Google offers cycle directions where I am as well (Canada) and my big problem is that I ride a road bike, and it often picks gravel roads and dirt paths. I love paved bike paths, but riding on gravel/dirt/mud is quite difficult when your tires are only about 2cm wide or less.
Canadian bills aren't all green now. $5 is blue, $10 is purple, $20 is green, $50 is red, $100 is brown, $1000 is pink (I believe, been a while since I've seen one) and when we used to have a $1 it was dark green and $2 was orange makes it much easier to tell denominations at a glance when looking through your wallet.
Looking at things about the Lemote Yeeloong, I see that it is designed to use fully open source software and firmware. But I don't see anything saying the hardware is open source. In fact it appears that the manufacturer ended up having to license the instruction set from MIPS. So no, you can't actually get an open source computer. Only the software, not the hardware qualifies. And as for "absolutely open in all ways"... that's what we're talking about here. It's ridiculous to go as far as making your own toilet paper to avoid patents, while caving and using a computer that isn't fully open.
It's easy enough to use completely open source software, but good luck using only open source hardware and firmware... I honestly don't think that's possible.
Toilets have been around long enough that you should by now be able to get one that is entirely public domain technology. I don't see this as an issue.
However I think he will have trouble with almost any technology. say goodbye to mobile phones, computers (I don't think there is any such thing as a fully open source hardware computer), probably stuck without many other things I haven't even thought of...
And this is somewhere I strongly disagree with you. In a world where many many fraudsters try to pass off quack medicine as real, and where many people are likely to use one of these instead of a real treatment, there is major harm done by allowing medicines that simply do not work to be sold as medicine. If you claim your product has an effect, you had better be able to back that up with proof. It's really just truth in advertising laws (something North America is sadly lacking)
will regulators at the FDA... be on board with it?
What does the FDA care where the money came from? That's not their job. The FDA is there to make sure that the end product is safe and effective, they shouldn't care who paid for the development of it.
I saw a sign at a glacier tourist stop talking about how the glaciers were melting and how bad this was because of all the things downstream that depended on the water flow from those glaciers... I had a good laugh trying to figure out how anything downstream would have water if the glaciers WERN'T melting...
What's the public policy analogue of jumping out of the pot, though...
Emigration. Problem is that it's getting to the point that it could possibly take more technology than we have currently available to emigrate to a place that is actually "outside of the pot" (ie. a spacecraft capable of taking us somewhere habitable) Back to the part about "if it is actually possible to do"
Always choosing "the challenger", regardless of the characteristics of either the challenger or the incumbent, provides no incentive for politicians to do what the population wants. The only thing that could cause politicians to follow the will of the people is if they believe that the route to staying in power is to do what the electorate wants. Your suggestion takes away that incentive, therefore making it beneficial for the politicians to ignore what their constituents want, and act solely in their own best interests. Now it could be argued that this is already the case, and that all politicians are corrupt, but if that is the case then your voting strategy at best still provides no benefit.
You can't choose not to pay your taxes, but you can choose to vote for a different candidate with different policies. This isn't really that different a case, we call it "voting with your wallet" when you change to a different company for a service, so obviously we see some form of similarity to casting a vote as you would for a politician. I think the bigger difference is that the actions of an idiot store clerk taint the whole chain of stores, and yet the actions of an idiot government employee only usually taint our view of that single government department, not the government as a whole. As such we don't hold the politicians responsible when a front line civil servant screws up, but we do hold the board of a company responsible when one of their front line employees screw up. Is that reasonable? and can we do better? Would democracy not be better off if we treated it like we treat those commercial transactions? If an action by an employee is enough to make us switch companies in the commercial world, should not a similar action by a civil servant be cause for us to switch which candidate we vote for?
My comparison was not specifically about companies with a monopoly, but any other place where you do have such a choice. This does however bring up an interesting comparison. People stay with {insert hated ISP here} because of a monopoly position where there is no choice. Do we consider government to be a monopoly position? Sure the government as a whole is the only one you're going to get, but at least in theory you have the ability to change the administration by voting. It doesn't change every employee, but it does change the ones who control how things are done, and in the end, it can change any/every individual down to the front line if they don't follow the policies put in place by the upper levels (the ones we can vote for). So at least in theory this shouldn't be much different from choosing one fast food joint over another, or one car dealer over another (with the exception of scale) and yet people blame "the police" or "the IRS" or "insert government agency here" when they have a bad interaction with an individual in said group, but feel powerless to do anything about it, whereas in the comercial world they blame "walmart" or "mcdonalds" or "insert company name here" and often do take their business elsewhere. Would not democracy as a whole be improved if people did the same with government interactions, if it pisses you off enough that you'd take your commercial business to another store, maybe it should piss you off enough to take your government vote to a different candidate?
