I should mention that everything that could possibly get lost inside a patient is radiopaque. That is, it'll show up on an x-ray. In the current system, in the extremely rare case that you can't find something, you can take a film to see where it is. So again, this doesn't really give you anything new except a higher price tag.
I was a Navy operating room tech. As a junior enlisted, I yelled at an officer exactly one time: when a new anesthesiology resident saw a sponge on the floor and helpfully threw it away in his own trashcan (which the nurses and techs aren't responsible for). At the end of the case when the count was off, the surgeon proceeded to pitch a royal conniption - and justifiably so. We tore the room apart, went through the trash, went through the biohazard trash (filled with bloody stuff), dismantled every piece of equipment that it could possibly have fallen into, and generally panicked. After about 20 minutes of frantic searching, the new guy walked in and asked us very sympathetically what was wrong. He went white as we told him and ran to fetch his garbage, thus rescuing us from The Wratch Of The Surgeon.
We asked him to please not do that again.
But this barcode scheme wouldn't have helped. We already knew we were missing exactly one sponge, and it wouldn't have told us that it had been taken from the surgical suite. As much as I hate to say it, this is well beyond the point of diminishing returns and may even be more dangerous than the current system. This will require more labor, and thus either cause surgeries to take longer (exposing patients to risks of longer anesthesia) or raise surgical headount and costs and thereby make medical care even harder to get for some people. At some point, you have to say "the current level of risk is just about as good as we can get it" and move on.
You can get risk levels arbitrarily low given an infinite amount of resources. We don't have infinite resources.
I don't see the problem in citing Wikipedia if you have verified that the information is correct according to the provided source.
I do. If you can verify that the original source says something, then just cite that source directly. If you can't verify that the original source agrees with it, then you shouldn't be citing Wikipedia anyway.
This is so damned funny because in the past 20 years, I can't remember any of the programming language.
I remember way more than I care to. It's been over 20 years since I've touched one but I still remember the machine language opcodes for printing a character to the screen. BASIC became too slow after a while, and someone told me assembler was faster. Unfortunately, it was about 6 months before I got my first real assembler, rather than typing mnemonics into a monitor program and praying that I'd calculated my jumps correctly in advance.
I miss those days in a way - the sheer wide-open sense of adventure was amazing - but you'd have to pry Python from my cold dead hard drive to get me away from it.
Oh, and COMAL? We don't say that in polite company.
See that "Cite this article" link on the left column of Wikipedia?
How well does that work when the articles get deleted? If Wikipedia was append-only, sure, but entire articles go missing all too often to ever reliably cite.
Students should definitely use Wikipedia as a good place to find real sources. Of course, if they actually cite it, they're freakin' insane and should go back and re-learn how to research.
I did something similar but used self-modifying code so that I could have a user input a function and that graph that function over a range.
That seems pretty reasonable. Then you could let BASIC interpret the function instead of having to parse it yourself, and it'd run at "full speed" (in quotes because it was still glacially slow).
I think you misremember this. Amiga had 8-bit sound (4 channel.)
Strictly speaking, you're both wrong. Someone noticed in later years that the Amiga had a 6-bit volume control and started shipping drivers that treated the volume as the top 6 bits of a 14-bit output. That was such a forehead-slapping "why didn't I think of that?!?" moment for me.
I never programmed for a C64 I lived in a farming community and didn't know what a computer was until I was about 10 at which time I got a brand new 386.
I asked for a BB gun and got a Timex ZX-81. I don't know whether to thank my parents or disown them.
Anyways I've never programmed for a C64 but it looks an awful lot like the assembly I hacked away when I was in school. Is it similar?
Not in the slightest. It was purely interpreted, as in whenever you typed in a line of code, the BASIC line reader did only the slightest of compilation ("tokenization"). Whenever you ran the program, then the BASIC KERNAL (yes, that's spelled correctly) read each token in turn and operated on it.
I miss the fun hacks such as possibly the world's goofiest self-modifying code. Say that memory location 0x10 contained the number of keypresses in the keyboard input buffer, and those actual values were stored in 0x11 and up.
