In a real war one would hang those civilian combattants and collect all local guns.
Thing is, small arms fire is near the BOTTOM of the casualty reasons in the middle east for US Troops. Roadside bombs are #1, if I remember right.
Taking away their guns would therefore be ineffective because you'd mostly be collecting the non-insurgent and non-terrorist people's guns, driving people TO the insurgents, and finally because, well, they generally suck at aiming so bad we'd prefer them to make small arms attacks.
Actually, I think that if you reread the middle of what you quoted there, you'll find that you agree even with that statement. Specifically - Some research says this is legend, some says it's true as long as you're really, really gradual.
Different researchers getting different results is nothing new.
Oh, and a coworker suggesting a 4th requirement/indicator - 4. working without clothing between the laptop and the skin.
As it is, people seem to be happy to pump more and more electricity through their desktops and powered laptops until they are just a few watts short of tripping their circuit breaker. Just to write a letter.
How many people write letters anymore? I'd tend to think that the heat increases tend to come more from attempting to make real time rendering more and more realistic.
For just writing a letter, computer energy usage is probably lower than it has been in a decade. Using a 'gaming machine' probably does cost a tad more juice, but if you're not running games on it it's not using nearly as much electricity as it would be otherwise.
You're assuming that it's painful. I come from a family with poor pain sensitivity and I've literally broken bones without knowing it.
This is probably why there's only 10 cases of it. You need quite the combination of events to get it.
1. A particularly hot laptop 2. Somebody with high pain tolerance or something wrong with their heat senses*. 3. A particular dedication towards working on their laptop, on their lap, for a continous and extended period of time
I've used my computer on my lap a few times, and it does get warm. But I shift around, get up and get a drink or snack, visit the bathroom, etc...
*There's also the boiling frog scenario - toss a frog into boiling water he'll try to jump out. Put a frog in cold water and slowly warm it to boiling he won't. Some research says this is legend, some says it's true as long as you're really, really gradual. Me? I wonder if it also depends on the frog. Anyways - there are probably people less likely to notice being slow cooked than flash burned.
I would think that a medical solution that qualifies as "permanent" ought to be one that would at least have the capability of lasting long enough for a normal human life span
On the other hand, it's also something they aren't going to be looking to replace before it's in danger of wearing out.
A blue tarp is a 'temporary' solution to a damaged roof. Fixing the roof and replacing the shingles is a 'permanent' solution, in that you're not normally going to be replacing the shingles again until they're damaged or wear out.
I'm a bit surprised, last I remember they only had the one artificial heart and it was a 'complete' solution, not something that fits in one valve chamber.
Thing is, a proper bittorrent implementation would actually improve speeds at a private network. That way, rather than having 50-100* clients all contacting microsoft for updates and downloading that 200MB set of patches, while they do their contact, the BT system realizes they're all on the same network/subnet and they promptly share them all with each other first. Without needing some sort of 'official' local patch depository server or fancy management system like SMS. Or even a caching proxy server(which would have to be properly set up to catch the patches).
So rather than transporting, say 25Gig over their line for 100 clients, you only transport 400 MB - 1 MB overhead per client, the 200 MB set of patches, then the machines share locally.
If you set it up on a 'share equally' policy, the core system then shares out 200MB of patches to peers NOT on the network.
The biggest problem I see with using this for OS updates is the whole 'verified source' and 'untrusted communications' problems. Basically, many people aren't trusting of checksums, and many others don't want the OS doing any unauthorized network communication, as they're afraid that the bittorrent system 'could' be shipping personal data.
*Much above this and you'd want to start considering more enterprise solutions.
Anyone who thinks that is a few nucleotides short of knowing how evolution works.
Bacteria cells are far, far different than human cells. Human, Bird, and Swine cell walls are practically identical compared to bacteria cell walls. Heck, even fish would be more similar.
Phages tend to be specie dependent even among bacteria.
Good idea. It's not like creating massive quantities of phages is all that difficult once you're geared for it, and they're effective in low enough doses that you can mix a few dozen, perhaps even a few hundred, and still get an effective dose, even if only 1 phage is effective against the infection.
Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that you can't generally patent phages. You might be able to patent a phage mix, or a system to produce phages, but you can't patent a naturally existing phage. This limits profits and therefore research into finding/developing phage treatements. Wiki does mention they're working on some artificially developed phages, but I'm sure there's plenty of naturally occuring ones out there.
