Going faster than the wind is an old hat - has been done in sailboats for millenia, and I have been doing it in my youth (some 35 years ago) in small lightweight go-carts using a similar sail rig as nowadays windsurfers do. The only problem is when you want to go against the wind which is not possible (other than zig-zagging), or with the wind straight from behind (when you will always be slightly slower than the wind) - and that's where smart engineering solutions set in.
Not true. For Glucose (and sucrose (cane sugar) is broken into Glucose) there is a limiting mechanism for uptake into cells - it depends on Insulin mediated transport. Too much, and Insulin receptors wil be downregulated, and the cell will stop stuffing itself with glucose for a while. Not so with Fructose - it can be taken up by the cell without requiring active Insulin mediated transport, non know downregulaton of uptake in oversupply scenarios, and hence quite toxic when eaten too much (and about a couple of spoons a day are certainly too much for the vast majority of people - less than a can of coke worth)
I have a similar problem with backups in my paper less medical practice - I always need a working system off-site for emergency replacement, and here in rural Australia doing it via Internet is impossible due to lack of networking infrastructure and ridiculous bandwidth costs I use a QNAP NAS (TS659). They also come as tiny handy cubes with 2.5" disks instead of the 3.5" That makes the question of the file system irrelevant, since it communicates with just about any operating system through standard protocols (eg NFS, AFP, SMB). Internally they use ext3 or ext4 file system depending on user preferences. Whenever I want to transfer files, I simply take one disk drawer out and simply shove it into the QNAP at the second location, where it will immediately start to replicate it. I use a spare disk for the original system, where the RAID1 configuration will immediately rebuild it, to be ready when I come again for the disk next day.
My experience from the past 25 years (degrees in both natural sciences and medicine, nowadays both practising and teaching mediicine) suggests that for the purpose of just using applications, the choice of platform doesn't matter much as long as long as the applications that you need will run on it.
However, most people serious in science are curious minds, want to understand how things work even if it is outside their main research domain - and that occasionally extends to IT even if the primary domain is outside IT. To facilitate this, I think the open sourced platforms such as the various BSD or Linux clones will fit the bill far better than the closed alternatives - provided the software you need will run on it without problems.
Imagine having an itch that you could never scratch away. An itch that was always there. Now, replace that itch with an erection and a desire to release your semen storage 24/7.
Don't need to imagine that. It's called being a man. Starts at puberty, ends with death. Enjoy the time between.
Where I can see the jury coming from is that the Ryobi saw was measurably less safe than the existing state of the art for such saws. They aren't necessarily requiring Ryobi to buy a license, but they are saying "either license the tech or develop your own that provides a comparable level of safety."
Well, the jury obviously didn't think before their verdict.
A car with ABS, EPS, and airbags all around is obviously a safer choice than one with less of such features. I'd say that my VW Touareg is a lot safer than a Toyoya Echo, I doubt anybody would argue there. I'd say this is s because of all the additional safety features built in to the Touareg, which are pretty much "state of the art" for mass produced cars. Does that entitle me for a lottery payout if I hit a tree in the Echo and come to harm? If we follow the Jury's argument, we'd have to.
If we followed the Jury's argument, we'd soon be left without the choice of buying something cheap that fits the purpose for us, or always having to spend through the nose in order to buy state of the art. The verdict destroys both choice and competition.
The article is incorrect in many points. Firstly it is not just the two antibiotics mentioned that are effective against gram negatives, but quite a large range of Aminoglycosides, Quinolones, and even some Cephalosporines for example. Resistance against these happns too, of course. Furthermore, damage to the kidneys (or hearing nerve) and other severe adverse effetcs can happen, but are rather the exception than the rule. The patient's choice is thus not "to lose his kidneys or die with intact kidneys" but to accept a reasonably small risk of potentially serious adverse effects in exchange for a treatment that is most likely life saving.
Of course it is sad if we gradually lose more and more powerful antibiotics because some reckless idiots overuse them in clinical practice (the USA is one of the worst offenders in that aspect within the "ciilized" realm, especially when it comes to misuse and overuse of Fluoroquinolones) or, even worse, just in order to make cruel intensive meat farming viable.
