Most larger units (in my experience) have comm capability that can serve as a back up to their FUBARed GPSs, if ever the situation arose.
The smaller units, particularly these days, are often teams of special operators. They try to minimize extraneous radio communications and instead rely on what they are carrying, particularly if doing recon. These guys are also head-and-shoulders above the average soldier in ALL their skills, including Land-Nav.
Most recon-marines, SEALs, and other SF types I've met pride themselves on these skills... I'm not worried about their Land-Nav ability (one marine recon guy I knew simply refused to use his GPS unit for Land Nav, relying instead on his pace-count and compass skills. After comparing his abilities to the GPS a few times, he came to the conclusion that the GPS was no improvment, and thereafter stopped using it. I think he only kept it in his pack because they made him).
"A real problem causer would then put it on schoolbusses filled with children. Or maybe in hospitals"
Under the LOAC, those civilian deaths are on the head of the military that planted the devices. The laws of armed combat prohibit the usage of humanitarian/hospital resources for any combat purpose... doing so makes those assets legitimate military targets. For instance, US combat troops are often made to check their rifles when they enter a hospital facility (even if it's a tent in the middle of the desert), to prevent a LOAC violation, and subsequent classification of the hospital/clinic as a military target.
When the israelis were taken to task recently for blowing up some terrorist leader in the west bank (which also killed the civilians he was hiding with), you had a perfect example of this. Those civilian deaths were the responsibility of the TERRORIST, since he chose to hide his legitimate-military-target self amongst innocents... the TERRORIST bears the responsibility for those lost lives. You will note, however, that you didn't hear the mainstream press blaming the palestinians.
If Iraq uses these jammers, there will certainly be civilian deaths. The world press, being totally ignorant of the realities and legalities of combat, will undoubtedly have a fit (in fact, Saddam is probably counting on it).
Of course, you can leave the jammer in place, and let an entire longstick of bombs fall aimlessly all over the city, killing thousands... or you can fire a single missile and take care of the problem. How many people do you think will magically "forget" to plug in their Saddam-issued jammers once this starts to happen?
If this turns your stomach, welcome to the club; I don't like the thought of innocents dying any more than anybody else. Hence, I think it's best to minimize that kind of thing by being as smart about it as possible. War is an ugly business... best to end it quickly.
How about (like an AC mentioned above) some HARMs? (High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles for you non-military-buffs). Nifty little missiles, designed to take out SAM sites, and enemy radar installations.
This is always a problem with active weapons systems, and active countermeasures... you broadcast your location to anybody who cares to listen. It's just like a HAM Radio foxhunt (that's an event where somebody plants a transmitter somewhere in a city, and a bunch of directional-antenna wielding HAMs try to find it). The military version just has slightly more lethal consequences for the "fox."
Jammers are great, until the high-explosive warheads start homing in on your signal.
I know soldiers that use GPS out in the field, but they strictly use it to augment their usual mapping skills.
Land-Nav is still taught in the military, mostly because of the ubiquitous nature of Murphy's law (my GPS is broken! I'm lost!). Maps also don't get dead batteries... many older soldiers are purists, and like to rely on what works... sort of a "ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
This shouldn't be a problem for GPS-guided bombs either. Somehow, I suspect we anticipated this problem...
I have had a PS burn out... nothing spectacular, just a quick crackle, a puff of smoke, and that was the end of it.
I found myself the proud owner of one dead Fortron Source 550W power supply (almost brand new, only 250W of load on it when it burned out). I know that company makes tons of PS units, and as far as I know, they are generally considered OK hardware... my luck to get the bad one.
I typically only buy known, good, brand-name stuff, and my thinking at the time was that an oversized power supply would last longer under the same load conditions... Yeah, well... maybe not.
I don't own one of those defective UPS's; out of sheer dumb luck I dodged that bullet and bought a Belkin unit instead (the guts of it could be APC for all I know). Heh... maybe I'd better go look.
they want a permanent injunction they want all profits from Skylink's device they want to impound all Skylink's stuff they then want to destroy all of Skylinks stuff they want treble damages they want attorney's fees
but my favorite phrase is the "trafficking in a device that is designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing the technological measure" (referring to their rolling code tech).
Cmon, ya jokers... It's a freakin' garage door opener, not an eight-ball of heroin...
about some of the sources you quoted. Salon and Counterpunch are interesting reading, but fairly partisan sources of information. I would regard any sort of psychological analysis from any non-peer-reviewed sources (particularly politically-oriented ones) as suspect.
