Yes, you can have both. Drugs aren't random and the outcome is not the will of God. All the drug companies need is more data and better data, and all doctors need is better access to the tools needed to identify which drugs are likely to have harmful side-effects. We won't reach truly personalized medicine, but the better we can approximate it, the fewer needless deaths we'll get.
More comprehensive analysis of results, more comprehensive analysis of the pathways, more comprehensive analysis of what is going on in live patients and more comprehensive analysis of any deaths should improve things, but you can't do everything to the hilt. You need to balance any increase in these so as to get the best payoff (best outcomes for survivors, fewest deaths) for the same budget.
Unfortunately, experts are considered heretics at the moment, and science is held as blasphemy by some. Added to that, corporations have no particular incentive to invest more because, by definition, they'll get less return. Why would anyone willingly spend more in order to get less? It's not even legal in America to take action that could hurt shareholders, so pharmaceuticals cannot legally improve the science behind their work even if it would be the CEO's ultimate dream.
It's difficult to answer this one, but the best I can come up with is that they need to understand what it is the drugs actually do better. What they are supposed to do is easy, what they do in the target area - hmmm, I might possibly believe them. But that's not where the metabolic chain begins or ends and that's where the problem lies.
Isotopes that can be used as tracers might help, particularly in animal studies. If you can use MRI, positron emission detection, etc, to see where things end up, then you can compare computer-generated theory with practice. That should help a great deal. It may even already be done.
Genetics can help. If there is an adverse effect in group A but not in group B, then exome gene sequencing should tell you if the two groups actually have different conditions (and thus obviously need different treatments) or of the two groups have different sensitivities to the drug. Again, this is being done, but not on anything like the scale needed. Of the 244 recent deaths reported and the 500 death reports processed, how many have the DNA information included?
AMS spectrometry on biopsies of organs and the brain would help identify where any potentially toxic buildups occurred or where the drug impaired function. This would give scientists incredibly valuable data in going back over animal studies, or conducting new ones, to establish what is going on. Never underestimate the value of good diagnostics. Again, probably done but clearly not done enough.
Continuous monitoring. From blood work to brain scans (there are 34 different types of scanner for the brain now) to fMRI of the body (since that tells you a lot about cell activity), it aught to be possible to identify side-effects LONG before the patient ever notices anything. I would argue that for experimental treatments, this aught to be a requirement. It might actually be one, but obviously not to the point of it doing any good.
Yes, doing all of these would be absurdly expensive and you have diminishing returns. It's why you call a mathematician or statistician in to figure out the balance that gives you the best return within a reasonable budget. If they do this, then "reasonable" obviously needs to be increased a bit. Experimental treatments should not transfer the risk from the company to the patient beyond the absolutely necessary.
Of course, you can make a lot of this a lot cheaper. At present, administration eats up most of the costs of the medical facilities. Less administration, lower costs, better monitoring. That would solve a lot of your problems. I won't suggest any particular way to do that. No point.
In Britain, truth IS a defence against libel, as has been shown in many cases. But it has to be the truth. As is repeatedly shown in the US (most recently with deHavilland), truth is immaterial in the US.
This is just a bunch of busybodies interfering with the fundamental and ancient rights of Europeans on the grounds that making money is more important than a fundamental right.
Wonder where they stand when it comes to their own fundamental rights. Ahhhh. I see.
Are you ok with foreigners telling you what rights you have to get rid of on their say so? I seem to recall Americans getting upset and that's without the other side profiteering.
You are not permitted to use the irrelevant in hiring decisions. And society is prohibited from inventing punishments outside of law or indefinite punishments of any kind. That's not revisionism, that's called decency.
It's also why recidivism in Europe is about a quarter that in the U.S.
Also, none of the historic record is changed. Unlike in America, where the south firmly believes slavery had nothing to do with the civil war and that the statues removed were from that era.
Americans should also start with home, where their President (after a cup of covfefe) is pressing for political opponents to be arrested and locked up without trial and for opposing news sources to be shut down as illegal lobbyists.
Get him impeached and THEN you get to talk about freedom of the press, and not a moment before.
No, what we're really saying is that you're not competent to know what has merit by merit of bringing up Nazis rather than respecting other cultures, so you can bog off.
Britain doesn't have a principle of free speech, it has a principle of fairness and reasonableness. The reasonable man ethos confers more rights than free speech. Britain has a constitution, it safeguards many rights, but it doesn't safeguard your right to say anything you want.
Trump has been trying to shut the FBI down and has damaged it at every opportunity. This case may be lost in court because of Trump, as a result. So, if you like the stuff Backpage was accused of then Trump is not so bad.