And Germany nowadays still unpopular bans political parties, movements, and speech as zealously as the Nazis did.
Oh, yeah, right. That's why I find 20-odd parties on my ballot every election, including several different flavors of commies, Nazis, fundies and other assorted nutcases. Can you even name the last fscking party that was actually banned in Germany? I'll help you, that was over half a century ago. Can you name the total number of parties that were banned in West Germany, ever? I'll help you, too: It's a very, very small number. So small that using the plural form almost isn't justified.
While the rest of your response is correct, you are wrong with your statements about prohibition of political parties in Germany. It is just that they don't call it party prohibition ("Parteiverbot"). It is usually a two step process - first the government in power kickstarts a legal process to determine that the unwanted competition shouldn't have the legal status of a political party but is merely a "Verein" ("club"), and then terminates the club via simple legal procedures. This was done for example against the FAP (sort of a modern successor to the NSDAP) in the 1980s - and even that was only neccessary because the FAP somehow slipped unnoticed through the first and biggest hurdle - namely in order to get status as a political party that party has to formally conform with the "Grundgesetz", the surrogate constitution that was implemented by the allied powers after WW2 (Germany is still lacking a formal constitution endorsed by the German population, you know?) - else it will not be accepted as political party. This has been done against a range of political organizations from both the right and left spectrum as well as anarchistic organizations and ethnic organizations (eg Kurds) that wanted to form political parties in order to participate in elections.
Theoretically you could have 99.9% of the population signing up for a newly founded "party" that for example disagrees with a single subsection of the Grundgesetz - but they could be instantly prohibited without any need for parliamentary discussion (and it would not even count as party prohibition (Parteiverbot) because it would be impossible for them to obtain status as a political party. So FACTUALLY, prohibition of political parties is well alive and kicking hard in Germany, even it it goes by other names. It's a bit like freedom of religion in the Spain of the Grand Inquisition - you could belong to any religious group as long as it recognized the superiority and exclusivity of the catholic church.
Germany used to have a paragraph in it's laws ("Mundraub") specifically indemnifying under certain circumstances people who steal for the purpose of immediately preventing starvation. In the context of a modern social system where novdoy has to starve any more this paragraph was scrapped. For countries with a backwards or otherwise lacking social system it would make perfect sense. I think there is a human duty to help those at immediate risk of death as long as it doesn't put the helper or his family at similar risk.
Nah - with such processing power, one might actually see a Windows machine perform properly! From boot to blue screen of death in mere milliseconds! Run your malware faster than ever! See clippy dance furiously across the screen in smooth 250 fps animation!
As a MD with special interest in cardiology (my thesis was on sudden cardiac death) I can only marvel of the stupidity of such requirement. Disease mongering seems rampant and is dangerous - if only one child per class does not participate in such healthy physical activities for not having/being able to afford such equipment, the harm to public health would exceed by orders of magnitude any possible harm to a child with hitherto undetected cardiac problem during such exertion. Using such monitors on children with known or suspected heart problems could make sense - but this should be a doctor's role to decide, not some bureaucrat's or teacher's. The rest is just marketing and profiteering.
Somebody should patent a biped mammal where higher cortical functions (eg ethics, commons sense, altruism) have been replaced with a simple rule set based on principles of greed. Voila - commercial lawyers are patented, and whenever such creatures appear wreaking havock on humanity, we can sue. Oh, wait,....
I have lived and worked in Germany, Spain, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, RSA, Norway, and now in Australia. I spent quite a lot of time in the US too but only for scientific exchanges and research projects, though I got a permanent visa there too. Whenever I can, I travel and see other countries and there are not that many I haven't visited yet in the past 30 years. I think this gives me a good overview of how different countries work and are worthwhile to live in.
If you seek freedom as in "do as you please as long as you can fend for yourself", then many 3rd world countries are hard to beat; requires very little money or influence to make law enforcement look away if you break the rules. However, there will always be people with more money and influence than you, and their "doing as they please" might hurt you grievously.
If you seek freedom as in guaranteed civil liberties and rights and a chance to have your say *and* get heared, I'd look at Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and perhaps New Zealand.
US and UK are pretty much at the top of my list of "countries that suck". Currently I live in Australia, because it is a good compromise for my own preferences, but free it is definitely not.
