Back in the mid -90s I had a 386 with some cheap pre-3d graphics card (matrox?). For some reason I decided to buy more memory for the graphics card; the little memory modules had a small triangle mark on one side so you'd insert it the right way... I rotated it 180 degrees, plugged everything in... whereupon the screen was black and the new memory module actually _melted_ and made a nasty burnt-plastic stink in my case... but after I removed it the graphics card worked just fine again.
The whole concept of the web server being crushed reminded me of the chapter in the Salon serial Silicon Follies where the installation artist Psychrist sets up a server on top of a pillar with a large rock suspended above it, then has the server control various radio-controlled vehicles below it, and a complicated scheme determines whether the rock will be released and crush the server. It's an absolutely hilarious read and should be just right for a lot of/.-ers.
I've recently worked some on hacking PalmOS C, and one of the first things you have to get used to is that everything resides in its (solid-state) RAM, which is divided into different heaps for different things (dynamic, runtime, etc.) but where programs are _not_ moved from the static heap to dynamic RAM at runtime but are rather run in-place (analogous to running directly from the hard drive in a desktop computer), which is pretty strange.
This is a very unfortunate and common misconception; the first signs and symptoms of autism-spectrum disorders often appear around the time when the child begins to speak, and this coincides with the time when the MMR vaccine is given. The epidemiological evidence is strong against there being a causal link.
If you're seriously interested in reading about it rather than just deciding that the temporal correlation between the two is sufficient proof of causality, both BMJ and the Lancet have had a lot of original articles and correspondence on the topic in the past few years, for example the following study by Taylor et al.
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association
Taylor et al.
Summary
Background We undertook an epidemiological study to investigate whether measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may be causally associated with autism.
Methods Children with autism born since 1979 were identified from special needs/disability registers and special schools in eight North Thames health districts, UK. Information from clinical records was linked to immunisation data held on the child health computing system. We looked for evidence of a change in trend in incidence or age at diagnosis associated with the introduction of MMR vaccination to the UK in 1988. Clustering of onsets within defined postvaccination periods was investigated by the case-series method.
Findings We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden "step-up" or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 094 [95% CI 060147] and 109 [079152]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 092 [038221] and 100 [052195]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.
Interpretation Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.
Spending the time and money to find a good chair is something I can really recommend; though it's practical to have one w/ a lot of adjustment possibilities, the bottom line is whether it has at least one setting you like and that you can imagine spending 8 hours a day, five days a week, 48 weeks a year in.
The other good investment for back/neck problems is a large enough monitor so you don't need to crane your neck as much to do whatever it is you do on-screen.
The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals--William Osler
I've read the articles that have come out in the past two years or so about cell phones and possible epidemiological links to brain tumours, and so far I've felt reassured that I wasn't taking any big risks. Several of the studies have had serious methodological shortcomings and the problem of "multiple comparison bias" (if you make 100 comparisons between samples which are unrelated, you will find 5 "significant" correlations, and if you only highlight those in your report it will give many people (and less scrutinous daily papers) the same impression as if you'd done a study specifically to examine those and actually found correlations).
Something to be remembered is that uveal melanoma is a very rare type of cancer; its incidence (in Europe) is about 1/30 of that of melanoma of the skin, or around 8/million/year. However, since it's a tumour which causes unilateral visual disturbances/blindness once it expands enough it's one that's unlikely to be underdiagnosed to any significant extent. Thus, the next few years' worth of uveal melanoma incidence figures should point a finger at whether we're doing anything that's increasing the melanoma risk. I don't recall how strong a risk factor sun exposure is for uveal melanoma (compared to other melanomas, for example), but I'd check whether any increase in uveal melanomas was disproportionately larger than the increase in all melanomas. In summary, if cell phones do increase the risk of UM, we'll be able to detect it quite reliably in a few years. Also, the results of a pilot study with little biological rationale to explain it doesn't warrant any particular caution while on the cell phone in my book, though of course that's a political decision that can easily swing either way.
For those who are interested in reading up on biological effects of cell phone RF "radiation", the British Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones came out with its report in May of 2000, and it goes through (complete with references) the case for and against there being significant adverse health effects of cell phone use. So far the case against cell phones seems to be weak, and most of the evidence that's piling up (a whole bunch of articles in major publications in the past two months alone) seems to cement it that way.
The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals --Sir William Osler (1849-1919)
Robert A Heinlein wrote at least one story that you migth be referring to, The menace from Earth, in 1957. It's in the anthology The past through tomorrow.
In it is described how huge underground caverns on the moon are filled with a terran atmosphere, and the lower gravity makes it possible for people to strap on wings and fly, using only their own muscles. I've been meaning to do some feasibility calculations on the actual work required, but haven't gotten around to it. It's a fun idea, and as so often with Heinlein it's amazingly ahead of its time.
What's really not fun...