I also checked the author of the first article you listed... she has a PhD in social work, and may have a bit of a "social justice" bias. She does work with addicted people, but has no actual psychiatric credentials. I'm not saying she is unqualified, or that her opinion is not valuable... I'm just wondering if she might have a bias of her own. I would suggest that some of her analysis is a bit overwrought and presumptuous (has she every personally interviewed Bush, or subjected him to one-on-one psychoanalysis? If she has, then she has committed the most grievous breach of patient confidentiality I've ever seen). There is such a thing as reading too far into someone's actions... who wouldn't be considered mentally deficient/impaired if their every word and action were picked apart and analyzed?
Some of the common characteristics listed are also found in the B cluster of personality disorders. Grandiosity, narcissism, splitting (either friend or enemy), emotionally labile... these folks are at high risk for substance abuse. Perhaps this is a chicken/egg situation... those characteristics may predate the substance abuse, and be correlated, rather than causative. Also, to have a personality "disorder" rather than "trait," the trait must consistently interfere with normal function (legal trouble, dysfunctional relationships, loss of jobs, etc). Many perfectly functional people have cluster B traits, but sublimate them into something useful.
I don't think Bush is "splitting" or exhibiting "rigid thinking" with his good/evil comparisons. There are people who believe in shades of grey, and there are those who believe in right and wrong; I would hardly consider Bush's lack of moral relativism as evidence of mental deficiency. I personally think that "evil" is a perfectly acceptable term to describe a philosophy that advocates deliberate killing of innocents, oppression of women, summary execution of religious dissenters, and so forth.
Long-distance psychoanalysis by reading a person's speeches is dubious at best. Who knows? They might be right... maybe Bush does have a problem, but even so, I would consider him high-functioning.
though I think we may be talking about two different populations of alcoholics.
I deal with substance abusers on a daily basis in my profession (medical field), and have found some common threads amongst the worst offenders. I am not a psychiatrist, but I suspect these commonalities help determine a person's likelihood of dealing with their addiction long term (and BTW, I think you are correct to say that once-an-alcoholic, always-an-alcoholic).
Many of my worst alcoholics tend to be sociopathic (though not necessarily outright sociopaths), noticeably more selfish than average, unable to take/admit responsibility, lack real insight into their own condition, and often have coexistant personality disorders. They often refuse to even consider stopping their drinking.
Patients who have insight into their own addiction, honestly acknowledge the problem, and work to solve it are not common (though they tend to do well). Many deal with their addiction through AA and religious consultation... and there is nothing wrong with that. Bush has stated that his faith in God has helped him tremendously, and I think that's from the heart.
I also tend to think that Bush has his addiction under control (If being President on 9/11 didn't make him drink...), or he is hiding it very, very well.
I'm not sure what kind of an intellectual light/heavy weight he is... I've never met him in person. He certainly doesn't claim to have any great genius, and his public speaking ability (or lack thereof) would seem to back that up. My personal suspicion? Bush is dumb... like a fox; I think it may be an act, and it has made his critics and opponents underestimate him repeatedly. Even if he is of only average intelligence, he seems to surround himself with people who ARE intelligent, and he uses them.
Compared to a man who flaunts his intelligence and considers himself an expert on many things, I'd much rather see a man able to acknowlege his own limitations and willing to consult experts appropriately. I have respect for the man who knows that he knows not... the other kind kill people in my line of work.
I'll bet even Einstein had to call a plumber when his pipes froze;)
*sigh* I honestly don't mean to get personal, but I have to say something here.
I love the absolute conviction with which some people attack Bush because of his past alcohol problems. So quick to judge...
Some of it is political, of course... It probably goes without saying that many of the same characters that attacked Bush for his past sins were willing to give Clinton a free pass for his (then current) transgressions.
Who doesn't have a flaw in their character? Who hasn't made a mistake? Who doesn't have a weakness? If we weed out all the imperfect people, who's left? What about the strength of character, insight, and empathy one gains by overcoming an addiction/problem? Could that not be considered an asset?
Now, I'm not saying we should tolerate felons in the oval office, or allow drunks to run the country. Someone who clearly still has an addiction, and is having problems functioning should be removed from their position of responsibility, at least until they can get it together. This goes for politicians, doctors, police officers, lawyers, school bus drivers, teachers....
Anyone can make a mistake. More than one points to a pattern of behavior; something that should be a serious red flag. However, if it's a past problem that has been dealt with, wouldn't it be reasonable to give a man a chance?
Clinton had problems (infidelity, perjury) all along, including while he was in office.
Bush is a flawed man, as we all are, yet he seems to have risen above his past problems.
In my personal non-political-scientist opinion, this is the secret to Bush's popularity; another part of his "regular guy" appeal, just like his public speaking gaffes (and be honest... who hasn't done something stupid in front of a group? I sure as hell have...).