The most important freedom t look for in a country is the freedom to walk away from it with all your possessions and family members whenever you want - you'll be surprised how many countries don't qualify for even this once you look closer.
Solution: move to Somalia. Government free since '92.
Best of luck.
Somalia is not government free. It has way too many governments - every pithy tribal head plays feudal lord. Hundreds if not thousands of small scale governments.
Don't confuse the absence of a monopolistic government with Anarchy.
Happens to me every year - I own a 3-doctor medical practice in a "monopoly" location, Every so often a large corporate practice chain wants to buy us out.
Consider this: large corporates, as a rule, know how to handle money. If they offer you something, they expect to be able to make a lot more than they will spend. Unless you depend on their resources in order to realize your business plan, that's the money you will miss out on.
But that is only the money part. More important - far more important - is job satisfaction. I have seen many of my colleagues who sold out turn into miserable frustrated sourpots, when prior to the sellout they were happy and satisfied professionals.
My advice - if you seriously believe your business is any good, you like doing what you do, and you don't depend on corporate backing to finish what you started - DO NOT SELL OUT!
I sold my IT business in order to get through studying medicine, and I have seen what happened to those who remained in corporate employ thereafter - not worth it, never worth it.
However, if you realized that your business plans are unrealistic, you are not likely to finalize the project or match your own deadlines, competition is pulling ahead - then of course get rid of it to the highest bidder before they notice these problems too.
Freedom can be seen as something absolute, or something relative. Some 30 years ago, in South West Africa (now Namibia), I was startled when, at checking in, people were asked to hand in their ammunition (they got to keep their guns) when boarding the plane from Windhoek to Cape Town. Most people protested at this violation of their freedom (while disregarding that only white people woudl get such freedom in the first place), but my seat neighbour winked at me and showed me his trouser pocket full with ammo. Body searching would have been unthinkable, and indeed I saw many people clamly reloading their guns as the plane departed, and the stewardess just ignoring them.
30 years in fast forward - my wife was just insulted and her deodorant stolen by check in staff because the volume of the deodorant bottle was 110ml, and only 100ml were "allowed". The fact that the deodorant was 3/4 empty didn't matter. That on a flight back from Vanuatu to Sydney -100% tourists, 90% thereof probably scuba divers, can't get much lower in risk potential on flights I guess.
Give them your little finger, and they not only take your whole hand but proceed to bite off your head after eviscerating and raping you.
Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.
I'm sure doctors are performing some treatments that aren't warranted. However, I assure you that patients want treatment. I work in the medical field, and the psychology of medicine is weird. Parents want antibiotics for their children, and they don't really care about research that says the antibiotics aren't necessary or may even cause harm.
And that is the crux of "private" health systems - where patients don't regard themselves as "patients" but rather as "customers". They believe because they pay the doctor directly they can demand the "solution" they favour - and often end up buying snake oil or even harm for lots of money.
As a doctor I prefer to work in a public health system - where I can provide professional advice without any conflict of interests. Where I can simply tell the patients that the antibiotics/whatever they "demand" are inappropriate for the condition and hence not prescribed to them.
Yes, opiate based cough syrups suppress the cough reflex. You cough less. And if it is just a dry annoying unproductive cough, some may perceive this as symptom relief.
If however you suppress the cough reflex that allows your lungs to clear the phlegm that otherwise exacerbates the infection, you harm yourself by taking it.
As an experienced doctor I do not take cough medication myself, and I do not prescribe it to my patients or family members - with the rare exception of those with a dry unproductive cough in the convalescent period that keeps them awake
from somebody who went through a variety of careers including IT before finally ending up in Medicine - whatever you do, as long as you love doing it and you really give it your best effort, you have a good chance at succeeding. Don't let others put you off because they haven't succeeded or because they even fear you as competitor - you are not them, you have to find your own way.
Sounds like useless platitudes - but it works. I have 9 people on my payroll nowadays, all long term - my selection criteria don't depend on the CV but on their effort to get the job. People who are passionate about what they do and can demonstrate some competence do get a chance, and if they don't fuck up the first three months, they usually stay for good.