I've always thought a public funding or bounty system for otherwise unpatentable treatments would be a good idea.
But there are other ways to tell if an animal is stressed- check for physiological changes, etc.
One thing I read about chickens is that stressed hens stop laying eggs.
Other ways include checking growth, even behavior. Stressed animals will tend to grow slower, and stressed cattle can be dangerous because they're far more likely to strike out.
Mine was also a viable option for the cattle farmer. Would take a paradigm shift, perhaps, but buggy whips, etc.
As long as the economics are still there, you'll still have cattle farmers. Something like this that raises the cost of meat a bit, perhaps reduces consumption a bit would likely result in somewhat fewer ranchers.
There are still a few buggy whip makers out there. The paradigm shift you're looking at would be something more like being abot to produce TRUE factory meat without actually needing a cow via cloning or artificial growth culture or whatever.
I actually find less at fault about that than farm raised, corn fed meat. Kudos for knowing what goes into it.
Heh, last wild turkey I ate probably ate more corn on the farm where it grew up than what the domestic varieties get. Farmer liked us hunting there because they were eating his crops.
I'll note that there are other posts in this thread that point out that Europe is actually having more superbug problems despite having already banned the practice, even come up with a falsifiable theory - basically low level usage doesn't help create superbugs as much as theraputic doses, and by not low-dosing they end up theraputic dosing near the same raw amount of antibiotics into actual sick animals.
Sounds like an interesting theory. It could be that low doses of antibiotics don't grant immunity like the massive theraputic doses do. My idea was that, while the low dose harms bacteria, it doesn't harm it enough to compensate for the the lowered efficiency of shutting down or modifying a metabolic path in order to be resistant. Then the critter's immune system does the rest.
the debeaker machine is for the chickens they keep the grinder is for all the unwanted males.
Seen them, don't really care. The unwanted male chicks die fast, and the debeaker doesn't removes the whole beak, and actually tends to prevent injuries.
Last time I visited the zoo, I saw a duck that had lost it's ENTIRE beak. Not a confined duck either - we're talking wild ones that visit for the free food and shelter.
mind you, I find turkey tasty.. but I do think this stuff is pretty cruel
I suggest watching the nature channel or something for a while to see how wild animals typically do it... It's not pretty either.
Hmm... 1. Doesn't look like he's actually punching 'live' turkeys, given that there is NO wing movement after the punch. 2. Thrown up in the air? It's a bird. Still, just throwing them around isnt' the best idea.
Basically, I'd wonder how many slaughterhouses and time they needed to get all of those incidents.
I will admit that I agree with the USDA guy who said that some management needs to get fired.
1. I'm not intolerant 2. I can buy fat-free milk 3. I can buy REAL milk that doesn't require refridgeration before opening. It's just a touch more expensive/hard to find. 4. It's more expensive, on average, than real milk, especially skim
I've had soy milk before, tried three brands before I found one I liked. Still, it's not like it's always a 1:1 swap when you're trying to do things like baking.
As a meat eater, I find that 'meat substitutes' don't taste as good as the real thing. Meanwhile, using those very same ingredients in dishes designed for them are delicious.
I think that's what the parent was after. If we're going to have a burger, it's going to be a real burger. If we want to eat vegetarian, we're much more likely to enjoy it if we go for a dish designed from the ground up to be meatless, not a meat dish modified to be without.
You do realize that I was speaking in context of the cattle farmer's options, right?
Haven't had cow in quite a while, personally. Just finishing off the last of the doe I got last year.
And yeah, I'd say you're pushing your agenda, just not as meanly as some might.
Of course, I'm also not the typical vegan target, as they can't disgust me with the practices of stockhouses. I've killed, gutted, slaughtered, and cooked my own meat.
On 1, you'd think that it'd be massive doses for theraputic use that mostly ended up in the waste, because lower concentrations would tend to be absorbed more, right?
2. True. It may be the dose is small enough to make it so that while the dose is harmful to the bacteria, it's not so harmful to make shutting down the metabolic path that gives resistance worth it. I think a study would indeed be a good thing.
On 3 - Very much, as you're looking at a different situation than 2, because you're giving large doses intended to eradicate the infection, so it IS evolutionary viable to shut down the dangerous metabolic paths.
However, I was reading that there is a new class of antibiotics in development, which are based on immune system antigens and, for some reason (anyone know more?) are thought to, because of their mechanism of action, not be susceptible to the same problem of evolving the bacteria to survive them.