10 CLS 20 PRINT "20 GOTO 150" 30 PRINT 40 PRINT "RUN" 50 PRINT 60 POKE 16, 7 70 POKE 17, [value of "up arrow" key] 80 POKE 18, [value of "up arrow" key] 90 POKE 19, [value of "up arrow" key] 100 POKE 20, [value of "up arrow" key] 110 POKE 21, [value of "up arrow" key] 120 POKE 22, [value of "enter" key] 130 POKE 23, [value of "enter" key] 140 STOP 150 PRINT "HOW DID I GET HERE?"
Here's what it did:
10 cleared the screen.
20-50 just printed those statements, which look a lot like BASIC statements. After hitting line 150 later, the contents of the screen look like:
20 GOTO 150
RUN
STOP [cursor here]
60 says "the user pressed seven keys since the last time you checked"
70-130 emulate the user navigating to the top of the screen.
140 stops program execution. Now the computer is in "interactive command line mode" and interprets all of those key presses we buffered.
The "up arrow" keys move the cursor up to the top of the screen.
The first "enter" causes the BASIC interpreter to say "hey, new contents of line 20! replace what's already there with this." Then it prints "OK" and moves the cursor down again: to the first character of the "RUN" line.
The second "enter" causes the "RUN" line to be executed, which again clears the screen and executes the new line 20, which skips to the final PRINT statement.
You kids and your fancy hashtables and databases and eval statements. Well, we wrote our own half-assed eval statements and we liked it that way. Get off my lawn!
I'm also an atheist and an environmentalist, as are most of the people here. Well, there are a lot of lesbians, too, at least according to the Census Bureau factfinder website (I have no idea how they found that out, but it's true, for I bought my house from a couple).
OK, for those of us trying to follow along at home, WTF does any of that have to do with the subject at hand? I'm a straight Christian evil conservative and I also like DNA and would vote to name a street after him.
And should a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease be mandatory anyway?
Yes, when that STD is potentially fatal and an effective vaccine exists. This isn't gonorrhea where someone gets a shot and they're all over it a couple days later. With HPV, women typically don't know they have it until their doctor finds some precancerous test results.
But beyond that, the logic is this: if it's optional, only the "bad" girls will get it. Suzie Goodparents won't get it because "she'd never do that kind of thing". Unfortunately, recent studies say there's a 90% chance that Suzie will be doing "those things" anyway, and therefore a pretty strong likelihood that she'll pick up HPV at some point. But even if she really is pure as the driven snow, maybe Suzie will pick up a boyfriend who acts good for the parents but decides he's gonna get himself some one night. Bam. Nice little Suzie is now carrying a virus that may eventually kill her.
The latter case is the reason why I'll have my daughters vaccinated when the time comes. As a father, I'm contractually obligated to believe that my girls will be more interested in academics than boys, so I'm not worried about the consequences of the bad decisions My Good Kids will never make. I just don't wanna see them dying because of date rape, that's all, not when it can be prevented with a vaccination.
And that burden of proof is both high and onerous, because we were born with most of what we need to survive, and augementations to that I want evaluated very heavily before just assuming we've figured out something better than a few million years of evolution.
No one's advocating giving you a new immune system. They're advocating teaching your immune system how to deal with the really nasty stuff before it's literally do-or-die. For vast majority of our evolutionary tree, we ate raw meat. Do you really want to go back to the old ways, cooked food being "new" and artificial and all?
Science is awesome, I love it to death
No you don't. You pay lip service to loving it, but when your back's against the wall, you fall back to incredulity. Too bad.
Silent Hill 4's "Room of Angel" is one of the most hauntingly beautiful songs I've ever heard, video game or not. I actually bought the game's soundtrack for that one song.
She can name the top issues for every county in the state and what she's done to try to address them.
And I can name what I've done to try to address the issues facing Phoenix: nothing. You're not saying much. According to my in-laws living in Buffalo, she hasn't done jack for anyone outside NYC. Of course, since most of New York's population is in NYC, there's nothing to be gained by courting people outside it.