I tend to hear things like "the customer service rep at ____ was an idiot! I'm never shopping there again!" I rarely however hear "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never voting ______ again!" So obviously we think of these things differently somehow. I'm not saying that this is the way things SHOULD be, but I think as a society we hold companies accountable for their worker's actions a lot more than we hold governments accountable for the actions of the civil servants.
It actually makes sense, this is entirely about "standards essentials" patents. which is what Motorola/Samsung/Google are using to defend themselves against Apples "rounded corners" and "search everything" and "slide to unlock" patents. If Apple can convince people to not use specific patents for this purpose, while still allowing the use of other patents in exactly the same way, they can effectively disarm their opponents and continue their war without worrying about any counter attacks.
This was my thought as welll, when I did a google image search for my name it came up with several hundred results, 2 of which were me, neither of which were nice clear head shots useable to identify me. So regardless of the other implications, I'm not even sure how effective this could possibly be.
My post was (mostly) in jest... but it is not a problem for a proper firewall to block a specific IP or range of IPs regardless of port, and once you do, you know the router won't be able to change which ones it uses because it won't be getting updates to tell it to do so. (and the cisco router update server being blocked is unlikely to negatively impact anything else a customer is trying to do online)
I guess you now need to put a firewall in front of your router.... (or buy a more consumer friendly device)
Of course maybe I'm just seeing this from a skewed perspective in my part of the world, but I suspect that the market for stand alone consumer grade routers has probably plummeted recently. All consumer internet packages from any of the major carriers include a "gateway" device instead of a simple modem, these include firewall, NAT, and wired and wireless routing. This means the only people who still have a need for a dedicated router are the more tech-savy people, exactly the people who would be likely to use a router with an open firmware or such.
the word "code" is used differently in the pre-hospital world from in the hospital... in prehospital (at least around here) it referes exclusively to cardiac arrest. That doesn't mean that repiratory arrest doesn't get the same level of response, we just don't call it the same thing. Right now this makes it 15 minutes, for rabbits, in a lab. tomorrow it could make it 20 or 30 (I sure wouldn't count on much more than that) for people in the field. Response times of course vary, in the city the target is under 6 minutes for this sort of thing, and while yes, it does mean we are often "too late" for a perfect outcome, there is only so much you can do, and every little bit helps. When we have a call like this right now (without this option) despite the 5 minutes before brain damage, we don't show up, look at our watch and say "oh well, it was 7 minutes, no point in trying", we do everything we can, and either get an airway quickly, or get them to the hospital while continuing to try. We don't do this just for the fun of it, we do it because despite all this some of those people will survive. I'm also not suggesting this take the place of current procedures, just that it be one more trick up the sleave of the crew that shows up in case the other procedures don't work out. Will it save everyone? definitely not! will it save someone? hopefully some day it will.
Cyanosis is not cyanide poisoning. and is in fact not even related. the "cyan" part of the word does not come from the word cyanide, it comes from kyanos which is the greek word for blue. and cyanosis in fact is the medical term for your skin turning blue or purple due to lack of oxygen. So yes, this is a treatment for cyanosis.
Problem is that ECMO, while technically better than this process, still involves a very large, complex, and expensive machine. this breakthrough would require IV supplies and some bags of fluid. Basically this is something that (unlike the ECMO) could be administered by a paramedic in the field. It won't keep you alive in the long term, but it might just extend someone's life long enough to get them to emergency surgery, or on to one of those large, complex, and expensive machines.
