It's not really a problem of misdiagnosis, it's a problem of poorly defined categories. That's why it's now all headed for being described as 'the spectrum'. The reality is, we don't understand the root cause well enough for any diagnosis to be definitive, it's all about trying to best label the observed behaviors in order to effectively (usefully) categorize these kids into treatment bins.
The other really obvious candidate theory not discussed, though, is age (of the father and the mother) at conception, which is a known factor already, and obviously connected with education, which geeks tend to get a lot of.
That's definitely not true. Your child's best chance in life is to get enormously expensive therapy, which requires either diagnosis or a lot of money (like top 2% money). For everyone but that top 2%, fighting to get a diagnosis is a must. The poor are left undiagnosed because it costs the insurance companies a lot of money, so they push back with the doctors hard.
First, the leadership has made public claims that they were not doing so.
Second, we have made attacks there against the factions who do support OBL, and Pakistan has cooperated.
I'm fairly sure that if the Taliban had disavowed OBL and allowed us to fly drones and send seal teams there to kill him, we would not have invaded Afghanistan.
The PLO law was from 1986 and was replaced by a 1994 law that made it about terrorist orgs in general, so that we wouldn't have to rewrite it every time the palestinians came up with a new terrorist org to be in charge.
The law itself is not palestine specific. You might consider it more like not funding any agency that recognized statehood for a terrorist organization.
It was your congressional election. If you cared about that issue, you probably should have participated in a forum. Every congressional candidate currently elected has held such.
So your suggestion is that since things are bad in one area, we should make them as horrible as possible? How about instead we take every inch we can towards making things better?
As I responded to another poster: your suggestion is that since mistakes are made anywhere, we should just go ahead and make as many as possible, rather than try to reign in wherever we can?
Unless, of course, you are running a democracy, and want your tax money spent in accordance with the people's wishes. But you know, ignoring that reason there's no good reason.
I'd say mandate the same level of testing for each implementation of a drug before it goes on the market. That will give back some time incentive, and help to eliminate the sort of fraudulent testing practices that are killing people right now.
The problem with your argument is that the premise is wrong. Lots of people ARE using the same ideas behind nearly every software patent. But proving that in court is so expensive it's usually cheaper to settle a patent claim than try to overturn it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really a problem of misdiagnosis, it's a problem of poorly defined categories. That's why it's now all headed for being described as 'the spectrum'. The reality is, we don't understand the root cause well enough for any diagnosis to be definitive, it's all about trying to best label the observed behaviors in order to effectively (usefully) categorize these kids into treatment bins.
Re: the peanut allergy: that was because in your day, they were all dead already.
Pair off is a euphemism for mate, in case that was unclear.
Whoever modded this troll is crazy.
The other really obvious candidate theory not discussed, though, is age (of the father and the mother) at conception, which is a known factor already, and obviously connected with education, which geeks tend to get a lot of.
That's definitely not true. Your child's best chance in life is to get enormously expensive therapy, which requires either diagnosis or a lot of money (like top 2% money). For everyone but that top 2%, fighting to get a diagnosis is a must. The poor are left undiagnosed because it costs the insurance companies a lot of money, so they push back with the doctors hard.
Don't forget about SysWOW64
Regrettably, that was the last sign of the apocalypse. Doesn't look like we'll even make to 2012.
2 reasons:
First, the leadership has made public claims that they were not doing so.
Second, we have made attacks there against the factions who do support OBL, and Pakistan has cooperated.
I'm fairly sure that if the Taliban had disavowed OBL and allowed us to fly drones and send seal teams there to kill him, we would not have invaded Afghanistan.
The winner in the casino is fundamentally deterministic, whereas with the app store, it's mostly a matter of luck.
If your app isn't a success, your support costs should be quite low.
Cheapness in bulk.
The PLO law was from 1986 and was replaced by a 1994 law that made it about terrorist orgs in general, so that we wouldn't have to rewrite it every time the palestinians came up with a new terrorist org to be in charge.
Because they sheltered OBL? I mean ... IRAQ was complete BS, but Afghanistan? I'd say we had pretty legitimate cause there ...
The law itself is not palestine specific. You might consider it more like not funding any agency that recognized statehood for a terrorist organization.
It was your congressional election. If you cared about that issue, you probably should have participated in a forum. Every congressional candidate currently elected has held such.
Hehehehehe.
I have bad news for you about the likelihood of there being anything alive for you to catch or forage.
I think it's fair to assume the opposite unless the show makes a direct claim to the contrary.
Can you name a show in which the tractor beam was not depicted as a ray of light?
So your suggestion is that since things are bad in one area, we should make them as horrible as possible? How about instead we take every inch we can towards making things better?
As I responded to another poster: your suggestion is that since mistakes are made anywhere, we should just go ahead and make as many as possible, rather than try to reign in wherever we can?
Unless, of course, you are running a democracy, and want your tax money spent in accordance with the people's wishes.
But you know, ignoring that reason there's no good reason.
No no no ... you only have to do the trials for the 40 years. After that, the drug safety profile is publicly proven.
I'd be happy to settle for just replicating the human trials, and only for drugs on the market for less than half the average human lifetime.
I'd say mandate the same level of testing for each implementation of a drug before it goes on the market. That will give back some time incentive, and help to eliminate the sort of fraudulent testing practices that are killing people right now.
The problem with your argument is that the premise is wrong. Lots of people ARE using the same ideas behind nearly every software patent. But proving that in court is so expensive it's usually cheaper to settle a patent claim than try to overturn it.