You need to do none of that. Worst case, get a scanner that can email directly. And you're done.
If you are speaking from a capability point of view, then you are entirely correct. But the parent was talking about the layers of regulations that hamstring data sharing in medicine.
All that hullabaloo the parent mentioned is real and my staff spends hours each day fooling around with it. Oh yes, and it is the law too (at least in the US).
It's almost as if competition spurs efficiency. Nah, that's crazy talk.
You are certainly correct, but the use of fax in the healthcare industry has more to do with another huge painful thing that the government does to us: unintended consequences.
HIPPA laws greatly restrict the use of electronic distribution of patient records. Thus, we fax everything. Again, to your point, reality is not optional.
According to Wikipeida around 85% of cervical cancer has this cause.
Well, kinda. Actually that number is the percentage where HPV dna is discovered in the specimen. But HPV is an ubiquitous virus, so the percentage as a causative agent may not really be that high (nuns in their 90s have tested positive - they can't all be having regular sex). We don't really know why some people get cancer and others don't. Clearly, there are other risk factors as well.
I'm all for vaccination (including this one), but as a public health discussion the HPV vaccine may not give the results that we are expecting. Remember, life is about trade-offs and the question is not whether something works at all, but rather about how well and at what cost. Money being a limited resource and all that. Think about the mammogram studies from 10-15 years ago.
Oddly enough, sometimes it is just cheaper to clean up the mess later (from a macro view - it still sucks for the individual).
I could go on and on, but hopefully I made the point.
The problem is that quantum gravity and relativistic gravity can't be reconciled. Only one of these can be correct, at most. The other must be false. They cannot be reconciled.
If QM gravity is false, QM is false. If relativistic gravity is false, relativity is false.
Both underlying theories have stood up to every test thrown at them, but one of them is wrong.
I don't think so. They may just be looking a different things and a "higher order" theory is needed to reconcile them. My example would be the wave vs. particle nature of light. They are both correct sort of, and both false, sort of.
Not entirely unreasonable. But how far does one take it? Is it a can/can't vote, period?
Of course it's unreasonable. If you don't give people a stake, they become unpredictable due to their lack of investiture. If you don't give them a legitimate means of improving their lot, they will seize any illegitimate means that presents itself.
No, it is not unreasonable, just bad policy. What is important is that all people voting have a stake in the outcome. What this means practically is that you have something to lose as well as gain. I would posit that 48% of people paying no Federal income tax is just such a problem.
he used a building-size source of intense x-rays called a synchrotron, but Wu's group made do with a compact tabletop source.
Now, what's really interesting is that while the total exposure for an image is about the same, the power is reduced and the time is increased greatly. As I understand, that reduces the risk posed by the radiation.
Radiation exposure is a cumulative dose over your lifetime, so I don't see how this makes any difference in this context.
However, in radiation treatments, the radiation side effects are mitigated by breaking the the total dose into a bunch of smaller ones. This is called fractionation.
The dose emitted during a standard x-ray or computed tomography (CT) is not problematic and causes no immediate side effects.
It is essentially: "I don't like your life preferences, therefore you are an idiot."
People like to get pleasure in many different ways. I also think spending a bunch of money on coffee is a bit silly. Then again, I don't drink coffee, so what do I know?.
You should not care at all what I think. If you can afford it and you enjoy it, then knock yourself out.
This is the kind of foolishness that has happened as politics becomes a lifestyle.
They already had this. It's called citing your sources and peer review. We also used to have open discussions but those got shut down in favor of safe spaces. Now you can't say shit without some snowflake getting their feelings hurt because, you know, feelings are more important than the truth and stuff.
^^ This in spades.
One of my favorite classes in college was Logic. The entire course was gathering opinion pieces and "news" stories then picking apart their logical fallacies. Fake news has been around a long time.
Ignorance is what is toxic. Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.
The power of the state can originate in many places. In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed.
I certainly do not know if you consider yourself a Liberal (left of center in America) or Progressive, but what you are saying is quite misleading. While you are correct that L/P may not worship the state de jure, they certainly do de facto. Just listen to the policy proposals of anyone who espouses those views. They are always centered around a government program.
The consent of the governed is certainly the wellspring for power in the "western liberal political theory." But here, the term "liberal" is used in the classical sense of individual liberty and economic freedom. This is the foundation of the libertarian/Conservative (right of center in America) views on limits to the scope and size of government. To the Liberal/Progressive, benefits to the people in aggregate outweigh any such concerns over individuals, therefore they typically see no limit to the scope and size of government.