It isn't useful tomorrow, but it's still a major step toward being useful. And this isn't about codes, in a code the heart isn't beating, and that's the primary concern, without the heart, nothing else really matters. This is more for a severely blocked airway that can't be quickly cleared. As for what you can do in 10 minutes in the field, you can get a couple of 16 gauge IVs started each one capable of over 200ml/min, and as for "properly stored"... that depends. some fluids don't require any special storage procedures other than "throw out on expiry date" (I don't know what this particular fluid will require) Any decent ambulance crew can have 2 IVs running and being pressure infused in under 10 minutes. This won't keep someone going long term, but anything that gives you a few more minutes to get to that trauma surgeon is a good thing. This sounds very promising, it's still a long way from being field ready, but all breakthroughs have to start somewhere.
You see no problem with pumping a human being full of a non-blood liqued at a rapid rate?
If the volume is mainly oxygen and exhalation of CO2 still occurs at a comparable rate, not really. That's making an assumption about the density of the foam I suppose.
And there's the problem. there is no exhalation of CO2 in this case. We're talking about a situation in which, for whatever reason, there is no gas exchange whatsoever, no intake of O2, no elimination of CO2. This breakthrough solves half of that problem (the introduction of O2) however it does not address the removal of CO2. So you are stuck in a situation where you are adding volume, but not removing any. Now we can always drain blood easily enough, so we can stop the person from exploding, but you just dilute the bloodstream which causes you all sorts of other issues.
The human brain is quite dependent on oxygen, and starts to have major problems very quickly without it. This breakthrough could some day provide a way to prolong life long enough to get someone in to emergency surgery. But it will take at least one more breakthrough to be at a point where this could keep anyone alive for any prolonged period.
Though I suppose if what they wished to learn was how long it could keep one alive in the event that the person is unable to breathe at all...
This is likely the case. Research like this is ultimately done to help humans, and the risk of a human suddenly being stuck in an nitrogen filled box is significantly lower than the risk of a human having their airway blocked in such a way that it can not quickly be unblocked.
I suspect that surviving on this machine would not be pleasant, intuitive, or even possible in the long term. However the human brain is so sensitive to lack of oxygen that anything that can prolong the oxygenation enough to allow emergency surgery to correct the problem is an amazing leap forward.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding is that the $1000 is still in circulation, just rare. I know last time I saw one the banks wanted you to call ahead to reserve them.
Google offers cycle directions where I am as well (Canada) and my big problem is that I ride a road bike, and it often picks gravel roads and dirt paths. I love paved bike paths, but riding on gravel/dirt/mud is quite difficult when your tires are only about 2cm wide or less.
Canadian bills aren't all green now. $5 is blue, $10 is purple, $20 is green, $50 is red, $100 is brown, $1000 is pink (I believe, been a while since I've seen one) and when we used to have a $1 it was dark green and $2 was orange
makes it much easier to tell denominations at a glance when looking through your wallet.
Looking at things about the Lemote Yeeloong, I see that it is designed to use fully open source software and firmware. But I don't see anything saying the hardware is open source. In fact it appears that the manufacturer ended up having to license the instruction set from MIPS. So no, you can't actually get an open source computer. Only the software, not the hardware qualifies.
And as for "absolutely open in all ways"... that's what we're talking about here. It's ridiculous to go as far as making your own toilet paper to avoid patents, while caving and using a computer that isn't fully open.
It's easy enough to use completely open source software, but good luck using only open source hardware and firmware... I honestly don't think that's possible.
Toilets have been around long enough that you should by now be able to get one that is entirely public domain technology. I don't see this as an issue.
However I think he will have trouble with almost any technology. say goodbye to mobile phones, computers (I don't think there is any such thing as a fully open source hardware computer), probably stuck without many other things I haven't even thought of...
And this is somewhere I strongly disagree with you. In a world where many many fraudsters try to pass off quack medicine as real, and where many people are likely to use one of these instead of a real treatment, there is major harm done by allowing medicines that simply do not work to be sold as medicine.
If you claim your product has an effect, you had better be able to back that up with proof. It's really just truth in advertising laws (something North America is sadly lacking)
will regulators at the FDA ... be on board with it?
What does the FDA care where the money came from? That's not their job. The FDA is there to make sure that the end product is safe and effective, they shouldn't care who paid for the development of it.
I saw a sign at a glacier tourist stop talking about how the glaciers were melting and how bad this was because of all the things downstream that depended on the water flow from those glaciers... I had a good laugh trying to figure out how anything downstream would have water if the glaciers WERN'T melting...