So if you really love IT - start coding anything you are passionate about, code some more, and in the little spare time you have learn the science behind it. Algorithms, data structures, patterns, sound grounding in math, and sound domain knowledge of the domain you want to program for.
Nothing is learned from this study other than the fact that some religious people who have cancer don't want to die.... WOW. That should be in tomorrow paper... errr perhaps they'll need a special edition.
Perhaps from this study - but my experience as a doctor with a significant proportion if palliative care work is very much in line with these findings.
Most of the patients I witness dying I have known for many years. Non-religious people becoming religious at the time of dying is movie stuff - rarely happens in reality, at least in the communities I worked in.
In discussions with my colleagues (all bar one who is very religious herself) we all agree - religious people *on average* seem to die harder and are generally less accepting of a fate that can't be changed any more. Religion does not seem to help them to find peace.
Whether religion causes this angst, or whether it is the rather anxious people who become religious I can't say - but I can say that in predominantly western-christian societies being religious is a good predictor of a more suffering and unpleasant end of life.
As a doctor with a significant proportion of palliative care work I believe the findings reflect my practical experience - on average, religious people appear to die harder and accept their fate less than non-religious people.
However, most of my religious patients subscribe to punitive monotheism (eg christians, jews) - and that might influence their feelings about death more than being religious as such. The few buddhists I had witnessed dying seem to cope much better in general.
1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection... 2. Have they blocked TOR access?
Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.
This is a government of luddites. There are a few religious zealots in parliament who want to "reform" the country according to their narrowminded world views. Don't come them technical.
Whether implementation is feasible or not means nothing to them - if they can hassle a majority of the population who is equally technically ignorant they'll be happy I suppose, while they can dream up punishing schemes for those able to circumvent their censorship.
Slashdot Mirror
Going faster than the wind is an old hat - has been done in sailboats for millenia, and I have been doing it in my youth (some 35 years ago) in small lightweight go-carts using a similar sail rig as nowadays windsurfers do.
The only problem is when you want to go against the wind which is not possible (other than zig-zagging), or with the wind straight from behind (when you will always be slightly slower than the wind) - and that's where smart engineering solutions set in.
Not true. For Glucose (and sucrose (cane sugar) is broken into Glucose) there is a limiting mechanism for uptake into cells - it depends on Insulin mediated transport. Too much, and Insulin receptors wil be downregulated, and the cell will stop stuffing itself with glucose for a while. Not so with Fructose - it can be taken up by the cell without requiring active Insulin mediated transport, non know downregulaton of uptake in oversupply scenarios, and hence quite toxic when eaten too much (and about a couple of spoons a day are certainly too much for the vast majority of people - less than a can of coke worth)
I have a similar problem with backups in my paper less medical practice - I always need a working system off-site for emergency replacement, and here in rural Australia doing it via Internet is impossible due to lack of networking infrastructure and ridiculous bandwidth costs
I use a QNAP NAS (TS659). They also come as tiny handy cubes with 2.5" disks instead of the 3.5"
That makes the question of the file system irrelevant, since it communicates with just about any operating system through standard protocols (eg NFS, AFP, SMB). Internally they use ext3 or ext4 file system depending on user preferences. Whenever I want to transfer files, I simply take one disk drawer out and simply shove it into the QNAP at the second location, where it will immediately start to replicate it. I use a spare disk for the original system, where the RAID1 configuration will immediately rebuild it, to be ready when I come again for the disk next day.
Horst
My experience from the past 25 years (degrees in both natural sciences and medicine, nowadays both practising and teaching mediicine) suggests that for the purpose of just using applications, the choice of platform doesn't matter much as long as long as the applications that you need will run on it.
However, most people serious in science are curious minds, want to understand how things work even if it is outside their main research domain - and that occasionally extends to IT even if the primary domain is outside IT. To facilitate this, I think the open sourced platforms such as the various BSD or Linux clones will fit the bill far better than the closed alternatives - provided the software you need will run on it without problems.
Imagine having an itch that you could never scratch away. An itch that was always there. Now, replace that itch with an erection and a desire to release your semen storage 24/7.
Don't need to imagine that. It's called being a man. Starts at puberty, ends with death. Enjoy the time between.