To use the word "liberal" as if these ideas were the same is terribly misleading.
The regular lead bullets from even a small caliber short barrel weapon is too fast for eyes to see. But the speed of light phasers being fired by the storm troopers leave a neat clean visible tracer lines. That leads straight back to the location of the gun which helps Harrison Ford ample time to find good spot to dive into, no antique plane needed.
Please remember that it was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. So....... they hadn't developed fast light beams there yet. Don't judge the past by present standards, you just make a fool out of yourself.
I'm really late to this discussion, but here goes.
Specialization is a symptom of a rapidly increasing knowledge base. It is simply not possible for one person to have the depth of knowledge necessary for expertise in one field.
I am a surgical sub-specialist, much of my work comes from problems un/mis/whathaveyou diagnosed by other general otolaryngologists. Not general practitioners mind you, but people who are already very specialized to begin with.
> What does capitalism and competitiveness drive us to do? Cut corners, often.
Maybe, but remember what your own example shows -> What is the cost/benefit of fixing/preventing an error? Is a week of debug time worth missing your target ship date? Maybe, maybe not - depends on the error.
A blanket indictment of capitalism is quite unfair. You would still have the same cost/benefit analysis regardless of economic system you toiled under.
Is is not possible to engineer against all eventualities; trying to do so will usually keep you from ever getting off the ground.
I am an ENT surgeon, and I do lots of endoscopic surgery. I have several comments for you.
#1 - there is ALWAYS room for skepticism:)
Residents will always be used in studies like this because it shows surgeons at various levels of training - and they are a captive audience. Also endoscopic surgery is a very young field (endoscopic sinus surgery only really caught on in the early 90s), so the ages will be quite young overall ayway.
So you know, endoscopic procedures are done using a fiberoptic camera that displays onto a large CRT (Sony seems to have cornered that market on high def CRTs). So vision doesn't really matter. Depth perception, however is different (since it's 2D) so that takes a little getting used to.
As a resident who will finish his 7 years of training in 79 days (whose counting?), I can tell you that inexperience does NOT make you throw caution to the wind. In fact, it makes you quite timid. Unless, of course, you are a maniac. In that case I hope someone gets rids of you before hurt someone.
Speed is more a function of doing it right the first time than actual fast movements. That means you know the anatomy, the steps, common problems etc. etc.
Oh yea, no one is let loose a a patient with 2 surgeries under their belt. Residents watch and help a LOT before doing things themselves. Even residents will have hundreds to thousands of cases before they operate on you. Feel better?;)
That being said, you have a point about the study. No simulator can completely prepare you for the many variations you run into during actual surgery. I'll take experience over high frag counts too!
But, I'm glad it vindicated my Unreal Tournament habit!
To be fair, it is not always easy to avoid arteries and veins. Sometimes they are encased in tumor, other times they are not where they should be.
I am skeptical of any tool that promises greater ease of use for non- or sub-trained people. Despite what some people think, surgery is *not* cookbook. If it were Dan Ackroyd would have been much more successful in "Spies like Us"
The trick of training surgeons is in the development of judgment on who and who not to operate.
When I was an intern surgeon, we always laughed that the big secret of neurosurgery, was that it didn't take a neurosurgeon to do it.;)
As far as your comments about surgeon skill, it currently takes a minimum of five years of training after medical school to do this stuff. A knife that told me what to do would end up stuck in the wall, or in the product representative. But I don't want anything jumping around in my hand while dissecting something important.
Believe me, you would rather have an experienced surgeon inside you than a machine. It could be really cool for traing purposes though.
I use electricity in surgery (nearly) every day. It is called an electrocautery knife. The standard one used is monopolar with a large grounding pad stuck on some large area of skin (usually leg or buttocks). It is great for all kinds of cutting, dissection, and cauterization of bleeding vessels.
The major problem with monopolar cautery is heat transfer, so we don't use it near motor and large sensory nerves. (The small skin branches don't clinically matter).
There is also various bipolar cauteries as well. They are usually variations of forceps.
As far as other electrical gizmos, I use nerve stimulators to trace out nerves I am trying to preserve. The only thing is that you will fatigue them if you stimulate them too many times.
Anyway, I use alot of electricity while operating.
"It looks like even grandma wants a good isp when she logs on the net and that bundling cute hardware with inferior service just doesn't cut the mustard."
Slashdot Mirror
You need to do none of that. Worst case, get a scanner that can email directly. And you're done.
If you are speaking from a capability point of view, then you are entirely correct. But the parent was talking about the layers of regulations that hamstring data sharing in medicine.