If he was still binging on the job, I'd say you'd have a point. As it stands now, harping on the alcohol thing just makes you sound like a partisan hack with a politically-motivated compassion deficiency.
Perhaps you should study some physiology before you criticize.
The article talks about nutraceuticals (who knows what they are talking about? Sounds suspiciously like non-specific marketing speak to me) and vitamins/nutrients.
How exactly do you think they are going to deliver water-soluble vitamins through the skin? The keratinized squamous epithelium is quite water resistant. How about fat-soluble vitamins? Do you think simple diffusion is going to bring in enough to satisfy someone's RDA?
The skin is not porous enough, and is not designed for absorption... in fact, the exact opposite is true. Unless a soldier in the field suddenly develops a B-12 deficiency (something that takes years), putting a patch on his arm is not going to boost his performance one iota.
The point I was making is this: with the exception of some drugs that are effective in very small quantities (Clonidine, Nicotine, Fentanyl) you cannot deliver sufficient material this way. Giving someone some kind of "nutraceutical" is not going to change the fact that their blood sugar is low from not eating.
the surface area of the small intestine is several hundred square meters, and it is particularly adept at absorbing the nutrients you need. The cells that line your intestinal villi and microvilli include several specific cellular pumps on their membranes, specifically so you can move particular compounds.
Your skin, aside from being a much smaller surface area, has none of these absorptive properties.
Some drugs that are effective in micro-gram quantities (like fentanyl) can be delivered trans-dermal, but nutrients cannot be delivered in a similar fashion, or at least not in any real quantity. Think about your larger-molecular-weight nutrients... no way those are going through the skin.
Going long-term without eating cannot happen... big problems if you don't feed the gut.
Critically ill hospitalized patients with long-term abdominal pathology that prevent them from eating (severe Pancreatitis, shotgun wound to the abdomen, Gastric Outlet Obstruction from cancer, Crohns Disease, etc) are at high risk for all kinds of problems. It can even happen with anorexics. They often end up on TPN (total parenteral nutrition)... AKA Intravenous feedings. Long term TPN puts you at risk for some nasty complications (see below), even aside from the risk of TPN itself (you have to have the electrolytes, osmolality, etc just right).
The current theory is that the intestinal wall needs to be "fed" by absorbing food. Like many things in the body, the gut needs exercise. If it doesn't get it, you get atrophy of the viscera, and bacterial translocation across the gut wall. This results in severe gram-negative sepsis from enteric organisms (think about intravenously injecting feces... it's about the same effect). Overwhelming gram-negative sepsis has a tremendous mortality rate... most don't survive.
Even without the above complication of not eating, the amount of material (think in terms of simple mass of nutrients) you could get from a transdermal patch is miniscule. There is no way you could absorb enough nutrients to stay alive. Even TPN requires that huge volumes be infused, since it can only be concentrated so much. Some components are not even water soluble (lipids), and have to be given as a suspension. Even worse, TPN has to be given through a central IV line (subclavian, jugular, femoral, PICC), since peripheral veins quickly become unusable from the irritation and osmotic load.
Honestly, I can't see this satisfying anyone's caloric needs.
I suspect this will be used primarily to deliver drugs... something we already do.
Yes, I know the "ol' Hippocratic Oath," having taken it in the past (my politically-correct medical school also had some new-age versions you could take in place of the original). "Do no harm" is good advice.
That particular phrase, however, is not in the hippocratic oath. The closest phrase is something to the effect of "I will give no deadly medicine, if asked, nor suggest any such counsel"
The "Do No Harm" exhortation has been variously attributed to other writings of Hippocrates, and also to the Roman physician Galen.
I can see plenty of people who work around radiation buying one of these. Light, convenient, and unobtrusive... what's not to like.
Radiologists, Medical physicists, Nuc. Med guys, Orthopedic surgeons (who use lots of fluoroscopy).
I don't do very much fluoro... but I have used it in the past to straighten fractured bones and place difficult catheters. Even so... I might consider one of these.
Also, never underestimate the awesome power of "gadget lust." Even for expensive gadgets, all that's required is a wee bit of rationalization as to how it MIGHT be useful in your job.
Could even be written off as a business expense...
I'm currently building a computer for a good friend of mine, and we had planned on building in a Serial ATA RAID for fault tolerance.
Yeah, well... We had all the parts weeks ago... all except the !@X&@! serial ATA drives. Nobody had 'em, and nobody could get 'em. We also couldn't find Serial ATA mobile racks to mount the RAID drives... apparently nobody has those either.
We ended up having to use standard Parallel ATA drives (spare me the "SCSI R0XX0R5!!" flames... this is RAID on the semi-cheap, and it's not a server).
Ah well, nice to see that Somebody can finally lay their hands on these.