I liked what the Russians were working on for a while - Phages. More completely, Bacteriophages. Viruses for bacterias.
No chance of the virus crossing over to affect humans, and a bacterial colony already under assault by the human immune system isn't generally going to last long when it's also 'sick' with a virus. As a bonus, immunity doesn't really happen because the virus adapts right along with the bacteria.
The problem with phages is that they're the opposite of broad-spectrum antibiotics. They're very, very, specific. They'll clear a throat infection right up, but first you need a culture to determine which species of bacteria you have(there's millions/billions of them), then find an effective phage against it.
That can take a week, then you gotta get the phage to the clinic, as most don't have the room for the number of phage samples you'd need.
This is true of MOST animals, and certainly of the ones we eat. It's just that what's stressful to a human may not be stressful to an animal. Especially one so different as a chicken.
It's part of why I don't believe PETA's FUD about how all these animals are treated cruely. Because being mean to the animals just doesn't make fiscal sense, as the stress will tend to make the animal taste 'gamey'(sells for less), gain weight slower(less money), become sick more often($$$ to treat), injure workers more($$$), etc...
We want them to be fat, happy, and dumb right up to the moment we kill them for slaughter.
Slashdot Mirror
In a real war one would hang those civilian combattants and collect all local guns.
Thing is, small arms fire is near the BOTTOM of the casualty reasons in the middle east for US Troops. Roadside bombs are #1, if I remember right.
Taking away their guns would therefore be ineffective because you'd mostly be collecting the non-insurgent and non-terrorist people's guns, driving people TO the insurgents, and finally because, well, they generally suck at aiming so bad we'd prefer them to make small arms attacks.
...between an artificial heart and a robotic heart?
The way things are going, they may start growing hearts in labs, perhaps using a decelled pig heart as a construction map.
in which case the heart is 'artificial', but as it's organic it wouldn't be 'robotic'.
The difference here is that car window glass, while indeed a permanent solution, also isn't something that wears out.
My point would be that something that DOES normally wear out can indeed be a permanent solution.
30 year shingles is considered a permanent enough solution, even though metal roofs can last longer.
I agree with everything else you said, though.
Actually, I think that if you reread the middle of what you quoted there, you'll find that you agree even with that statement. Specifically - Some research says this is legend, some says it's true as long as you're really, really gradual.
Different researchers getting different results is nothing new.
Oh, and a coworker suggesting a 4th requirement/indicator -
4. working without clothing between the laptop and the skin.
As it is, people seem to be happy to pump more and more electricity through their desktops and powered laptops until they are just a few watts short of tripping their circuit breaker. Just to write a letter.
How many people write letters anymore? I'd tend to think that the heat increases tend to come more from attempting to make real time rendering more and more realistic.
For just writing a letter, computer energy usage is probably lower than it has been in a decade. Using a 'gaming machine' probably does cost a tad more juice, but if you're not running games on it it's not using nearly as much electricity as it would be otherwise.
You're assuming that it's painful. I come from a family with poor pain sensitivity and I've literally broken bones without knowing it.
This is probably why there's only 10 cases of it. You need quite the combination of events to get it.
1. A particularly hot laptop
2. Somebody with high pain tolerance or something wrong with their heat senses*.
3. A particular dedication towards working on their laptop, on their lap, for a continous and extended period of time
I've used my computer on my lap a few times, and it does get warm. But I shift around, get up and get a drink or snack, visit the bathroom, etc...
*There's also the boiling frog scenario - toss a frog into boiling water he'll try to jump out. Put a frog in cold water and slowly warm it to boiling he won't. Some research says this is legend, some says it's true as long as you're really, really gradual. Me? I wonder if it also depends on the frog. Anyways - there are probably people less likely to notice being slow cooked than flash burned.
His life expectancy doesn't exceed forty.
I'd call it a permanent solution in that they won't be seriously looking to replace it anytime soon, even if something marginally better comes along.
If, by some miracle, he lives beyond forty and is still in suitable shape for the surgury, they'll likely swap it out for an updated version.
In this case 'permanent' means 'best lasting fix currently available'. You put temporary fixes in while waiting for the permanent fix to be ready.
I would think that a medical solution that qualifies as "permanent" ought to be one that would at least have the capability of lasting long enough for a normal human life span
On the other hand, it's also something they aren't going to be looking to replace before it's in danger of wearing out.