Where I can see the jury coming from is that the Ryobi saw was measurably less safe than the existing state of the art for such saws. They aren't necessarily requiring Ryobi to buy a license, but they are saying "either license the tech or develop your own that provides a comparable level of safety."
Well, the jury obviously didn't think before their verdict.
A car with ABS, EPS, and airbags all around is obviously a safer choice than one with less of such features. I'd say that my VW Touareg is a lot safer than a Toyoya Echo, I doubt anybody would argue there. I'd say this is s because of all the additional safety features built in to the Touareg, which are pretty much "state of the art" for mass produced cars.
Does that entitle me for a lottery payout if I hit a tree in the Echo and come to harm? If we follow the Jury's argument, we'd have to.
If we followed the Jury's argument, we'd soon be left without the choice of buying something cheap that fits the purpose for us, or always having to spend through the nose in order to buy state of the art. The verdict destroys both choice and competition.
The article is incorrect in many points. Firstly it is not just the two antibiotics mentioned that are effective against gram negatives, but quite a large range of Aminoglycosides, Quinolones, and even some Cephalosporines for example. Resistance against these happns too, of course.
Furthermore, damage to the kidneys (or hearing nerve) and other severe adverse effetcs can happen, but are rather the exception than the rule. The patient's choice is thus not "to lose his kidneys or die with intact kidneys" but to accept a reasonably small risk of potentially serious adverse effects in exchange for a treatment that is most likely life saving.
Of course it is sad if we gradually lose more and more powerful antibiotics because some reckless idiots overuse them in clinical practice (the USA is one of the worst offenders in that aspect within the "ciilized" realm, especially when it comes to misuse and overuse of Fluoroquinolones) or, even worse, just in order to make cruel intensive meat farming viable.
Well, how about thisone? http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/18/transportation-tuesday-8923-miles-per-gallon/
Makes that CalPoly car look like the traditional US gas guzzler, not?
And Germany nowadays still unpopular bans political parties, movements, and speech as zealously as the Nazis did.
Oh, yeah, right. That's why I find 20-odd parties on my ballot every election, including several different flavors of commies, Nazis, fundies and other assorted nutcases. Can you even name the last fscking party that was actually banned in Germany? I'll help you, that was over half a century ago. Can you name the total number of parties that were banned in West Germany, ever? I'll help you, too: It's a very, very small number. So small that using the plural form almost isn't justified.
While the rest of your response is correct, you are wrong with your statements about prohibition of political parties in Germany. It is just that they don't call it party prohibition ("Parteiverbot"). It is usually a two step process - first the government in power kickstarts a legal process to determine that the unwanted competition shouldn't have the legal status of a political party but is merely a "Verein" ("club"), and then terminates the club via simple legal procedures. This was done for example against the FAP (sort of a modern successor to the NSDAP) in the 1980s - and even that was only neccessary because the FAP somehow slipped unnoticed through the first and biggest hurdle - namely in order to get status as a political party that party has to formally conform with the "Grundgesetz", the surrogate constitution that was implemented by the allied powers after WW2 (Germany is still lacking a formal constitution endorsed by the German population, you know?) - else it will not be accepted as political party. This has been done against a range of political organizations from both the right and left spectrum as well as anarchistic organizations and ethnic organizations (eg Kurds) that wanted to form political parties in order to participate in elections.
Theoretically you could have 99.9% of the population signing up for a newly founded "party" that for example disagrees with a single subsection of the Grundgesetz - but they could be instantly prohibited without any need for parliamentary discussion (and it would not even count as party prohibition (Parteiverbot) because it would be impossible for them to obtain status as a political party. So FACTUALLY, prohibition of political parties is well alive and kicking hard in Germany, even it it goes by other names. It's a bit like freedom of religion in the Spain of the Grand Inquisition - you could belong to any religious group as long as it recognized the superiority and exclusivity of the catholic church.
ReactOs on the other hand could feel much more Windows like if implemented in a complete way.
It's just like recreating a dog turd from potato mash, emulating texture, flavour, colour, smell and all
Horst
Germany used to have a paragraph in it's laws ("Mundraub") specifically indemnifying under certain circumstances people who steal for the purpose of immediately preventing starvation.