I remember some of the monkey-wrenching articles you could find back in the BBS days.
There was one in particular I remember called "Phone Phun", written by an individual named "Mr. Death" who lived in NYC. The article gave ruthless and detailed instructions on all kinds of things to do with pay phones... ripping them off, blowing them up, etc.
It was an amusing read, despite the incredibly antisocial behavior it espoused. Still... I sometimes wonder what cellblock "Mr Death" might be inhabiting today.
Heh... It's a wonder any of us survive to adulthood.
I use an LCD in my home entertainment PC... a black 4u rackmount Athlon that sits in my home stereo rack.
MP3s, DivX movies, DVDs, Shoutcast/Icecast streams, TV-out, 5.1 surround... all from a single black box. The LCD panel is mounted in a normal drive bay, and displays CPU load, Time, song being played, or about any system parameter you can imagine. It was also significantly cheaper than the one reviewed above, and came with all cables, and mounting hardware included. The software was a quick download.
The convenience alone makes it worth it. A quick glance at the CPU utilization meter keeps me from having to switch over on my KVM to see if my Divx or MP3s are done encoding...
Boy, do I wish it were that easy. It often doesn't matter how solid my facts are; it's a question of who you believe. If you look at any list of side effects, you'll find many with 2%, 3% incidence. To have 3 or 4 rare side effects at one time, assuming they are unrelated to one another? If you work out the probability, it's pretty low.
I'm not anyone's jailer... I can't force anyone to take anything. I do my best to give accurate information, and try to persuade people to do the right thing for themselves... but the final call is always theirs. In a way that somewhat absolves me of responsibility for the outcome, but it still pains me to see people hurt themselves.
You are correct that some drugs are over-prescribed. Antibiotics are overprescribed, and Ritalin is sometimes as well (though to be fair, if you have real ADHD, it's a wonder drug... the difference is like night and day). The problem comes in the form of doctor shopping. Do you risk your long-time relationship with a patient by outright refusal to try them on a drug? They might go shopping for another doctor who will prescribe it anyway... and then you've lost that incredibly valuable long-term relationship you've built with the patient. So the argument goes: If they are going to get the drug anyway, why don't YOU prescribe it, so you can monitor for complications, and potentially provide better care than a total stranger?
Tough choices... and sometimes driven by direct-to-patient drug company advertising.
Don't even get me started on the advertising issue...
Going to the net for general news and commentary is a great use for the internet... far better than sitting on your couch, stuffing your face, passively taking in what Tom or Peter tells you is news.
On the other hand, I sometimes take care of ppl (I work in the healthcare field) who come to see me "armed" with info off the internet; some of it wildly inaccurate.
The internet can be a good place to look for healthcare info, provided you stick to the major sites. Hitting Joe Schmoe's Geocities page about how all the evil doctors tried to kill him treating his cancer... then he found this miracle herb/crystal treatment... Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
I hate to be paternalistic and say "trust your doctor," but who else is going to help you sort the wheat from the chaff? For instance, take the PDR. Few physicians I know regularly use it; it's simply a list of drug-company inserts, where they list every possible side effect of every possible medicine. Blah... most people will not have side effects, and if they do, it'll be a common one. I've had people go online and bring in a PDR printout to support their contention that "this new drug is causing all my problems! See? All my symptoms are listed right here! Talk about an uphill battle to keep them on a good medication...
Mixed blessing to be sure, but access to information is important. I'd honestly say, that even in my field, the good of the net outweighs the bad.
When the USAF was dropping Daisy Cutters during the Gulf war, a group of Brits thought the conflict had gone nuclear... easy mistake to make if you're close enough. The size of the explosion is pretty much unmatched among conventional ordinance.
15000 lbs of blasting slurry in a big metal barrel... I can see where that might mimic a small nuclear explosion quite nicely.
Nope nope nope... was only talking about the original poster's point, regarding mass casualty.
In that instance, you DO say "He's not going to make it... but these 3 might, if we make the first guy comfortable and let him go."
It's a tough thing, choosing who lives and who dies... most medics have real trouble with it. Fortunately, most will go their entire career and never face that situation.
You are correct that any multiple victim accident has some triage. But I've yet to see a medic crew declare anyone "expectant death" when they showed ANY signs of life... nor should they in almost any typical civilian EMS call, since their wounded almost never exceed their resources. In most places, it's as easy as calling for mutual aid, or a second unit.
Slashdot Mirror
Most larger units (in my experience) have comm capability that can serve as a back up to their FUBARed GPSs, if ever the situation arose.
The smaller units, particularly these days, are often teams of special operators. They try to minimize extraneous radio communications and instead rely on what they are carrying, particularly if doing recon. These guys are also head-and-shoulders above the average soldier in ALL their skills, including Land-Nav.
