods for detecting them.
An excerpt from the patent:
What is claimed is:
1. An isolated DNA comprising an altered BRCA1 DNA having at least one of the alterations set forth in Tables 12A, 14, 18 or 19 with the proviso that the alteration is not a deletion of four nucleotides corresponding to base numbers 4184-4187 in SEQ. ID. NO:1.
Try eating 1 cup of aspirin. You'd die of liver failure.
Actually, you're thinking of Tylenol (acetaminophen), which causes liver failure in overdoses. Aspirin in large doses also kills, but by a completely different mechanism (and considerably more quickly in acute overdoses).
If your problem is occurring across os platforms, then it's probably not an os, driver, or software issue. Since it happens in other opengl games, it's not a particular game issue. Since it's more than one card, it's not a faulty card.
More likely, I'm guessing you have a problem with either heat or power. Try running with the case open and with a big ole room fan blowing in the computer. If that doesn't work, then try a different (i.e. better) power supply.
FUD! You didn't actually read what I wrote did you?
Geezus, calm down. I misread your post. Sorry already. Nowhere did I attempt to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Too much coffee today?
As far as the comfort of the procedures, it's well documented that LASIK is less painful that PRK. There are plenty of studies, here is one. Here is another. I could find more, but that would really add nothing to the conversation.
Regarding cost factors, they do it for dental work, which is usually *less* than the eye procedures. I find it odd that it would be available for a less expensive operation, but not for this.
If what you're talking about is nitrous oxide, then I can see where the problems would be. The problem with nitrous is that it doesn't knock you out at all. It's a mild pain reliever, but what it mostly does is make you dopey and make you forget. It doesn't paralyze you at all.
Nitrous oxide is definitely not general anesthesia.
FWIW, I had my LASIK done after being given 5 of valium. That worked wonders for the anxiety.
In any event, the main difference between PRK and Lasik is that with PRK they don't slice your eyeball. No mechanical blade is used at all, it is entirely done by the Excemer laser.
This is incorrect. LASIK does involve making a flap incision on the cornea with a microtome (or something similar it anyway). Only after the flap is created does the laser do its work. It is very different from PRK for specifically this reason, and this is also the difference that makes it better. By only ablating the cornea cells under the eye, the outcome is more predictable, since the inner corneal cells heal together more predictably than ablated epithelial cells on the surface. This is also the reason LASIK hurts much less than PRK, as most of the pain receptors are on the surface of the cornea. My mother had PRK done years ago, and boy did it look miserable!
They can't put you under anesthesa (sleeping gas) because you must keep your head and eyes still, and sleeping people tend to move both. Bummer.
Actually, one could use general anesthesia for vision correction surgery, but it isn't done for a number of good reasons.
1. complexity - general anesthesia requires a fully equipped operating suite and lots of extra equipment.
2. cost - cost of above mentioned equipment, plus the services of an anesthesiologist to take care of the medications, intubation, artificial ventilation, etc.
3. risk/benefit ratio - with general anesthesia, the risks suddenly become much, much higher--too high for an outpatient elective procedure when a safer alternative exists.
The bit about not being able to keep sleeping peoples' eyes still is not a problem. It's a simple matter of medication to completely paralyze a patient during general anesthesia.
A friend of mine is a senior uni researcher in optometry. She's told me that the flap of cornea that they open up in order to do the surgery never heals properly and that even mild trauma is able to re-open the cut. This can result in infection, scarring and permanent damage. She wears glasses and preaches openly against this technology.
Hmm... conflict of interest? Optometrists are largely in danger of becoming an obsolete species thanks to vision correction surgery. I detect some possible bias here. Mild trauma is NOT going to open up the cut, any more than mild trauma is likely to rebreak a formerly broken bone, any more than mild trauma is likely to open a cut that healed on your skin years ago. LASIK is fairly prevalent now, and I've NEVER heard of a single case of the corneal flap avulsing, let alone see one (and I see lots of bad car accidents every day, none of which complain of vision loss without other severe trauma to the eye, i.e. denucleations, hyphemas, etc.).
Basically, I'd take your friend with a grain of salt. Get more than one side of the story, preferable one whose livelihood isn't endangered by the new technology.