A blue tarp is a 'temporary' solution to a damaged roof. Fixing the roof and replacing the shingles is a 'permanent' solution, in that you're not normally going to be replacing the shingles again until they're damaged or wear out.
I'm a bit surprised, last I remember they only had the one artificial heart and it was a 'complete' solution, not something that fits in one valve chamber.
complete with recovery archives!
I mean I can barely understand torrenting a zip or rar file, but you don't need all the extra recovery stuff.
I suppose it's pure lazyness.
Thing is, a proper bittorrent implementation would actually improve speeds at a private network. That way, rather than having 50-100* clients all contacting microsoft for updates and downloading that 200MB set of patches, while they do their contact, the BT system realizes they're all on the same network/subnet and they promptly share them all with each other first. Without needing some sort of 'official' local patch depository server or fancy management system like SMS. Or even a caching proxy server(which would have to be properly set up to catch the patches).
So rather than transporting, say 25Gig over their line for 100 clients, you only transport 400 MB - 1 MB overhead per client, the 200 MB set of patches, then the machines share locally.
If you set it up on a 'share equally' policy, the core system then shares out 200MB of patches to peers NOT on the network.
The biggest problem I see with using this for OS updates is the whole 'verified source' and 'untrusted communications' problems. Basically, many people aren't trusting of checksums, and many others don't want the OS doing any unauthorized network communication, as they're afraid that the bittorrent system 'could' be shipping personal data.
*Much above this and you'd want to start considering more enterprise solutions.
Until they mutate. Which is where they came from in the first place.
Probably way back when multicellular life was just differentiating itself from other forms of proto-bacteria.
The mutations necessary to be infectious in a mammal's cell versus a bacerial cell is just too extreme to be a credible threat.
Anyone who thinks that is a few nucleotides short of knowing how evolution works.
Bacteria cells are far, far different than human cells. Human, Bird, and Swine cell walls are practically identical compared to bacteria cell walls. Heck, even fish would be more similar.
Phages tend to be specie dependent even among bacteria.
Good idea. It's not like creating massive quantities of phages is all that difficult once you're geared for it, and they're effective in low enough doses that you can mix a few dozen, perhaps even a few hundred, and still get an effective dose, even if only 1 phage is effective against the infection.
Part of the problem, as I understand it, is that you can't generally patent phages. You might be able to patent a phage mix, or a system to produce phages, but you can't patent a naturally existing phage. This limits profits and therefore research into finding/developing phage treatements. Wiki does mention they're working on some artificially developed phages, but I'm sure there's plenty of naturally occuring ones out there.
I've always thought a public funding or bounty system for otherwise unpatentable treatments would be a good idea.
But there are other ways to tell if an animal is stressed- check for physiological changes, etc.
One thing I read about chickens is that stressed hens stop laying eggs.
Other ways include checking growth, even behavior. Stressed animals will tend to grow slower, and stressed cattle can be dangerous because they're far more likely to strike out.
Mine was also a viable option for the cattle farmer. Would take a paradigm shift, perhaps, but buggy whips, etc.
As long as the economics are still there, you'll still have cattle farmers. Something like this that raises the cost of meat a bit, perhaps reduces consumption a bit would likely result in somewhat fewer ranchers.
There are still a few buggy whip makers out there. The paradigm shift you're looking at would be something more like being abot to produce TRUE factory meat without actually needing a cow via cloning or artificial growth culture or whatever.
I actually find less at fault about that than farm raised, corn fed meat. Kudos for knowing what goes into it.
Heh, last wild turkey I ate probably ate more corn on the farm where it grew up than what the domestic varieties get. Farmer liked us hunting there because they were eating his crops.
I'll note that there are other posts in this thread that point out that Europe is actually having more superbug problems despite having already banned the practice, even come up with a falsifiable theory - basically low level usage doesn't help create superbugs as much as theraputic doses, and by not low-dosing they end up theraputic dosing near the same raw amount of antibiotics into actual sick animals.
Sounds like an interesting theory. It could be that low doses of antibiotics don't grant immunity like the massive theraputic doses do. My idea was that, while the low dose harms bacteria, it doesn't harm it enough to compensate for the the lowered efficiency of shutting down or modifying a metabolic path in order to be resistant. Then the critter's immune system does the rest.
the debeaker machine is for the chickens they keep
the grinder is for all the unwanted males.