First, everyone does it so you get to pick which devil you sell your information soul to but you can't pick whether you sell it.
Second, the information is now there and won't go away. It will be in systems for the rest of eternity.
Third, bug data relies on patterns. You don't matter. Get used to that. You have no significance. Your data helps build a bigger picture, but any person's data would do the same. You are disposable. As long as enough people shop there, their system learns exactly the same stuff. Your address, they'll buy off other suppliers anyway.
Unless you plan to live in a cave, where you shop doesn't make any difference. It doesn't matter which head of the hydra you feed. You have an illusion of choice.
That is why you need laws, to create actual choice. Otherwise, your life is just empty rituals.
There's a difference between knowing in the abstract sense and KNOWING in the sense that there's a bloody great big rip in the fabric of the continent that is now highly visible. (Admittedly, if it was a rift in the fabric of spacetime and Jack Harkness and The Doctor were involved, it would be more interesting. For the few seconds before a Dalek fleet vaporized you. Nonetheless, interesting.)
It doesn't matter if they didn't write that code, they wrote Windows for a specific platform. They should have TESTED it for that platform. They didn't.
The chips worked as designed, so this was not an undisclosed problem, this was something Microsoft designed Windows for.
If you spend too much on quality, sure, people will buy the ticket for the airliner with one engine hanging off and fuel pouring out the tank. Except this wouldn't have required much at all. One design decision rather than another at the implementation stage, and your choice costs you maybe a couple of thousand dollars (twenty licenses, or 1/100,000 an EU fine).
Microsoft ATE that EU fine for breakfast, burped slightly, and then carried on. Think about how much QA they could have done with that same money. And since it was so trivial to them, think of what they could be doing right now with the same amount of money.
No, this isn't about taking a risk to make more affordable software. They have 95% of the market and the most significant rival charges nothing at all.
You want to talk about bug-free software? Look up VST and tell me about bug-free. But I say again, this isn't about bug-free. This is about isolating the parts of the code that may have bugs and placing the provable parts (which you CAN have, because the Halting Problem allows provably correct software, just not provably correct in the general case - specific cases are fine) at critical points.
They get a search warrant. Their system shows that there's a few million test tubes storing DNA samples. That's more than the budget for all the police departments in the US.
They obtain the SNP values. Useless, the police database doesn't store SNPs, it stores STRs in one of the less interesting chromosomes. No way to compare the data.
They use an archaeology DNA lab to sequence the crime scene sample because improper storage means it has broken down. It comes up with about a thousand results, because DNA lasts upwards of a million years and there's a lot of cross-contamination. Also, the police will have used improper collection methods. We know from prior cases that police have chased after people who didn't exist because they contaminated their own samples. It happens.
Ok, so they now have samples they can compare, but have blown their entire forensics budget. They compare and find that each of those thousand results maps to a hundred individuals. So they've a hundred thousand suspects. Not helpful.
We know in trials that police don't do this. They're not methodical, they use DNA to try and rig conviction rates. They could use any evidence for that, they just chose something they could spell. Previously, they've used bite marks. The values have no relevance, they use 8 STRs typically. They claim an accuracy of one in ten million (so 700 people on the planet would produce the same results). However, genealogy researchers would put the frequency of 8 STRs at closer to one in ten. The way it is used has no criminological value, it is purely to frighten juries.
It could be used properly in criminology, but that would require no outsourcing, VERY expensive gear, VASTLY improved practices, a LOT of money and a 100% discard of everything obtained so far. Which, in turn, means much higher taxes.
Your average American would prefer fake trials to paying for a decent service.
Doesn't matter, their samples aren't attached to any personally identifying information, and I can buy a testing kit for anyone. I've bought testing kits for several people. Doesn't mean I'm any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you can have both. Drugs aren't random and the outcome is not the will of God. All the drug companies need is more data and better data, and all doctors need is better access to the tools needed to identify which drugs are likely to have harmful side-effects. We won't reach truly personalized medicine, but the better we can approximate it, the fewer needless deaths we'll get.
More comprehensive analysis of results, more comprehensive analysis of the pathways, more comprehensive analysis of what is going on in live patients and more comprehensive analysis of any deaths should improve things, but you can't do everything to the hilt. You need to balance any increase in these so as to get the best payoff (best outcomes for survivors, fewest deaths) for the same budget.
Unfortunately, experts are considered heretics at the moment, and science is held as blasphemy by some. Added to that, corporations have no particular incentive to invest more because, by definition, they'll get less return. Why would anyone willingly spend more in order to get less? It's not even legal in America to take action that could hurt shareholders, so pharmaceuticals cannot legally improve the science behind their work even if it would be the CEO's ultimate dream.