In the context of a modern social system where novdoy has to starve any more this paragraph was scrapped. For countries with a backwards or otherwise lacking social system it would make perfect sense. I think there is a human duty to help those at immediate risk of death as long as it doesn't put the helper or his family at similar risk.
Nah - with such processing power, one might actually see a Windows machine perform properly! From boot to blue screen of death in mere milliseconds! Run your malware faster than ever! See clippy dance furiously across the screen in smooth 250 fps animation!
As a MD with special interest in cardiology (my thesis was on sudden cardiac death) I can only marvel of the stupidity of such requirement. /being able to afford such equipment, the harm to public health would exceed by orders of magnitude any possible harm to a child with hitherto undetected cardiac problem during such exertion.
Disease mongering seems rampant and is dangerous - if only one child per class does not participate in such healthy physical activities for not having
Using such monitors on children with known or suspected heart problems could make sense - but this should be a doctor's role to decide, not some bureaucrat's or teacher's. The rest is just marketing and profiteering.
Somebody should patent a biped mammal where higher cortical functions (eg ethics, commons sense, altruism) have been replaced with a simple rule set based on principles of greed. ....
Voila - commercial lawyers are patented, and whenever such creatures appear wreaking havock on humanity, we can sue. Oh, wait,
I have lived and worked in Germany, Spain, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, RSA, Norway, and now in Australia. I spent quite a lot of time in the US too but only for scientific exchanges and research projects, though I got a permanent visa there too. Whenever I can, I travel and see other countries and there are not that many I haven't visited yet in the past 30 years. I think this gives me a good overview of how different countries work and are worthwhile to live in.
If you seek freedom as in "do as you please as long as you can fend for yourself", then many 3rd world countries are hard to beat; requires very little money or influence to make law enforcement look away if you break the rules. However, there will always be people with more money and influence than you, and their "doing as they please" might hurt you grievously.
If you seek freedom as in guaranteed civil liberties and rights and a chance to have your say *and* get heared, I'd look at Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and perhaps New Zealand.
US and UK are pretty much at the top of my list of "countries that suck". Currently I live in Australia, because it is a good compromise for my own preferences, but free it is definitely not.
The most important freedom t look for in a country is the freedom to walk away from it with all your possessions and family members whenever you want - you'll be surprised how many countries don't qualify for even this once you look closer.
Horst
Solution: move to Somalia. Government free since '92.
Best of luck.
Somalia is not government free. It has way too many governments - every pithy tribal head plays feudal lord. Hundreds if not thousands of small scale governments.
Don't confuse the absence of a monopolistic government with Anarchy.
The argument is that the tools put in place for the latter purpose can also be used for the former.
Scratch that "can aso be used" - they WILL also be used, or even will be primarily used for that purpose.
Happens to me every year - I own a 3-doctor medical practice in a "monopoly" location, Every so often a large corporate practice chain wants to buy us out.
Consider this: large corporates, as a rule, know how to handle money. If they offer you something, they expect to be able to make a lot more than they will spend. Unless you depend on their resources in order to realize your business plan, that's the money you will miss out on.
But that is only the money part. More important - far more important - is job satisfaction. I have seen many of my colleagues who sold out turn into miserable frustrated sourpots, when prior to the sellout they were happy and satisfied professionals.
My advice - if you seriously believe your business is any good, you like doing what you do, and you don't depend on corporate backing to finish what you started - DO NOT SELL OUT!
I sold my IT business in order to get through studying medicine, and I have seen what happened to those who remained in corporate employ thereafter - not worth it, never worth it.
However, if you realized that your business plans are unrealistic, you are not likely to finalize the project or match your own deadlines, competition is pulling ahead - then of course get rid of it to the highest bidder before they notice these problems too.
Freedom can be seen as something absolute, or something relative.
Some 30 years ago, in South West Africa (now Namibia), I was startled when, at checking in, people were asked to hand in their ammunition (they got to keep their guns) when boarding the plane from Windhoek to Cape Town. Most people protested at this violation of their freedom (while disregarding that only white people woudl get such freedom in the first place), but my seat neighbour winked at me and showed me his trouser pocket full with ammo. Body searching would have been unthinkable, and indeed I saw many people clamly reloading their guns as the plane departed, and the stewardess just ignoring them.