Most recon-marines, SEALs, and other SF types I've met pride themselves on these skills... I'm not worried about their Land-Nav ability (one marine recon guy I knew simply refused to use his GPS unit for Land Nav, relying instead on his pace-count and compass skills. After comparing his abilities to the GPS a few times, he came to the conclusion that the GPS was no improvment, and thereafter stopped using it. I think he only kept it in his pack because they made him).
"A real problem causer would then put it on schoolbusses filled with children. Or maybe in hospitals"
Under the LOAC, those civilian deaths are on the head of the military that planted the devices. The laws of armed combat prohibit the usage of humanitarian/hospital resources for any combat purpose... doing so makes those assets legitimate military targets. For instance, US combat troops are often made to check their rifles when they enter a hospital facility (even if it's a tent in the middle of the desert), to prevent a LOAC violation, and subsequent classification of the hospital/clinic as a military target.
When the israelis were taken to task recently for blowing up some terrorist leader in the west bank (which also killed the civilians he was hiding with), you had a perfect example of this. Those civilian deaths were the responsibility of the TERRORIST, since he chose to hide his legitimate-military-target self amongst innocents... the TERRORIST bears the responsibility for those lost lives. You will note, however, that you didn't hear the mainstream press blaming the palestinians.
If Iraq uses these jammers, there will certainly be civilian deaths. The world press, being totally ignorant of the realities and legalities of combat, will undoubtedly have a fit (in fact, Saddam is probably counting on it).
Of course, you can leave the jammer in place, and let an entire longstick of bombs fall aimlessly all over the city, killing thousands... or you can fire a single missile and take care of the problem. How many people do you think will magically "forget" to plug in their Saddam-issued jammers once this starts to happen?
If this turns your stomach, welcome to the club; I don't like the thought of innocents dying any more than anybody else. Hence, I think it's best to minimize that kind of thing by being as smart about it as possible. War is an ugly business... best to end it quickly.
How about (like an AC mentioned above) some HARMs? (High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles for you non-military-buffs). Nifty little missiles, designed to take out SAM sites, and enemy radar installations.
This is always a problem with active weapons systems, and active countermeasures... you broadcast your location to anybody who cares to listen. It's just like a HAM Radio foxhunt (that's an event where somebody plants a transmitter somewhere in a city, and a bunch of directional-antenna wielding HAMs try to find it). The military version just has slightly more lethal consequences for the "fox."
Jammers are great, until the high-explosive warheads start homing in on your signal.
I know soldiers that use GPS out in the field, but they strictly use it to augment their usual mapping skills.
Land-Nav is still taught in the military, mostly because of the ubiquitous nature of Murphy's law (my GPS is broken! I'm lost!). Maps also don't get dead batteries... many older soldiers are purists, and like to rely on what works... sort of a "ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy.
This shouldn't be a problem for GPS-guided bombs either. Somehow, I suspect we anticipated this problem...
heheheh... yes, I figured I'd take a karmic hit for that post.
I have had a PS burn out... nothing spectacular, just a quick crackle, a puff of smoke, and that was the end of it.
I found myself the proud owner of one dead Fortron Source 550W power supply (almost brand new, only 250W of load on it when it burned out). I know that company makes tons of PS units, and as far as I know, they are generally considered OK hardware... my luck to get the bad one.
I typically only buy known, good, brand-name stuff, and my thinking at the time was that an oversized power supply would last longer under the same load conditions... Yeah, well... maybe not.
I don't own one of those defective UPS's; out of sheer dumb luck I dodged that bullet and bought a Belkin unit instead (the guts of it could be APC for all I know). Heh... maybe I'd better go look.
Hello, AC (an AC calling me a troll... God, I love slashdot)
I'll grant you that trademarks and copyrights are different things, but not even related? Hardly.
You, sir, are a moron.
This article needs to be on a few more websites,
I'd say change the name and thumb your nose at them... this is too valuable a service to lose to some copyright holder and their nitpicking attorneys.
Go read the pdf...
they want a permanent injunction
they want all profits from Skylink's device
they want to impound all Skylink's stuff
they then want to destroy all of Skylinks stuff
they want treble damages
they want attorney's fees
but my favorite phrase is the "trafficking in a device that is designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing the technological measure" (referring to their rolling code tech).
Cmon, ya jokers... It's a freakin' garage door opener, not an eight-ball of heroin...
Sheesh...
about some of the sources you quoted. Salon and Counterpunch are interesting reading, but fairly partisan sources of information. I would regard any sort of psychological analysis from any non-peer-reviewed sources (particularly politically-oriented ones) as suspect.