It's difficult to answer this one, but the best I can come up with is that they need to understand what it is the drugs actually do better. What they are supposed to do is easy, what they do in the target area - hmmm, I might possibly believe them. But that's not where the metabolic chain begins or ends and that's where the problem lies.
Isotopes that can be used as tracers might help, particularly in animal studies. If you can use MRI, positron emission detection, etc, to see where things end up, then you can compare computer-generated theory with practice. That should help a great deal. It may even already be done.
Genetics can help. If there is an adverse effect in group A but not in group B, then exome gene sequencing should tell you if the two groups actually have different conditions (and thus obviously need different treatments) or of the two groups have different sensitivities to the drug. Again, this is being done, but not on anything like the scale needed. Of the 244 recent deaths reported and the 500 death reports processed, how many have the DNA information included?
AMS spectrometry on biopsies of organs and the brain would help identify where any potentially toxic buildups occurred or where the drug impaired function. This would give scientists incredibly valuable data in going back over animal studies, or conducting new ones, to establish what is going on. Never underestimate the value of good diagnostics. Again, probably done but clearly not done enough.
Continuous monitoring. From blood work to brain scans (there are 34 different types of scanner for the brain now) to fMRI of the body (since that tells you a lot about cell activity), it aught to be possible to identify side-effects LONG before the patient ever notices anything. I would argue that for experimental treatments, this aught to be a requirement. It might actually be one, but obviously not to the point of it doing any good.
Yes, doing all of these would be absurdly expensive and you have diminishing returns. It's why you call a mathematician or statistician in to figure out the balance that gives you the best return within a reasonable budget. If they do this, then "reasonable" obviously needs to be increased a bit. Experimental treatments should not transfer the risk from the company to the patient beyond the absolutely necessary.
Of course, you can make a lot of this a lot cheaper. At present, administration eats up most of the costs of the medical facilities. Less administration, lower costs, better monitoring. That would solve a lot of your problems. I won't suggest any particular way to do that. No point.
In Britain, truth IS a defence against libel, as has been shown in many cases. But it has to be the truth. As is repeatedly shown in the US (most recently with deHavilland), truth is immaterial in the US.
No, the data is there, so there is no censorship.
This is just a bunch of busybodies interfering with the fundamental and ancient rights of Europeans on the grounds that making money is more important than a fundamental right.
Wonder where they stand when it comes to their own fundamental rights. Ahhhh. I see.
Are you ok with foreigners telling you what rights you have to get rid of on their say so? I seem to recall Americans getting upset and that's without the other side profiteering.
Are taught to write their code away from a computer. It leads to better code. If you can't code away from the machine, you can't code on the machine.
You are not permitted to use the irrelevant in hiring decisions. And society is prohibited from inventing punishments outside of law or indefinite punishments of any kind. That's not revisionism, that's called decency.
It's also why recidivism in Europe is about a quarter that in the U.S.
Also, none of the historic record is changed. Unlike in America, where the south firmly believes slavery had nothing to do with the civil war and that the statues removed were from that era.
Americans should also start with home, where their President (after a cup of covfefe) is pressing for political opponents to be arrested and locked up without trial and for opposing news sources to be shut down as illegal lobbyists.
Get him impeached and THEN you get to talk about freedom of the press, and not a moment before.
Again, you're not reading what was written. Nothing is being censored and search engines aren't journalists. That's all there is to it.
At this point, anyone who doesn't grasp the importance of privacy clearly works for Facebook or Cambridge Analytics.
No, what we're really saying is that you're not competent to know what has merit by merit of bringing up Nazis rather than respecting other cultures, so you can bog off.
In Britain, it is a matter of law that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
Britain doesn't have a principle of free speech, it has a principle of fairness and reasonableness. The reasonable man ethos confers more rights than free speech. Britain has a constitution, it safeguards many rights, but it doesn't safeguard your right to say anything you want.
Trump has been trying to shut the FBI down and has damaged it at every opportunity. This case may be lost in court because of Trump, as a result. So, if you like the stuff Backpage was accused of then Trump is not so bad.
Actually, no, they don't. Biblically, sex is marriage, therefore there is no other sort.
America has no Puritanism left because America has no left. Bernie Sanders is on the moderate right and he's as left as America gets.
...Microsoft will troll you with your own patents. It's a superb get-rich-quick scheme.
Cards with electronic cash that need no central bank have existed since the 90s.
Handle it like cash, no central control, so it's equal to cash. It's in a real currency, not a pretend one.