30 years in fast forward - my wife was just insulted and her deodorant stolen by check in staff because the volume of the deodorant bottle was 110ml, and only 100ml were "allowed". The fact that the deodorant was 3/4 empty didn't matter. That on a flight back from Vanuatu to Sydney -100% tourists, 90% thereof probably scuba divers, can't get much lower in risk potential on flights I guess.
Give them your little finger, and they not only take your whole hand but proceed to bite off your head after eviscerating and raping you.
Either we have freedom - and it is absolute, or we don't have any. Thus, at present we don't have any. A person without freedom is - a slave.
I'm sure doctors are performing some treatments that aren't warranted. However, I assure you that patients want treatment. I work in the medical field, and the psychology of medicine is weird. Parents want antibiotics for their children, and they don't really care about research that says the antibiotics aren't necessary or may even cause harm.
And that is the crux of "private" health systems - where patients don't regard themselves as "patients" but rather as "customers". They believe because they pay the doctor directly they can demand the "solution" they favour - and often end up buying snake oil or even harm for lots of money.
As a doctor I prefer to work in a public health system - where I can provide professional advice without any conflict of interests. Where I can simply tell the patients that the antibiotics/whatever they "demand" are inappropriate for the condition and hence not prescribed to them.
Yes, opiate based cough syrups suppress the cough reflex. You cough less. And if it is just a dry annoying unproductive cough, some may perceive this as symptom relief.
If however you suppress the cough reflex that allows your lungs to clear the phlegm that otherwise exacerbates the infection, you harm yourself by taking it.
As an experienced doctor I do not take cough medication myself, and I do not prescribe it to my patients or family members - with the rare exception of those with a dry unproductive cough in the convalescent period that keeps them awake
from somebody who went through a variety of careers including IT before finally ending up in Medicine - whatever you do, as long as you love doing it and you really give it your best effort, you have a good chance at succeeding. Don't let others put you off because they haven't succeeded or because they even fear you as competitor - you are not them, you have to find your own way.
Sounds like useless platitudes - but it works. I have 9 people on my payroll nowadays, all long term - my selection criteria don't depend on the CV but on their effort to get the job. People who are passionate about what they do and can demonstrate some competence do get a chance, and if they don't fuck up the first three months, they usually stay for good.
So if you really love IT - start coding anything you are passionate about, code some more, and in the little spare time you have learn the science behind it. Algorithms, data structures, patterns, sound grounding in math, and sound domain knowledge of the domain you want to program for.
Nothing is learned from this study other than the fact that some religious people who have cancer don't want to die.... WOW. That should be in tomorrow paper... errr perhaps they'll need a special edition.
Perhaps from this study - but my experience as a doctor with a significant proportion if palliative care work is very much in line with these findings.
Most of the patients I witness dying I have known for many years. Non-religious people becoming religious at the time of dying is movie stuff - rarely happens in reality, at least in the communities I worked in.
In discussions with my colleagues (all bar one who is very religious herself) we all agree - religious people *on average* seem to die harder and are generally less accepting of a fate that can't be changed any more. Religion does not seem to help them to find peace.
Whether religion causes this angst, or whether it is the rather anxious people who become religious I can't say - but I can say that in predominantly western-christian societies being religious is a good predictor of a more suffering and unpleasant end of life.
As a doctor with a significant proportion of palliative care work I believe the findings reflect my practical experience - on average, religious people appear to die harder and accept their fate less than non-religious people.
However, most of my religious patients subscribe to punitive monotheism (eg christians, jews) - and that might influence their feelings about death more than being religious as such. The few buddhists I had witnessed dying seem to cope much better in general.
1. Have they blocked SSH access out of the country? It's hard to block a tunneled connection...
2. Have they blocked TOR access?
Maybe I'm just being naive but firewalling off an entire country (noted exception: China) seems really impractical.
This is a government of luddites. There are a few religious zealots in parliament who want to "reform" the country according to their narrowminded world views. Don't come them technical.
Whether implementation is feasible or not means nothing to them - if they can hassle a majority of the population who is equally technically ignorant they'll be happy I suppose, while they can dream up punishing schemes for those able to circumvent their censorship.