I also checked the author of the first article you listed... she has a PhD in social work, and may have a bit of a "social justice" bias. She does work with addicted people, but has no actual psychiatric credentials. I'm not saying she is unqualified, or that her opinion is not valuable... I'm just wondering if she might have a bias of her own. I would suggest that some of her analysis is a bit overwrought and presumptuous (has she every personally interviewed Bush, or subjected him to one-on-one psychoanalysis? If she has, then she has committed the most grievous breach of patient confidentiality I've ever seen). There is such a thing as reading too far into someone's actions... who wouldn't be considered mentally deficient/impaired if their every word and action were picked apart and analyzed?
Some of the common characteristics listed are also found in the B cluster of personality disorders. Grandiosity, narcissism, splitting (either friend or enemy), emotionally labile... these folks are at high risk for substance abuse. Perhaps this is a chicken/egg situation... those characteristics may predate the substance abuse, and be correlated, rather than causative. Also, to have a personality "disorder" rather than "trait," the trait must consistently interfere with normal function (legal trouble, dysfunctional relationships, loss of jobs, etc). Many perfectly functional people have cluster B traits, but sublimate them into something useful.
I don't think Bush is "splitting" or exhibiting "rigid thinking" with his good/evil comparisons. There are people who believe in shades of grey, and there are those who believe in right and wrong; I would hardly consider Bush's lack of moral relativism as evidence of mental deficiency. I personally think that "evil" is a perfectly acceptable term to describe a philosophy that advocates deliberate killing of innocents, oppression of women, summary execution of religious dissenters, and so forth.
Long-distance psychoanalysis by reading a person's speeches is dubious at best. Who knows? They might be right... maybe Bush does have a problem, but even so, I would consider him high-functioning.
though I think we may be talking about two different populations of alcoholics.
;)
I deal with substance abusers on a daily basis in my profession (medical field), and have found some common threads amongst the worst offenders. I am not a psychiatrist, but I suspect these commonalities help determine a person's likelihood of dealing with their addiction long term (and BTW, I think you are correct to say that once-an-alcoholic, always-an-alcoholic).
Many of my worst alcoholics tend to be sociopathic (though not necessarily outright sociopaths), noticeably more selfish than average, unable to take/admit responsibility, lack real insight into their own condition, and often have coexistant personality disorders. They often refuse to even consider stopping their drinking.
Patients who have insight into their own addiction, honestly acknowledge the problem, and work to solve it are not common (though they tend to do well). Many deal with their addiction through AA and religious consultation... and there is nothing wrong with that. Bush has stated that his faith in God has helped him tremendously, and I think that's from the heart.
I also tend to think that Bush has his addiction under control (If being President on 9/11 didn't make him drink...), or he is hiding it very, very well.
I'm not sure what kind of an intellectual light/heavy weight he is... I've never met him in person. He certainly doesn't claim to have any great genius, and his public speaking ability (or lack thereof) would seem to back that up. My personal suspicion? Bush is dumb... like a fox; I think it may be an act, and it has made his critics and opponents underestimate him repeatedly. Even if he is of only average intelligence, he seems to surround himself with people who ARE intelligent, and he uses them.
Compared to a man who flaunts his intelligence and considers himself an expert on many things, I'd much rather see a man able to acknowlege his own limitations and willing to consult experts appropriately. I have respect for the man who knows that he knows not... the other kind kill people in my line of work.
I'll bet even Einstein had to call a plumber when his pipes froze
*sigh* I honestly don't mean to get personal, but I have to say something here.
I love the absolute conviction with which some people attack Bush because of his past alcohol problems. So quick to judge...
Some of it is political, of course... It probably goes without saying that many of the same characters that attacked Bush for his past sins were willing to give Clinton a free pass for his (then current) transgressions.
Who doesn't have a flaw in their character? Who hasn't made a mistake? Who doesn't have a weakness? If we weed out all the imperfect people, who's left? What about the strength of character, insight, and empathy one gains by overcoming an addiction/problem? Could that not be considered an asset?
Now, I'm not saying we should tolerate felons in the oval office, or allow drunks to run the country. Someone who clearly still has an addiction, and is having problems functioning should be removed from their position of responsibility, at least until they can get it together. This goes for politicians, doctors, police officers, lawyers, school bus drivers, teachers....
Anyone can make a mistake. More than one points to a pattern of behavior; something that should be a serious red flag. However, if it's a past problem that has been dealt with, wouldn't it be reasonable to give a man a chance?
Clinton had problems (infidelity, perjury) all along, including while he was in office.
Bush is a flawed man, as we all are, yet he seems to have risen above his past problems.
In my personal non-political-scientist opinion, this is the secret to Bush's popularity; another part of his "regular guy" appeal, just like his public speaking gaffes (and be honest... who hasn't done something stupid in front of a group? I sure as hell have...).