Moderators, for chissakes look at the posting times. This guy doesn't deserve a redundant mod. His post time is only one minute after the first real genius joke (which only got a +2 anyway). He might very well have been the first one to start typing.
Well, we can rule out his Majesty Satanic actually buying HPaq. That would trigger an anti-trust scatalogical storm of world-wide proportions.
So, how can Redmond achieve control without all of the legal overhead of a purchase?
I equate Microsoft's relationships with many of it's "partners" as that between parent and child. They don't necessarily own them, nor do parents actually own their children as chattel. However, Microsoft (like parents) provide most of the essentials for daily living and survival. The children could run away from home, but survival away from home is a lot tougher than under the thumb.
Unlike human parents, Microsoft seems to have a tendency to either eat or kill their children when they get too grown-up.
Slashdot Mirror
The case you cite is an aberration. The vast majority of pharmaceuticals cost a lot because of the high costs of R&D not only for that particular drug, but because those drugs must also "subsidize" all the many unsuccessful development efforts.
Okay, so who issues these social credits and what can you do with them? If the gov't just issues social credits like nuts, then they're worth absolutely nothing. But there's really no other body which is capable of doing this job. So what you're proposing is that a company spent x billions of dollars working on a drug, then turning it over to the gov't (public) for these "social credits." I suppose you're saying that the company could exchange these social credits for things like goods and services?
We already have such a "currency" available in the US. It's called "money." That's exactly how money works. The only thing you're proposing is that the gov't (the public) take the risk that the drug will be a failure, cause cancer, accidentally interact with common otc medications rather than the pharmaceutical company taking that risk. Because that's exactly what the gov't will be doing. They'll be buying the drug from the company (at a not inconsiderable cost, I'm imagine) and assuming all the risk. The downside to this is that if the drug not only fails, but turns out to be harmful in some unforeseen way, the people harmed by the drug will almost certainly not be able to recover any damages from the patent owner (the gov't/the people) since the federal gov't is notoriously difficult to sue and win. So the real people taking the risks of this scheme of yours are the people who use the drug and have no recourse if things don't go well.
Keep thinking.
The solid state memory buffer on the ipod is good for something like 20 minutes before it has to hit the drive again. How many downhill runs can you find where you can ski b*lls to the wall for more than 20 minutes straight? The iPod is very ruggedly built. I've dropped the thing from chest height while jogging onto concrete, and all it got was a few scratches. It was still playing when I picked it back up and plugged by headphones back in.
My brother enjoyed fencing in his Sims next to a coffee machine and forcing him to drink coffee constantly, without sleeping. Eventually, his Sim died and turned into a bubbling mass of organic mush. How's that for inventive?
That game rocked. It scared the piss out of me! I also loved Olympic Decathlon for the Apple ][, which sounds like it was the precursor for the Track and Field game that was noted earlier.
Trivia: Does anybody remember who made Olympic Decathlon?
The early trials seemed to show that it took just as much time to deliver the mail on Segway as it did on foot. I don't know if they've gotten any faster at it.
You are in the target demographic, but you just don't know it. Whether or not it suits you in particular is another matter. While we're comparing units, I've got a very nice home theater system with thousands of dollars in speakers and a front projector and a 8 foot wide screen, and the source is almost completely driven from my htpc. The 160 hour Tivo is also piped through the htpc. My 6000 tracks of vorbis files are available on the network to my htpc.
Software dvd decoding has advanced to the point that it equals pretty much even the most absurdly expensive hardware players, and for those with projectors it provides better scaling than anything but the best Faroudja chips. Unfortunately, all the best software for htpc's are currently available mostly for Windows and a box of similar functionality is still quite a ways off.
You should at least give it a chance. Go to AVS Forums HTPC section for more information. In short, a media center pc gives you the best of all worlds (including remote control operation and several well-designed simple interfaces) without the cost of audiophile level gear.
Doesn't beat the guy I met yesterday who changed his name to "Big Daddy." No lie.
So it's the Microsoft Windows version of a pvr? Oh, crap, there's already one of those? :)
Personally, I've had my LCD projector (which doesn't quite have the blacks that DLP has, but the lumens for the price was quite nice) for almost a year now. I go into these electronic stores, look at these "big screen tv's" and wonder how anybody can watch movies on anything so small. LoTR on a 100" screen. Now that's home theater!
