If I may offer you a small advice, as an ENT doctor, use nasal irrigation. Many studies have showed that it is as important as antibiotics in the treatment of sinusitis. Good luck!
Re:This is where western medicine has failed...
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 1
In an ideal world, I agree with you. But if a family of a terminal patient tells me to do anything I can to "save him" and I refuse, after he dies, you can bet on them suing my ass off. Until this issue gets settled, I will have to do my best to convince the patient's family about him having no chance, but in the end, do as they wish... sometimes to the patients detriment. Sad, but true.
Re:This is where western medicine has failed...
on
How Doctors Die
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
As a physician, I can tell you that many times I have faced patients that should have been given the chance to die peacefully, but the family have kept pressing me to "do something". Usually, I try to make them understand that at times like this it is best to just let Grandma die in peace and not prolong her suffering. Mostly I fail. And when after all the explaining the family keeps telling me to do something, I cannot disregard them (I do plan on keeping my license, you know?). I don't think it's so much that western medicine failed, as it is that layman's expectations of medicine are unrealistic.
Actually, I partially agree with your sentiment. I worry more about privacy on the personal level and not on the corporate, world-spanning level. To clarify: I don't give a rat's ass what Visa knows about me, and what Google collects about my searches and what info they get from it. Corporations want to spend millions of $$$ to harvest all my online activities and send me ads in my mail or on a site I visit? Let them have their fun. I don't give a damn. May they grow old and die chocking on their money, for all I care. For me privacy is that only people I know can link my name to what I do (job, hobbies, friends, purchases, etc.). On this site, if you go through all my posts you can only find out which country I live in, my job and 1-2 of my hobbies, that's all. That's privacy. If some company aggregates all my actions on-line (or credit card purchases) in one big file, I don't mind; it's not like it's on some big bulletin board for my grandma to find.
Oh, and BTW, for years now I get ads and coupons in my monthly CC statement, usually targeted to stuff I buy, how is it different from what the summary mentions?
"Abuse copyright" - You mean, tried to protect their original software? It's not like the RIAA trying to milk what they can from artists' work. It's a company making money off its own product. Doesn't sound like abuse; more like the original purpose of copyright (you know, promoting innovation and stuff?) "Monopoly" - With less than 10% of OS market-share, it's hard to call it a monopoly. Maybe monopoly in Mac OS worlds, but it's their own development, and they can choose not to give other companies licenses to sell it. It's a perfectly reasonable business decision. "DRM" - That is correct, they used DRM, but at least in order to protect their proprietary software, so it's not that evil, IMHO. "Abused DMCA" - Actually, they used the DMCA exactly as it is written. You may not agree with this law (I don't), but the blame is not on Apple, but on the lawmakers. Talk to them.
So we are left with (maybe) 1 evil, more like 1/2. Better luck next time.
I just love this Streisand Effect. It means that no one can ever act anything wrong bad done to them, because people will notice. I think it's bullshit. Yes, the effect is real, but just because it is, it doesn't mean the Government (for example) shouldn't act against an employee violating his work terms.
Wood is matter. Does wood react to magnetic fields? Just because the body is made from matter, does not mean that anything can affect it. Just to be clear, I do not say that magnetic fields do not affect the ear, I'm just saying that the fact that the body is matter does not mean it automatically does.
Actually, there is no problem in taking some person's bone marrow (or rather, bone marrow progenitor cells), save them and return it to him after the treatment is over; this is the basis for bone marrow transplantation. The problem is choosing between transplanting the person's own bone marrow or another person's. In the former case, you run the risk of having cancer cells hiding in the bone marrow and having a recurrence of the disease; in the later, you have to deal with using immuncompromising medications for the rest of the life. Either way, it's a hard treatment with large mortality and is reserved for severe cases of Leukemia.
On a related note, here is a WebOS user who came home to find his house broken into and all his tech stuff stolen. He now relates how he gets by with only a HP TouchPad. Some of the points you raised are addressed by him from a user's perspective.
Talk about cherry-picking your data. Don't get me wrong, I also think that using Windows with IE (esp. 6) is a recipe for zombifying your computer. Nevertheless, did you see if other top-malware cities have a MS monoculture? And are there any cities with MS monoculture who are not top malware origins? And after all that, you are still in the correlation!=causation domain, although you will then at least have a valid working hypothesis.