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 1
Looking for pr0n and finding nothing but patches/maps/mods, that drives me crazy every time!
Surprisingly, few people so far have mentioned that what we know today indicates that cell phones aren't dangerous.
To date there is no evidence that cell phones have any serious adverse health effects (beyond being distracting while driving). There have been studies, most recently by Hardell et al this spring, which have shown a trend towards an increased risk, in that case of brain tumor, but the study had some weaknesses which would have made that fairly weak evidence, even had it been statistically significant.
The case which is often made by anti-cell-phone debaters is that "the industry" should somehow be responsible for "proving" that cell phones are "safe". Anyone who's worked with statistics or epidemiology knows that that's not what statistics do. The studies done so far haven't shown any statistically significant increased health risks, so in the statistical sense of the word, they've helped "prove" cell-phones are "safe".
The technically inclined know that the proposed biological ground for the danger of cell phones is shaky at best. RF "radiation", aka microwaves, is not ionizing, and so won't cause cancer by the mechanism that, for example, X-rays and atom bombs will. Cell phones do output a few watts of energy through the antenna, and some of this will be absorbed by the person holding the phone, causing their scalp to warm up one or two degrees. That regional temperature differences in the scalp or even brain could cause cancer is a claim that has yet gone unproved.
Some good reading for those of you genuinely curious about the phones, radiation, and power lines:
Linet et al, Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children; NEJM 1997, 337.1
Hardell et al, Case control study...risk factors for brain tumour; Medscape Gen Med, May 4, 2000. http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/GeneralMedicine/j ournal/2000/v02.n03/mgm0504.hard/mgm0504.hard.html requires login
Hardell et al, Use of cellular phones and the risk of brain tumours, a case-control study; Int J Oncol, 1999. Jul 15.
But go ahead and check out PubMed for more articles, there's been quite a lot of research done.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the mid -90s I had a 386 with some cheap pre-3d graphics card (matrox?). For some reason I decided to buy more memory for the graphics card; the little memory modules had a small triangle mark on one side so you'd insert it the right way... I rotated it 180 degrees, plugged everything in... whereupon the screen was black and the new memory module actually _melted_ and made a nasty burnt-plastic stink in my case... but after I removed it the graphics card worked just fine again.
The whole concept of the web server being crushed reminded me of the chapter in the Salon serial Silicon Follies where the installation artist Psychrist sets up a server on top of a pillar with a large rock suspended above it, then has the server control various radio-controlled vehicles below it, and a complicated scheme determines whether the rock will be released and crush the server. It's an absolutely hilarious read and should be just right for a lot of /.-ers.
Why has no one EVER ajusted for inflation? For all I know the best and most watched movie way Ben Hur... hehe....
Somebody has done just that
I've recently worked some on hacking PalmOS C, and one of the first things you have to get used to is that everything resides in its (solid-state) RAM, which is divided into different heaps for different things (dynamic, runtime, etc.) but where programs are _not_ moved from the static heap to dynamic RAM at runtime but are rather run in-place (analogous to running directly from the hard drive in a desktop computer), which is pretty strange.
Another example of how the pr0n sector of the net is leading the way in creative ways of making money off "free" content?
:)
I imagine someone at Yahoo got busted surfing pr0n during office hours some weeks ago and claimed he was just "researching the business model"
This is a very unfortunate and common misconception; the first signs and symptoms of autism-spectrum disorders often appear around the time when the child begins to speak, and this coincides with the time when the MMR vaccine is given. The epidemiological evidence is strong against there being a causal link.
If you're seriously interested in reading about it rather than just deciding that the temporal correlation between the two is sufficient proof of causality, both BMJ and the Lancet have had a lot of original articles and correspondence on the topic in the past few years, for example the following study by Taylor et al.
Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association
Taylor et al.
Summary
Background We undertook an epidemiological study to investigate whether measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may be causally associated with autism.
Methods Children with autism born since 1979 were identified from special needs/disability registers and special schools in eight North Thames health districts, UK. Information from clinical records was linked to immunisation data held on the child health computing system. We looked for evidence of a change in trend in incidence or age at diagnosis associated with the introduction of MMR vaccination to the UK in 1988. Clustering of onsets within defined postvaccination periods was investigated by the case-series method.
Findings We identified 498 cases of autism (261 of core autism, 166 of atypical autism, and 71 of Asperger's syndrome). In 293 cases the diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10: 214 [82%] core autism, 52 [31%] atypical autism, 27 [38%] Asperger's syndrome). There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth with no sudden "step-up" or change in the trend line after the introduction of MMR vaccination. There was no difference in age at diagnosis between the cases vaccinated before or after 18 months of age and those never vaccinated. There was no temporal association between onset of autism within 1 or 2 years after vaccination with MMR (relative incidence compared with control period 094 [95% CI 060147] and 109 [079152]). Developmental regression was not clustered in the months after vaccination (relative incidence within 2 months and 4 months after MMR vaccination 092 [038221] and 100 [052195]). No significant temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination. This appeared to be an artifact related to the difficulty of defining precisely the onset of symptoms in this disorder.