Seen them, don't really care. The unwanted male chicks die fast, and the debeaker doesn't removes the whole beak, and actually tends to prevent injuries.
Last time I visited the zoo, I saw a duck that had lost it's ENTIRE beak. Not a confined duck either - we're talking wild ones that visit for the free food and shelter.
mind you, I find turkey tasty.. but I do think this stuff is pretty cruel
I suggest watching the nature channel or something for a while to see how wild animals typically do it... It's not pretty either.
Hmm...
1. Doesn't look like he's actually punching 'live' turkeys, given that there is NO wing movement after the punch.
2. Thrown up in the air? It's a bird. Still, just throwing them around isnt' the best idea.
Basically, I'd wonder how many slaughterhouses and time they needed to get all of those incidents.
I will admit that I agree with the USDA guy who said that some management needs to get fired.
1. I'm not intolerant
2. I can buy fat-free milk
3. I can buy REAL milk that doesn't require refridgeration before opening. It's just a touch more expensive/hard to find.
4. It's more expensive, on average, than real milk, especially skim
I've had soy milk before, tried three brands before I found one I liked. Still, it's not like it's always a 1:1 swap when you're trying to do things like baking.
I ended up going back to real milk.
As a meat eater, I find that 'meat substitutes' don't taste as good as the real thing. Meanwhile, using those very same ingredients in dishes designed for them are delicious.
I think that's what the parent was after. If we're going to have a burger, it's going to be a real burger. If we want to eat vegetarian, we're much more likely to enjoy it if we go for a dish designed from the ground up to be meatless, not a meat dish modified to be without.
You do realize that I was speaking in context of the cattle farmer's options, right?
Haven't had cow in quite a while, personally. Just finishing off the last of the doe I got last year.
And yeah, I'd say you're pushing your agenda, just not as meanly as some might.
Of course, I'm also not the typical vegan target, as they can't disgust me with the practices of stockhouses. I've killed, gutted, slaughtered, and cooked my own meat.
On 1, you'd think that it'd be massive doses for theraputic use that mostly ended up in the waste, because lower concentrations would tend to be absorbed more, right?
2. True. It may be the dose is small enough to make it so that while the dose is harmful to the bacteria, it's not so harmful to make shutting down the metabolic path that gives resistance worth it. I think a study would indeed be a good thing.
On 3 - Very much, as you're looking at a different situation than 2, because you're giving large doses intended to eradicate the infection, so it IS evolutionary viable to shut down the dangerous metabolic paths.
most G.I.s would see the censorship reflecting complete pussification.
As AD military, let me say it: PUSSSIEEESSSSS!!!
I'll not secondarily that they weren't banning the games from AAFES locations to protect the military members, but presumably for the dependents.
He shouldn't have pissed off the IT department by making those support calls...
However, I was reading that there is a new class of antibiotics in development, which are based on immune system antigens and, for some reason (anyone know more?) are thought to, because of their mechanism of action, not be susceptible to the same problem of evolving the bacteria to survive them.
I liked what the Russians were working on for a while - Phages. More completely, Bacteriophages. Viruses for bacterias.
No chance of the virus crossing over to affect humans, and a bacterial colony already under assault by the human immune system isn't generally going to last long when it's also 'sick' with a virus. As a bonus, immunity doesn't really happen because the virus adapts right along with the bacteria.
The problem with phages is that they're the opposite of broad-spectrum antibiotics. They're very, very, specific. They'll clear a throat infection right up, but first you need a culture to determine which species of bacteria you have(there's millions/billions of them), then find an effective phage against it.
That can take a week, then you gotta get the phage to the clinic, as most don't have the room for the number of phage samples you'd need.
Just stressing some animals can weight loss.
This is true of MOST animals, and certainly of the ones we eat. It's just that what's stressful to a human may not be stressful to an animal. Especially one so different as a chicken.
It's part of why I don't believe PETA's FUD about how all these animals are treated cruely. Because being mean to the animals just doesn't make fiscal sense, as the stress will tend to make the animal taste 'gamey'(sells for less), gain weight slower(less money), become sick more often($$$ to treat), injure workers more($$$), etc...
We want them to be fat, happy, and dumb right up to the moment we kill them for slaughter.
I to hate to buy my goods at stores which also sell animal-derived products.
I'll tell you what, I'm declaring this a double meat day in honor of you.
I'm going to have 2 venison steaks instead of one.
I don't feel the need to be AC.