If he was still binging on the job, I'd say you'd have a point. As it stands now, harping on the alcohol thing just makes you sound like a partisan hack with a politically-motivated compassion deficiency.
Just my gestalt... I could be wrong.
Perhaps you should study some physiology before you criticize.
The article talks about nutraceuticals (who knows what they are talking about? Sounds suspiciously like non-specific marketing speak to me) and vitamins/nutrients.
How exactly do you think they are going to deliver water-soluble vitamins through the skin? The keratinized squamous epithelium is quite water resistant. How about fat-soluble vitamins? Do you think simple diffusion is going to bring in enough to satisfy someone's RDA?
The skin is not porous enough, and is not designed for absorption... in fact, the exact opposite is true. Unless a soldier in the field suddenly develops a B-12 deficiency (something that takes years), putting a patch on his arm is not going to boost his performance one iota.
The point I was making is this: with the exception of some drugs that are effective in very small quantities (Clonidine, Nicotine, Fentanyl) you cannot deliver sufficient material this way. Giving someone some kind of "nutraceutical" is not going to change the fact that their blood sugar is low from not eating.
I hope that clarifies it for you.
the surface area of the small intestine is several hundred square meters, and it is particularly adept at absorbing the nutrients you need. The cells that line your intestinal villi and microvilli include several specific cellular pumps on their membranes, specifically so you can move particular compounds.
Your skin, aside from being a much smaller surface area, has none of these absorptive properties.
Some drugs that are effective in micro-gram quantities (like fentanyl) can be delivered trans-dermal, but nutrients cannot be delivered in a similar fashion, or at least not in any real quantity. Think about your larger-molecular-weight nutrients... no way those are going through the skin.
Going long-term without eating cannot happen... big problems if you don't feed the gut.
Critically ill hospitalized patients with long-term abdominal pathology that prevent them from eating (severe Pancreatitis, shotgun wound to the abdomen, Gastric Outlet Obstruction from cancer, Crohns Disease, etc) are at high risk for all kinds of problems. It can even happen with anorexics. They often end up on TPN (total parenteral nutrition)... AKA Intravenous feedings. Long term TPN puts you at risk for some nasty complications (see below), even aside from the risk of TPN itself (you have to have the electrolytes, osmolality, etc just right).
The current theory is that the intestinal wall needs to be "fed" by absorbing food. Like many things in the body, the gut needs exercise. If it doesn't get it, you get atrophy of the viscera, and bacterial translocation across the gut wall. This results in severe gram-negative sepsis from enteric organisms (think about intravenously injecting feces... it's about the same effect). Overwhelming gram-negative sepsis has a tremendous mortality rate... most don't survive.
Even without the above complication of not eating, the amount of material (think in terms of simple mass of nutrients) you could get from a transdermal patch is miniscule. There is no way you could absorb enough nutrients to stay alive. Even TPN requires that huge volumes be infused, since it can only be concentrated so much. Some components are not even water soluble (lipids), and have to be given as a suspension. Even worse, TPN has to be given through a central IV line (subclavian, jugular, femoral, PICC), since peripheral veins quickly become unusable from the irritation and osmotic load.
Honestly, I can't see this satisfying anyone's caloric needs.
I suspect this will be used primarily to deliver drugs... something we already do.
Sure... if 13yo premenarchal teens are your thing.
Wait! Stop! Don't reply, I don't want to know...
Yes, I know the "ol' Hippocratic Oath," having taken it in the past (my politically-correct medical school also had some new-age versions you could take in place of the original). "Do no harm" is good advice.
That particular phrase, however, is not in the hippocratic oath. The closest phrase is something to the effect of "I will give no deadly medicine, if asked, nor suggest any such counsel"
The "Do No Harm" exhortation has been variously attributed to other writings of Hippocrates, and also to the Roman physician Galen.
Just FYI.
I can see plenty of people who work around radiation buying one of these. Light, convenient, and unobtrusive... what's not to like.
Radiologists, Medical physicists, Nuc. Med guys, Orthopedic surgeons (who use lots of fluoroscopy).
I don't do very much fluoro... but I have used it in the past to straighten fractured bones and place difficult catheters. Even so... I might consider one of these.
Also, never underestimate the awesome power of "gadget lust." Even for expensive gadgets, all that's required is a wee bit of rationalization as to how it MIGHT be useful in your job.
Could even be written off as a business expense...
I'm currently building a computer for a good friend of mine, and we had planned on building in a Serial ATA RAID for fault tolerance.
Yeah, well... We had all the parts weeks ago... all except the !@X&@! serial ATA drives. Nobody had 'em, and nobody could get 'em. We also couldn't find Serial ATA mobile racks to mount the RAID drives... apparently nobody has those either.