Of course, w3schools is a site for web designers, rather than people who blindly use whichever browser is on their system.
Exactly, and it's our job to remind people of that fact when they try to dismiss it as "just a site for techies and not what real people use":
"People who do this stuff for a living using Firefox more than any other single browser. Don't you want to use what the professionals use, especially since it's free?"
For the developer who wants to spend his time developing applications rather than worrying about memory management then.Net is a great framework.
Cross-platform, garbage collected languages existed long before.NET rolled around. Is it really that much better than Python? And now that Java is FOSS, is there truly still a niche for C# on Linux? Hint: "no" works well for both.
You could open up a window on your PC, see a list of all the messages in your voicemail box, including (if the Caller ID was available) the number, the time and date the message was left, message length
I bought a copy of substantially the same thing for my Amiga in 1996. Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing when these guys supposedly "invented" the idea.
The cops arrived shortly thereafter and caught the thief in the act. He would not have made that call on his phone.
To really make that story resonate on Slashdot, you should have framed it as he was trying to anonymously expose a corrupt politician. That goes over better here.
Slashdot Mirror
I should mention that everything that could possibly get lost inside a patient is radiopaque. That is, it'll show up on an x-ray. In the current system, in the extremely rare case that you can't find something, you can take a film to see where it is. So again, this doesn't really give you anything new except a higher price tag.
It wasn't emulating anything - it was using the built-in hardware in an expected way to act as a true 14-bit DAC.
I was a Navy operating room tech. As a junior enlisted, I yelled at an officer exactly one time: when a new anesthesiology resident saw a sponge on the floor and helpfully threw it away in his own trashcan (which the nurses and techs aren't responsible for). At the end of the case when the count was off, the surgeon proceeded to pitch a royal conniption - and justifiably so. We tore the room apart, went through the trash, went through the biohazard trash (filled with bloody stuff), dismantled every piece of equipment that it could possibly have fallen into, and generally panicked. After about 20 minutes of frantic searching, the new guy walked in and asked us very sympathetically what was wrong. He went white as we told him and ran to fetch his garbage, thus rescuing us from The Wratch Of The Surgeon.
We asked him to please not do that again.
But this barcode scheme wouldn't have helped. We already knew we were missing exactly one sponge, and it wouldn't have told us that it had been taken from the surgical suite. As much as I hate to say it, this is well beyond the point of diminishing returns and may even be more dangerous than the current system. This will require more labor, and thus either cause surgeries to take longer (exposing patients to risks of longer anesthesia) or raise surgical headount and costs and thereby make medical care even harder to get for some people. At some point, you have to say "the current level of risk is just about as good as we can get it" and move on.
You can get risk levels arbitrarily low given an infinite amount of resources. We don't have infinite resources.
I do. If you can verify that the original source says something, then just cite that source directly. If you can't verify that the original source agrees with it, then you shouldn't be citing Wikipedia anyway.
I remember way more than I care to. It's been over 20 years since I've touched one but I still remember the machine language opcodes for printing a character to the screen. BASIC became too slow after a while, and someone told me assembler was faster. Unfortunately, it was about 6 months before I got my first real assembler, rather than typing mnemonics into a monitor program and praying that I'd calculated my jumps correctly in advance.
I miss those days in a way - the sheer wide-open sense of adventure was amazing - but you'd have to pry Python from my cold dead hard drive to get me away from it.
Oh, and COMAL? We don't say that in polite company.
How well does that work when the articles get deleted? If Wikipedia was append-only, sure, but entire articles go missing all too often to ever reliably cite.
Students should definitely use Wikipedia as a good place to find real sources. Of course, if they actually cite it, they're freakin' insane and should go back and re-learn how to research.
That seems pretty reasonable. Then you could let BASIC interpret the function instead of having to parse it yourself, and it'd run at "full speed" (in quotes because it was still glacially slow).
Strictly speaking, you're both wrong. Someone noticed in later years that the Amiga had a 6-bit volume control and started shipping drivers that treated the volume as the top 6 bits of a 14-bit output. That was such a forehead-slapping "why didn't I think of that?!?" moment for me.