As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association). This is compared to the 600 cases of cancer they will get from the flight itself and to the 400,00 cases these people will have over their lifetime.
This means that for every 1 million people who fly 10 times a week, there will be 4 cases of cancer during their entire lifetime, not each week. This is compared to 600 cases they get from the radiation they are exposed to during flying and the 400,000 background lifetime risk (the average lifetime risk for cancer is ~40%). Again, whether this 4 cases are worth it is a different question, but assuming the devices work as planned and are not delivering more radiation than they are supposed to, the additional cancer cases are pretty negligible (remember, those cases are for people that are flying a lot).
I submitted this story a few months ago, but it wasn't picked up, so I guess now will be good time to recount the main facts:
A single scan is equal to 3-9 minutes of natural background radiation exposure and would raise the amount of radiation a person is exposed to on a 6-hour intercontinental flight by about 1%. As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association). This is compared to the 600 cases of cancer they will get from the flight itself and to the 400,00 cases these people will have over their lifetime.
I can't find the full article anymore (paywall), but the abstract is here [ama-assn.org]. It is interesting to note that the authors also wrote this:
In medicine, we try to balance risks and benefits of everything we do, and thus while the risks are indeed exceedingly small, the scanners should not be deployed unless they provide benefit—improved national security and safety—and consideration of these issues is outside the scope of our expertise.
The article also points out that since TSA officials do not allow outside scrutiny of the actual radiation levels of the machines, we cannot know if they perform as intended or if they expose us to more radiation. But still, I think they are probably a lot safer than you would have thought.
Although I completely agree with your opinion, I think you could have articulated it with less profanities. This usually assures better responses and not something along the line of "No, you fuck off!"
Slashdot Mirror
Let's hope nobody uses the article's author for the next mars mission.
If I may offer you a small advice, as an ENT doctor, use nasal irrigation. Many studies have showed that it is as important as antibiotics in the treatment of sinusitis.
Good luck!
Well, if you buy a $2500 violin, you sure wouldn't want to read this article:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/02/violinists-can%E2%80%99t-tell-the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones/
In an ideal world, I agree with you. But if a family of a terminal patient tells me to do anything I can to "save him" and I refuse, after he dies, you can bet on them suing my ass off. Until this issue gets settled, I will have to do my best to convince the patient's family about him having no chance, but in the end, do as they wish... sometimes to the patients detriment. Sad, but true.
As a physician, I can tell you that many times I have faced patients that should have been given the chance to die peacefully, but the family have kept pressing me to "do something". Usually, I try to make them understand that at times like this it is best to just let Grandma die in peace and not prolong her suffering. Mostly I fail. And when after all the explaining the family keeps telling me to do something, I cannot disregard them (I do plan on keeping my license, you know?).
I don't think it's so much that western medicine failed, as it is that layman's expectations of medicine are unrealistic.
Actually, I partially agree with your sentiment. I worry more about privacy on the personal level and not on the corporate, world-spanning level. To clarify:
I don't give a rat's ass what Visa knows about me, and what Google collects about my searches and what info they get from it. Corporations want to spend millions of $$$ to harvest all my online activities and send me ads in my mail or on a site I visit? Let them have their fun. I don't give a damn. May they grow old and die chocking on their money, for all I care.
For me privacy is that only people I know can link my name to what I do (job, hobbies, friends, purchases, etc.). On this site, if you go through all my posts you can only find out which country I live in, my job and 1-2 of my hobbies, that's all. That's privacy. If some company aggregates all my actions on-line (or credit card purchases) in one big file, I don't mind; it's not like it's on some big bulletin board for my grandma to find.
Oh, and BTW, for years now I get ads and coupons in my monthly CC statement, usually targeted to stuff I buy, how is it different from what the summary mentions?
You should like this?
I can calculate any digit of pi in binary off the top of my head with 50% accuracy.
"Abuse copyright" - You mean, tried to protect their original software? It's not like the RIAA trying to milk what they can from artists' work. It's a company making money off its own product. Doesn't sound like abuse; more like the original purpose of copyright (you know, promoting innovation and stuff?)
"Monopoly" - With less than 10% of OS market-share, it's hard to call it a monopoly. Maybe monopoly in Mac OS worlds, but it's their own development, and they can choose not to give other companies licenses to sell it. It's a perfectly reasonable business decision.