We ended up having to use standard Parallel ATA drives (spare me the "SCSI R0XX0R5!!" flames... this is RAID on the semi-cheap, and it's not a server).
Ah well, nice to see that Somebody can finally lay their hands on these.
I remember some of the monkey-wrenching articles you could find back in the BBS days.
There was one in particular I remember called "Phone Phun", written by an individual named "Mr. Death" who lived in NYC. The article gave ruthless and detailed instructions on all kinds of things to do with pay phones... ripping them off, blowing them up, etc.
It was an amusing read, despite the incredibly antisocial behavior it espoused. Still... I sometimes wonder what cellblock "Mr Death" might be inhabiting today.
Heh... It's a wonder any of us survive to adulthood.
I use an LCD in my home entertainment PC... a black 4u rackmount Athlon that sits in my home stereo rack.
MP3s, DivX movies, DVDs, Shoutcast/Icecast streams, TV-out, 5.1 surround... all from a single black box. The LCD panel is mounted in a normal drive bay, and displays CPU load, Time, song being played, or about any system parameter you can imagine. It was also significantly cheaper than the one reviewed above, and came with all cables, and mounting hardware included. The software was a quick download.
The convenience alone makes it worth it. A quick glance at the CPU utilization meter keeps me from having to switch over on my KVM to see if my Divx or MP3s are done encoding...
Boy, do I wish it were that easy. It often doesn't matter how solid my facts are; it's a question of who you believe. If you look at any list of side effects, you'll find many with 2%, 3% incidence. To have 3 or 4 rare side effects at one time, assuming they are unrelated to one another? If you work out the probability, it's pretty low.
I'm not anyone's jailer... I can't force anyone to take anything. I do my best to give accurate information, and try to persuade people to do the right thing for themselves... but the final call is always theirs. In a way that somewhat absolves me of responsibility for the outcome, but it still pains me to see people hurt themselves.
You are correct that some drugs are over-prescribed. Antibiotics are overprescribed, and Ritalin is sometimes as well (though to be fair, if you have real ADHD, it's a wonder drug... the difference is like night and day). The problem comes in the form of doctor shopping. Do you risk your long-time relationship with a patient by outright refusal to try them on a drug? They might go shopping for another doctor who will prescribe it anyway... and then you've lost that incredibly valuable long-term relationship you've built with the patient. So the argument goes: If they are going to get the drug anyway, why don't YOU prescribe it, so you can monitor for complications, and potentially provide better care than a total stranger?
Tough choices... and sometimes driven by direct-to-patient drug company advertising.
Don't even get me started on the advertising issue...
Going to the net for general news and commentary is a great use for the internet... far better than sitting on your couch, stuffing your face, passively taking in what Tom or Peter tells you is news.
On the other hand, I sometimes take care of ppl (I work in the healthcare field) who come to see me "armed" with info off the internet; some of it wildly inaccurate.
The internet can be a good place to look for healthcare info, provided you stick to the major sites. Hitting Joe Schmoe's Geocities page about how all the evil doctors tried to kill him treating his cancer... then he found this miracle herb/crystal treatment... Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
I hate to be paternalistic and say "trust your doctor," but who else is going to help you sort the wheat from the chaff? For instance, take the PDR. Few physicians I know regularly use it; it's simply a list of drug-company inserts, where they list every possible side effect of every possible medicine. Blah... most people will not have side effects, and if they do, it'll be a common one. I've had people go online and bring in a PDR printout to support their contention that "this new drug is causing all my problems! See? All my symptoms are listed right here! Talk about an uphill battle to keep them on a good medication...
Mixed blessing to be sure, but access to information is important. I'd honestly say, that even in my field, the good of the net outweighs the bad.
When the USAF was dropping Daisy Cutters during the Gulf war, a group of Brits thought the conflict had gone nuclear... easy mistake to make if you're close enough. The size of the explosion is pretty much unmatched among conventional ordinance.
15000 lbs of blasting slurry in a big metal barrel... I can see where that might mimic a small nuclear explosion quite nicely.
Nope nope nope... was only talking about the original poster's point, regarding mass casualty.
In that instance, you DO say "He's not going to make it... but these 3 might, if we make the first guy comfortable and let him go."
It's a tough thing, choosing who lives and who dies... most medics have real trouble with it. Fortunately, most will go their entire career and never face that situation.
You are correct that any multiple victim accident has some triage. But I've yet to see a medic crew declare anyone "expectant death" when they showed ANY signs of life... nor should they in almost any typical civilian EMS call, since their wounded almost never exceed their resources. In most places, it's as easy as calling for mutual aid, or a second unit.