What's the public policy analogue of jumping out of the pot, though...
Emigration.
Problem is that it's getting to the point that it could possibly take more technology than we have currently available to emigrate to a place that is actually "outside of the pot" (ie. a spacecraft capable of taking us somewhere habitable)
Back to the part about "if it is actually possible to do"
Always choosing "the challenger", regardless of the characteristics of either the challenger or the incumbent, provides no incentive for politicians to do what the population wants. The only thing that could cause politicians to follow the will of the people is if they believe that the route to staying in power is to do what the electorate wants. Your suggestion takes away that incentive, therefore making it beneficial for the politicians to ignore what their constituents want, and act solely in their own best interests.
Now it could be argued that this is already the case, and that all politicians are corrupt, but if that is the case then your voting strategy at best still provides no benefit.
You can't choose not to pay your taxes, but you can choose to vote for a different candidate with different policies. This isn't really that different a case, we call it "voting with your wallet" when you change to a different company for a service, so obviously we see some form of similarity to casting a vote as you would for a politician.
I think the bigger difference is that the actions of an idiot store clerk taint the whole chain of stores, and yet the actions of an idiot government employee only usually taint our view of that single government department, not the government as a whole. As such we don't hold the politicians responsible when a front line civil servant screws up, but we do hold the board of a company responsible when one of their front line employees screw up. Is that reasonable? and can we do better?
Would democracy not be better off if we treated it like we treat those commercial transactions? If an action by an employee is enough to make us switch companies in the commercial world, should not a similar action by a civil servant be cause for us to switch which candidate we vote for?
My comparison was not specifically about companies with a monopoly, but any other place where you do have such a choice. This does however bring up an interesting comparison. People stay with {insert hated ISP here} because of a monopoly position where there is no choice. Do we consider government to be a monopoly position? Sure the government as a whole is the only one you're going to get, but at least in theory you have the ability to change the administration by voting. It doesn't change every employee, but it does change the ones who control how things are done, and in the end, it can change any/every individual down to the front line if they don't follow the policies put in place by the upper levels (the ones we can vote for).
So at least in theory this shouldn't be much different from choosing one fast food joint over another, or one car dealer over another (with the exception of scale) and yet people blame "the police" or "the IRS" or "insert government agency here" when they have a bad interaction with an individual in said group, but feel powerless to do anything about it, whereas in the comercial world they blame "walmart" or "mcdonalds" or "insert company name here" and often do take their business elsewhere. Would not democracy as a whole be improved if people did the same with government interactions, if it pisses you off enough that you'd take your commercial business to another store, maybe it should piss you off enough to take your government vote to a different candidate?
I tend to hear things like "the customer service rep at ____ was an idiot! I'm never shopping there again!" I rarely however hear "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never voting ______ again!"
So obviously we think of these things differently somehow. I'm not saying that this is the way things SHOULD be, but I think as a society we hold companies accountable for their worker's actions a lot more than we hold governments accountable for the actions of the civil servants.
It actually makes sense, this is entirely about "standards essentials" patents. which is what Motorola/Samsung/Google are using to defend themselves against Apples "rounded corners" and "search everything" and "slide to unlock" patents. If Apple can convince people to not use specific patents for this purpose, while still allowing the use of other patents in exactly the same way, they can effectively disarm their opponents and continue their war without worrying about any counter attacks.
This was my thought as welll, when I did a google image search for my name it came up with several hundred results, 2 of which were me, neither of which were nice clear head shots useable to identify me. So regardless of the other implications, I'm not even sure how effective this could possibly be.
My post was (mostly) in jest... but it is not a problem for a proper firewall to block a specific IP or range of IPs regardless of port, and once you do, you know the router won't be able to change which ones it uses because it won't be getting updates to tell it to do so. (and the cisco router update server being blocked is unlikely to negatively impact anything else a customer is trying to do online)
I'm not sure that's even officially allowed where I live. and if not, then it's unlikely that anyone other than true geeks will be doing it.