All that hullabaloo the parent mentioned is real and my staff spends hours each day fooling around with it. Oh yes, and it is the law too (at least in the US).
It's almost as if competition spurs efficiency. Nah, that's crazy talk.
You are certainly correct, but the use of fax in the healthcare industry has more to do with another huge painful thing that the government does to us: unintended consequences.
HIPPA laws greatly restrict the use of electronic distribution of patient records. Thus, we fax everything. Again, to your point, reality is not optional.
According to Wikipeida around 85% of cervical cancer has this cause.
Well, kinda. Actually that number is the percentage where HPV dna is discovered in the specimen. But HPV is an ubiquitous virus, so the percentage as a causative agent may not really be that high (nuns in their 90s have tested positive - they can't all be having regular sex). We don't really know why some people get cancer and others don't. Clearly, there are other risk factors as well.
I'm all for vaccination (including this one), but as a public health discussion the HPV vaccine may not give the results that we are expecting. Remember, life is about trade-offs and the question is not whether something works at all, but rather about how well and at what cost. Money being a limited resource and all that. Think about the mammogram studies from 10-15 years ago.
Oddly enough, sometimes it is just cheaper to clean up the mess later (from a macro view - it still sucks for the individual).
I could go on and on, but hopefully I made the point.
The problem is that quantum gravity and relativistic gravity can't be reconciled. Only one of these can be correct, at most. The other must be false. They cannot be reconciled.
If QM gravity is false, QM is false.
If relativistic gravity is false, relativity is false.
Both underlying theories have stood up to every test thrown at them, but one of them is wrong.
I don't think so. They may just be looking a different things and a "higher order" theory is needed to reconcile them. My example would be the wave vs. particle nature of light. They are both correct sort of, and both false, sort of.
Not entirely unreasonable. But how far does one take it? Is it a can/can't vote, period?
Of course it's unreasonable. If you don't give people a stake, they become unpredictable due to their lack of investiture. If you don't give them a legitimate means of improving their lot, they will seize any illegitimate means that presents itself.
No, it is not unreasonable, just bad policy. What is important is that all people voting have a stake in the outcome. What this means practically is that you have something to lose as well as gain. I would posit that 48% of people paying no Federal income tax is just such a problem.
Yes. According to the TFA,
he used a building-size source of intense x-rays called a synchrotron, but Wu's group made do with a compact tabletop source.
Now, what's really interesting is that while the total exposure for an image is about the same, the power is reduced and the time is increased greatly. As I understand, that reduces the risk posed by the radiation.
Radiation exposure is a cumulative dose over your lifetime, so I don't see how this makes any difference in this context.
However, in radiation treatments, the radiation side effects are mitigated by breaking the the total dose into a bunch of smaller ones. This is called fractionation.
The dose emitted during a standard x-ray or computed tomography (CT) is not problematic and causes no immediate side effects.
I'm really tired of this attitude.
It is essentially: "I don't like your life preferences, therefore you are an idiot."
People like to get pleasure in many different ways. I also think spending a bunch of money on coffee is a bit silly. Then again, I don't drink coffee, so what do I know?.
You should not care at all what I think. If you can afford it and you enjoy it, then knock yourself out.
This is the kind of foolishness that has happened as politics becomes a lifestyle.
Please, just mind your own damn business.
They already had this. It's called citing your sources and peer review. We also used to have open discussions but those got shut down in favor of safe spaces. Now you can't say shit without some snowflake getting their feelings hurt because, you know, feelings are more important than the truth and stuff.
^^ This in spades.
One of my favorite classes in college was Logic. The entire course was gathering opinion pieces and "news" stories then picking apart their logical fallacies. Fake news has been around a long time.
Ignorance is what is toxic.
Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.
The power of the state can originate in many places.
In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed.
I certainly do not know if you consider yourself a Liberal (left of center in America) or Progressive, but what you are saying is quite misleading. While you are correct that L/P may not worship the state de jure, they certainly do de facto. Just listen to the policy proposals of anyone who espouses those views. They are always centered around a government program.
The consent of the governed is certainly the wellspring for power in the "western liberal political theory." But here, the term "liberal" is used in the classical sense of individual liberty and economic freedom. This is the foundation of the libertarian/Conservative (right of center in America) views on limits to the scope and size of government. To the Liberal/Progressive, benefits to the people in aggregate outweigh any such concerns over individuals, therefore they typically see no limit to the scope and size of government.
To use the word "liberal" as if these ideas were the same is terribly misleading.