Studies have shown that, in general, whether or not a doctor wins or loses a lawsuit has nothing to do with whether or not a mistake was made. The only significant determinant in the outcome of a lawsuit and the amount of damages is the severity of the patient's outcome.
Stop and think about that for a moment. A physician can make a correct diagnosis, prescribe the right treatment, and follow-up correctly, but the thing that'll make up the jury's mind is how bad the patient looks when they see him/her. If the jury sees somebody who has suffered greatly, they look for someone to pin the blame on, and the only person presented to them is usually the treating physician. By default, the doctor must be guilty/liable.
Apply that to your own jobs and see how you'd feel about working in that kind of environment. Most of you are techies, coders, etc. Suppose that you wrote a database program which worked perfectly (ha!). Then due to some hardware problem, it blows up and tons of data is lost, pensioners don't get their checks, convicted murderers get released into the public, whatever. If it worked the same way as in med-mal litigation, you'd probably lose and get sued for millions of dollars of damages to countless plaintiffs.
Malpractice insurance costs have risen dramatically in the last two years, to the point where some states are in a physician shortage crisis, because they've driven out all the doctors who used to live there. I practice in Florida, and we're quickly running out of obstetricians to deliver babies because they can't afford the insurance costs. The costs of insurance for our group (not OB/Gyn thankfully) have more than doubled in the last two years, but it's been worse for some other specialties.
When I moved here, I rented a place from an anesthesiologist who was in the process of moving to another state. Why? Malpractice insurance costs and the legally hostile work environment.
For those that stay, that means that there's even more work to go around, but less pay since the Medicare/Medicaid have cut reimbursements by at least 3-4% for all specialties (on top of increasing malpractice insurance costs), some specialties much higher. This country is driving physicians out of needy areas, and if things keep going this way they'll start driving physicians out of medicine entirely.
So next time you work like hell to avoid your duty to serve on a jury, think carefully about the people you're leaving behind on the juries. Before medicine, I myself served as a jury member in a med-mal case, and found that the people that serve on juries (even in San Francisco) are cows, easily swayed by the glib words of the plaintiff's attorney. If you won't serve as the voice of reason on a jury, don't expect to see any rationality in the outcomes, and don't complain about the high cost of medical care.
Back when I was in school, a neonatologist estimated that the cost to society (all parties involved) of the average neonate in the neonatal ICU was somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000. So I'd definitely say you've gotten your money's worth on your insurance.
An excerpt from the patent:
You do realize you can undo moderation, right?
More likely, I'm guessing you have a problem with either heat or power. Try running with the case open and with a big ole room fan blowing in the computer. If that doesn't work, then try a different (i.e. better) power supply.
Geezus, calm down. I misread your post. Sorry already. Nowhere did I attempt to spread "fear, uncertainty, and doubt." Too much coffee today?
As far as the comfort of the procedures, it's well documented that LASIK is less painful that PRK. There are plenty of studies, here is one. Here is another. I could find more, but that would really add nothing to the conversation.
Nitrous oxide is definitely not general anesthesia.
FWIW, I had my LASIK done after being given 5 of valium. That worked wonders for the anxiety.
1. complexity - general anesthesia requires a fully equipped operating suite and lots of extra equipment.
2. cost - cost of above mentioned equipment, plus the services of an anesthesiologist to take care of the medications, intubation, artificial ventilation, etc.
3. risk/benefit ratio - with general anesthesia, the risks suddenly become much, much higher--too high for an outpatient elective procedure when a safer alternative exists.
The bit about not being able to keep sleeping peoples' eyes still is not a problem. It's a simple matter of medication to completely paralyze a patient during general anesthesia.
Basically, I'd take your friend with a grain of salt. Get more than one side of the story, preferable one whose livelihood isn't endangered by the new technology.
Moderators, for chissakes look at the posting times. This guy doesn't deserve a redundant mod. His post time is only one minute after the first real genius joke (which only got a +2 anyway). He might very well have been the first one to start typing.
Unlike human parents, Microsoft seems to have a tendency to either eat or kill their children when they get too grown-up.