"DRM" - That is correct, they used DRM, but at least in order to protect their proprietary software, so it's not that evil, IMHO.
"Abused DMCA" - Actually, they used the DMCA exactly as it is written. You may not agree with this law (I don't), but the blame is not on Apple, but on the lawmakers. Talk to them.
So we are left with (maybe) 1 evil, more like 1/2. Better luck next time.
I just love this Streisand Effect. It means that no one can ever act anything wrong bad done to them, because people will notice. I think it's bullshit. Yes, the effect is real, but just because it is, it doesn't mean the Government (for example) shouldn't act against an employee violating his work terms.
Wood is matter. Does wood react to magnetic fields? Just because the body is made from matter, does not mean that anything can affect it.
Just to be clear, I do not say that magnetic fields do not affect the ear, I'm just saying that the fact that the body is matter does not mean it automatically does.
Actually, there is no problem in taking some person's bone marrow (or rather, bone marrow progenitor cells), save them and return it to him after the treatment is over; this is the basis for bone marrow transplantation. The problem is choosing between transplanting the person's own bone marrow or another person's. In the former case, you run the risk of having cancer cells hiding in the bone marrow and having a recurrence of the disease; in the later, you have to deal with using immuncompromising medications for the rest of the life. Either way, it's a hard treatment with large mortality and is reserved for severe cases of Leukemia.
A webOS phone would have aborted the flight soon after take-off.
Yes, because if he did not watch this video, his might accidently get the chance to fuck a beauty queen. Yeah, right!
You spent 2 minutes on this slideshow??? You should practice your speedclicking skills, ASAP.
On a related note, here is a WebOS user who came home to find his house broken into and all his tech stuff stolen. He now relates how he gets by with only a HP TouchPad. Some of the points you raised are addressed by him from a user's perspective.
Talk about cherry-picking your data. Don't get me wrong, I also think that using Windows with IE (esp. 6) is a recipe for zombifying your computer. Nevertheless, did you see if other top-malware cities have a MS monoculture? And are there any cities with MS monoculture who are not top malware origins? And after all that, you are still in the correlation!=causation domain, although you will then at least have a valid working hypothesis.
So we are actually in a meta-debate, although I wouldn't argue about such a minor detail...
Some of us are in the same tax bracket as B. Gates, you insensitive clod!
I think you misunderstood the quote:
As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association). This is compared to the 600 cases of cancer they will get from the flight itself and to the 400,00 cases these people will have over their lifetime.
This means that for every 1 million people who fly 10 times a week, there will be 4 cases of cancer during their entire lifetime, not each week. This is compared to 600 cases they get from the radiation they are exposed to during flying and the 400,000 background lifetime risk (the average lifetime risk for cancer is ~40%).
Again, whether this 4 cases are worth it is a different question, but assuming the devices work as planned and are not delivering more radiation than they are supposed to, the additional cancer cases are pretty negligible (remember, those cases are for people that are flying a lot).
I submitted this story a few months ago, but it wasn't picked up, so I guess now will be good time to recount the main facts:
A single scan is equal to 3-9 minutes of natural background radiation exposure and would raise the amount of radiation a person is exposed to on a 6-hour intercontinental flight by about 1%. As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association). This is compared to the 600 cases of cancer they will get from the flight itself and to the 400,00 cases these people will have over their lifetime.
I can't find the full article anymore (paywall), but the abstract is here [ama-assn.org]. It is interesting to note that the authors also wrote this:
In medicine, we try to balance risks and benefits of everything we do, and thus while the risks are indeed exceedingly small, the scanners should not be deployed unless they provide benefit—improved national security and safety—and consideration of these issues is outside the scope of our expertise.
The article also points out that since TSA officials do not allow outside scrutiny of the actual radiation levels of the machines, we cannot know if they perform as intended or if they expose us to more radiation. But still, I think they are probably a lot safer than you would have thought.
Although I completely agree with your opinion, I think you could have articulated it with less profanities. This usually assures better responses and not something along the line of "No, you fuck off!"
Here's a nice movie IBM made to commemorate the last 100 years. It appeared in my submission from January that didn't get picked up. Oh well.
I think Stalin beat him, but point well made.
Talking about the cloud, here is today's XKCD. Enjoy.