I guess you now need to put a firewall in front of your router.... (or buy a more consumer friendly device)
Of course maybe I'm just seeing this from a skewed perspective in my part of the world, but I suspect that the market for stand alone consumer grade routers has probably plummeted recently. All consumer internet packages from any of the major carriers include a "gateway" device instead of a simple modem, these include firewall, NAT, and wired and wireless routing. This means the only people who still have a need for a dedicated router are the more tech-savy people, exactly the people who would be likely to use a router with an open firmware or such.
the word "code" is used differently in the pre-hospital world from in the hospital... in prehospital (at least around here) it referes exclusively to cardiac arrest.
That doesn't mean that repiratory arrest doesn't get the same level of response, we just don't call it the same thing.
Right now this makes it 15 minutes, for rabbits, in a lab. tomorrow it could make it 20 or 30 (I sure wouldn't count on much more than that) for people in the field. Response times of course vary, in the city the target is under 6 minutes for this sort of thing, and while yes, it does mean we are often "too late" for a perfect outcome, there is only so much you can do, and every little bit helps. When we have a call like this right now (without this option) despite the 5 minutes before brain damage, we don't show up, look at our watch and say "oh well, it was 7 minutes, no point in trying", we do everything we can, and either get an airway quickly, or get them to the hospital while continuing to try. We don't do this just for the fun of it, we do it because despite all this some of those people will survive.
I'm also not suggesting this take the place of current procedures, just that it be one more trick up the sleave of the crew that shows up in case the other procedures don't work out. Will it save everyone? definitely not! will it save someone? hopefully some day it will.
Cyanosis is not cyanide poisoning. and is in fact not even related. the "cyan" part of the word does not come from the word cyanide, it comes from kyanos which is the greek word for blue. and cyanosis in fact is the medical term for your skin turning blue or purple due to lack of oxygen. So yes, this is a treatment for cyanosis.
Problem is that ECMO, while technically better than this process, still involves a very large, complex, and expensive machine. this breakthrough would require IV supplies and some bags of fluid. Basically this is something that (unlike the ECMO) could be administered by a paramedic in the field. It won't keep you alive in the long term, but it might just extend someone's life long enough to get them to emergency surgery, or on to one of those large, complex, and expensive machines.
It isn't useful tomorrow, but it's still a major step toward being useful. And this isn't about codes, in a code the heart isn't beating, and that's the primary concern, without the heart, nothing else really matters. This is more for a severely blocked airway that can't be quickly cleared.
As for what you can do in 10 minutes in the field, you can get a couple of 16 gauge IVs started each one capable of over 200ml/min, and as for "properly stored"... that depends. some fluids don't require any special storage procedures other than "throw out on expiry date" (I don't know what this particular fluid will require) Any decent ambulance crew can have 2 IVs running and being pressure infused in under 10 minutes.
This won't keep someone going long term, but anything that gives you a few more minutes to get to that trauma surgeon is a good thing.
This sounds very promising, it's still a long way from being field ready, but all breakthroughs have to start somewhere.
You see no problem with pumping a human being full of a non-blood liqued at a rapid rate?
If the volume is mainly oxygen and exhalation of CO2 still occurs at a comparable rate, not really. That's making an assumption about the density of the foam I suppose.
And there's the problem. there is no exhalation of CO2 in this case. We're talking about a situation in which, for whatever reason, there is no gas exchange whatsoever, no intake of O2, no elimination of CO2. This breakthrough solves half of that problem (the introduction of O2) however it does not address the removal of CO2. So you are stuck in a situation where you are adding volume, but not removing any. Now we can always drain blood easily enough, so we can stop the person from exploding, but you just dilute the bloodstream which causes you all sorts of other issues.
The human brain is quite dependent on oxygen, and starts to have major problems very quickly without it. This breakthrough could some day provide a way to prolong life long enough to get someone in to emergency surgery. But it will take at least one more breakthrough to be at a point where this could keep anyone alive for any prolonged period.
Though I suppose if what they wished to learn was how long it could keep one alive in the event that the person is unable to breathe at all...
This is likely the case. Research like this is ultimately done to help humans, and the risk of a human suddenly being stuck in an nitrogen filled box is significantly lower than the risk of a human having their airway blocked in such a way that it can not quickly be unblocked.
I suspect that surviving on this machine would not be pleasant, intuitive, or even possible in the long term. However the human brain is so sensitive to lack of oxygen that anything that can prolong the oxygenation enough to allow emergency surgery to correct the problem is an amazing leap forward.