By using strong PKI, provable software and tamper-proof electronics, such systems are more secure than Blockchain and don't have the latency.
They aren't used much because the 90s was a time when crypto was under attack and nobody trusted new gizmos.
However, this approach eliminates the need for credit card companies, central control and physical cash.
What's more, thus style of system is in Neuromancer and we all know the final system is one predicted in a sci-fi novel.
Cooperation is cheaper, easier, quicker. And humans are lazy before they are greedy.
Cooperation also yields better results, which is why America and Britain are sliding down every metric and Scandinavia is on the rise.
Stallman uses simple economics. You don't have to agree with him, but you will be uneconomic and unsustainable if you do.
He is not a communist, he is a pragmatic capitalist.
First, everyone does it so you get to pick which devil you sell your information soul to but you can't pick whether you sell it.
Second, the information is now there and won't go away. It will be in systems for the rest of eternity.
Third, bug data relies on patterns. You don't matter. Get used to that. You have no significance. Your data helps build a bigger picture, but any person's data would do the same. You are disposable. As long as enough people shop there, their system learns exactly the same stuff. Your address, they'll buy off other suppliers anyway.
Unless you plan to live in a cave, where you shop doesn't make any difference. It doesn't matter which head of the hydra you feed. You have an illusion of choice.
That is why you need laws, to create actual choice. Otherwise, your life is just empty rituals.
There's a difference between knowing in the abstract sense and KNOWING in the sense that there's a bloody great big rip in the fabric of the continent that is now highly visible. (Admittedly, if it was a rift in the fabric of spacetime and Jack Harkness and The Doctor were involved, it would be more interesting. For the few seconds before a Dalek fleet vaporized you. Nonetheless, interesting.)
So what you're saying is that the processor bug might have been on request? The bug is in one ring, after all.
It doesn't matter if they didn't write that code, they wrote Windows for a specific platform. They should have TESTED it for that platform. They didn't.
The chips worked as designed, so this was not an undisclosed problem, this was something Microsoft designed Windows for.
If you spend too much on quality, sure, people will buy the ticket for the airliner with one engine hanging off and fuel pouring out the tank. Except this wouldn't have required much at all. One design decision rather than another at the implementation stage, and your choice costs you maybe a couple of thousand dollars (twenty licenses, or 1/100,000 an EU fine).
Microsoft ATE that EU fine for breakfast, burped slightly, and then carried on. Think about how much QA they could have done with that same money. And since it was so trivial to them, think of what they could be doing right now with the same amount of money.
No, this isn't about taking a risk to make more affordable software. They have 95% of the market and the most significant rival charges nothing at all.
You want to talk about bug-free software? Look up VST and tell me about bug-free. But I say again, this isn't about bug-free. This is about isolating the parts of the code that may have bugs and placing the provable parts (which you CAN have, because the Halting Problem allows provably correct software, just not provably correct in the general case - specific cases are fine) at critical points.
And you're competing globally against people who are, your job gets outsourced.
Congratulations on discovering why the global village only works well if it's tuned.
They get a search warrant. Their system shows that there's a few million test tubes storing DNA samples. That's more than the budget for all the police departments in the US.
They obtain the SNP values. Useless, the police database doesn't store SNPs, it stores STRs in one of the less interesting chromosomes. No way to compare the data.
They use an archaeology DNA lab to sequence the crime scene sample because improper storage means it has broken down. It comes up with about a thousand results, because DNA lasts upwards of a million years and there's a lot of cross-contamination. Also, the police will have used improper collection methods. We know from prior cases that police have chased after people who didn't exist because they contaminated their own samples. It happens.
Ok, so they now have samples they can compare, but have blown their entire forensics budget. They compare and find that each of those thousand results maps to a hundred individuals. So they've a hundred thousand suspects. Not helpful.
We know in trials that police don't do this. They're not methodical, they use DNA to try and rig conviction rates. They could use any evidence for that, they just chose something they could spell. Previously, they've used bite marks. The values have no relevance, they use 8 STRs typically. They claim an accuracy of one in ten million (so 700 people on the planet would produce the same results). However, genealogy researchers would put the frequency of 8 STRs at closer to one in ten. The way it is used has no criminological value, it is purely to frighten juries.
It could be used properly in criminology, but that would require no outsourcing, VERY expensive gear, VASTLY improved practices, a LOT of money and a 100% discard of everything obtained so far. Which, in turn, means much higher taxes.
Your average American would prefer fake trials to paying for a decent service.
Doesn't matter, their samples aren't attached to any personally identifying information, and I can buy a testing kit for anyone. I've bought testing kits for several people. Doesn't mean I'm any of them.