The regular lead bullets from even a small caliber short barrel weapon is too fast for eyes to see. But the speed of light phasers being fired by the storm troopers leave a neat clean visible tracer lines. That leads straight back to the location of the gun which helps Harrison Ford ample time to find good spot to dive into, no antique plane needed.
Please remember that it was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. So....... they hadn't developed fast light beams there yet. Don't judge the past by present standards, you just make a fool out of yourself.
IANAPP, but I thought that the lack of observed proton decay had largely invalidated supersymmetry.
I mean, "yea science" and all, but I suppose am I missing something?
Apartheid != Patriot Act
Are you making a joke? What a slap in the face to the millions who suffered under Apartheid.
I'm really late to this discussion, but here goes.
Specialization is a symptom of a rapidly increasing knowledge base. It is simply not possible for one person to have the depth of knowledge necessary for expertise in one field.
I am a surgical sub-specialist, much of my work comes from problems un/mis/whathaveyou diagnosed by other general otolaryngologists. Not general practitioners mind you, but people who are already very specialized to begin with.
BTW, I hated organic chemistry.
> What does capitalism and competitiveness drive us to do? Cut corners, often.
Maybe, but remember what your own example shows -> What is the cost/benefit of fixing/preventing an error? Is a week of debug time worth missing your target ship date? Maybe, maybe not - depends on the error.
A blanket indictment of capitalism is quite unfair. You would still have the same cost/benefit analysis regardless of economic system you toiled under.
Is is not possible to engineer against all eventualities; trying to do so will usually keep you from ever getting off the ground.
I am an ENT surgeon, and I do lots of endoscopic surgery. I have several comments for you.
:)
;)
#1 - there is ALWAYS room for skepticism
Residents will always be used in studies like this because it shows surgeons at various levels of training - and they are a captive audience. Also endoscopic surgery is a very young field (endoscopic sinus surgery only really caught on in the early 90s), so the ages will be quite young overall ayway.
So you know, endoscopic procedures are done using a fiberoptic camera that displays onto a large CRT (Sony seems to have cornered that market on high def CRTs). So vision doesn't really matter. Depth perception, however is different (since it's 2D) so that takes a little getting used to.
As a resident who will finish his 7 years of training in 79 days (whose counting?), I can tell you that inexperience does NOT make you throw caution to the wind. In fact, it makes you quite timid. Unless, of course, you are a maniac. In that case I hope someone gets rids of you before hurt someone.
Speed is more a function of doing it right the first time than actual fast movements. That means you know the anatomy, the steps, common problems etc. etc.
Oh yea, no one is let loose a a patient with 2 surgeries under their belt. Residents watch and help a LOT before doing things themselves. Even residents will have hundreds to thousands of cases before they operate on you. Feel better?
That being said, you have a point about the study. No simulator can completely prepare you for the many variations you run into during actual surgery. I'll take experience over high frag counts too!
But, I'm glad it vindicated my Unreal Tournament habit!
To be fair, it is not always easy to avoid arteries and veins. Sometimes they are encased in tumor, other times they are not where they should be.
I am skeptical of any tool that promises greater ease of use for non- or sub-trained people. Despite what some people think, surgery is *not* cookbook. If it were Dan Ackroyd would have been much more successful in "Spies like Us"
The trick of training surgeons is in the development of judgment on who and who not to operate.
Did that go offtopic?
This comment really cracks me up.
;)
When I was an intern surgeon, we always laughed that the big secret of neurosurgery, was that it didn't take a neurosurgeon to do it.
As far as your comments about surgeon skill, it currently takes a minimum of five years of training after medical school to do this stuff. A knife that told me what to do would end up stuck in the wall, or in the product representative. But I don't want anything jumping around in my hand while dissecting something important.
Believe me, you would rather have an experienced surgeon inside you than a machine. It could be really cool for traing purposes though.
I use electricity in surgery (nearly) every day. It is called an electrocautery knife. The standard one used is monopolar with a large grounding pad stuck on some large area of skin (usually leg or buttocks). It is great for all kinds of cutting, dissection, and cauterization of bleeding vessels.
The major problem with monopolar cautery is heat transfer, so we don't use it near motor and large sensory nerves. (The small skin branches don't clinically matter).
There is also various bipolar cauteries as well. They are usually variations of forceps.
As far as other electrical gizmos, I use nerve stimulators to trace out nerves I am trying to preserve. The only thing is that you will fatigue them if you stimulate them too many times.
Anyway, I use alot of electricity while operating.
It is "cut the muster" not "mustard"