Interpretation Our analyses do not support a causal association between MMR vaccine and autism. If such an association occurs, it is so rare that it could not be identified in this large regional sample.
Lancet 1999; 353: 20262
Spending the time and money to find a good chair is something I can really recommend; though it's practical to have one w/ a lot of adjustment possibilities, the bottom line is whether it has at least one setting you like and that you can imagine spending 8 hours a day, five days a week, 48 weeks a year in.
The other good investment for back/neck problems is a large enough monitor so you don't need to crane your neck as much to do whatever it is you do on-screen.
The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals--William Osler
I've read the articles that have come out in the past two years or so about cell phones and possible epidemiological links to brain tumours, and so far I've felt reassured that I wasn't taking any big risks. Several of the studies have had serious methodological shortcomings and the problem of "multiple comparison bias" (if you make 100 comparisons between samples which are unrelated, you will find 5 "significant" correlations, and if you only highlight those in your report it will give many people (and less scrutinous daily papers) the same impression as if you'd done a study specifically to examine those and actually found correlations).
Something to be remembered is that uveal melanoma is a very rare type of cancer; its incidence (in Europe) is about 1/30 of that of melanoma of the skin, or around 8/million/year. However, since it's a tumour which causes unilateral visual disturbances/blindness once it expands enough it's one that's unlikely to be underdiagnosed to any significant extent. Thus, the next few years' worth of uveal melanoma incidence figures should point a finger at whether we're doing anything that's increasing the melanoma risk. I don't recall how strong a risk factor sun exposure is for uveal melanoma (compared to other melanomas, for example), but I'd check whether any increase in uveal melanomas was disproportionately larger than the increase in all melanomas. In summary, if cell phones do increase the risk of UM, we'll be able to detect it quite reliably in a few years. Also, the results of a pilot study with little biological rationale to explain it doesn't warrant any particular caution while on the cell phone in my book, though of course that's a political decision that can easily swing either way.
For those who are interested in reading up on biological effects of cell phone RF "radiation", the British Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones came out with its report in May of 2000, and it goes through (complete with references) the case for and against there being significant adverse health effects of cell phone use. So far the case against cell phones seems to be weak, and most of the evidence that's piling up (a whole bunch of articles in major publications in the past two months alone) seems to cement it that way.
The desire to take medicine is perhaps the greatest feature which distinguishes man from animals --Sir William Osler (1849-1919)
Robert A Heinlein wrote at least one story that you migth be referring to, The menace from Earth, in 1957. It's in the anthology The past through tomorrow.
In it is described how huge underground caverns on the moon are filled with a terran atmosphere, and the lower gravity makes it possible for people to strap on wings and fly, using only their own muscles. I've been meaning to do some feasibility calculations on the actual work required, but haven't gotten around to it. It's a fun idea, and as so often with Heinlein it's amazingly ahead of its time.
Looking for pr0n and finding nothing but patches/maps/mods, that drives me crazy every time!
ClaesWi
To date there is no evidence that cell phones have any serious adverse health effects (beyond being distracting while driving). There have been studies, most recently by Hardell et al this spring, which have shown a trend towards an increased risk, in that case of brain tumor, but the study had some weaknesses which would have made that fairly weak evidence, even had it been statistically significant.
The case which is often made by anti-cell-phone debaters is that "the industry" should somehow be responsible for "proving" that cell phones are "safe". Anyone who's worked with statistics or epidemiology knows that that's not what statistics do. The studies done so far haven't shown any statistically significant increased health risks, so in the statistical sense of the word, they've helped "prove" cell-phones are "safe".
The technically inclined know that the proposed biological ground for the danger of cell phones is shaky at best. RF "radiation", aka microwaves, is not ionizing, and so won't cause cancer by the mechanism that, for example, X-rays and atom bombs will. Cell phones do output a few watts of energy through the antenna, and some of this will be absorbed by the person holding the phone, causing their scalp to warm up one or two degrees. That regional temperature differences in the scalp or even brain could cause cancer is a claim that has yet gone unproved.
Some good reading for those of you genuinely curious about the phones, radiation, and power lines:
Linet et al, Residential Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia in Children; NEJM 1997, 337.1
Hardell et al, Case control study...risk factors for brain tumour; Medscape Gen Med, May 4, 2000. http://www.medscape.com/Medscape/GeneralMedicine/j ournal/2000/v02.n03/mgm0504.hard/mgm0504 .hard.html requires login
Hardell et al, Use of cellular phones and the risk of brain tumours, a case-control study; Int J Oncol, 1999. Jul 15.
But go ahead and check out PubMed for more articles, there's been quite a lot of research done.