I asked for a BB gun and got a Timex ZX-81. I don't know whether to thank my parents or disown them.
Anyways I've never programmed for a C64 but it looks an awful lot like the assembly I hacked away when I was in school. Is it similar?Not in the slightest. It was purely interpreted, as in whenever you typed in a line of code, the BASIC line reader did only the slightest of compilation ("tokenization"). Whenever you ran the program, then the BASIC KERNAL (yes, that's spelled correctly) read each token in turn and operated on it.
Pretty much. I was too busy being irritated that it didn't have a SOUND or GRAPHICS or DRAW statement to notice the goofy names.
I miss the fun hacks such as possibly the world's goofiest self-modifying code. Say that memory location 0x10 contained the number of keypresses in the keyboard input buffer, and those actual values were stored in 0x11 and up.
Here's what it did:
You kids and your fancy hashtables and databases and eval statements. Well, we wrote our own half-assed eval statements and we liked it that way. Get off my lawn!
OK, for those of us trying to follow along at home, WTF does any of that have to do with the subject at hand? I'm a straight Christian evil conservative and I also like DNA and would vote to name a street after him.
You should have marked that "NSFS" (scientists). That document almost made my head explode.
Yes, when that STD is potentially fatal and an effective vaccine exists. This isn't gonorrhea where someone gets a shot and they're all over it a couple days later. With HPV, women typically don't know they have it until their doctor finds some precancerous test results.
But beyond that, the logic is this: if it's optional, only the "bad" girls will get it. Suzie Goodparents won't get it because "she'd never do that kind of thing". Unfortunately, recent studies say there's a 90% chance that Suzie will be doing "those things" anyway, and therefore a pretty strong likelihood that she'll pick up HPV at some point. But even if she really is pure as the driven snow, maybe Suzie will pick up a boyfriend who acts good for the parents but decides he's gonna get himself some one night. Bam. Nice little Suzie is now carrying a virus that may eventually kill her.
The latter case is the reason why I'll have my daughters vaccinated when the time comes. As a father, I'm contractually obligated to believe that my girls will be more interested in academics than boys, so I'm not worried about the consequences of the bad decisions My Good Kids will never make. I just don't wanna see them dying because of date rape, that's all, not when it can be prevented with a vaccination.
No one's advocating giving you a new immune system. They're advocating teaching your immune system how to deal with the really nasty stuff before it's literally do-or-die. For vast majority of our evolutionary tree, we ate raw meat. Do you really want to go back to the old ways, cooked food being "new" and artificial and all?
Science is awesome, I love it to deathNo you don't. You pay lip service to loving it, but when your back's against the wall, you fall back to incredulity. Too bad.
"new" is not ALWAYS "improved".And "old" is not always "better".
Silent Hill 4's "Room of Angel" is one of the most hauntingly beautiful songs I've ever heard, video game or not. I actually bought the game's soundtrack for that one song.
And I can name what I've done to try to address the issues facing Phoenix: nothing. You're not saying much. According to my in-laws living in Buffalo, she hasn't done jack for anyone outside NYC. Of course, since most of New York's population is in NYC, there's nothing to be gained by courting people outside it.
Exactly, and it's our job to remind people of that fact when they try to dismiss it as "just a site for techies and not what real people use":
"People who do this stuff for a living using Firefox more than any other single browser. Don't you want to use what the professionals use, especially since it's free?"
I was under the impression that Bittorrent was rather popular with the kids.
There may have been other cross-platform, garbage collected languages beforeOn Linux, many of them. Since the question at hand involves Gnome software, that seems pretty relevant.
Cross-platform, garbage collected languages existed long before .NET rolled around. Is it really that much better than Python? And now that Java is FOSS, is there truly still a niche for C# on Linux? Hint: "no" works well for both.
Did that make sense to you when you wrote it?
TFA says the debate will be hosted at BlogTalkRadio. Fine, but WTF is up with the meta tags on that page? Representative samples include:
No one says a blog has to stay on-topic, of course, but that's... diverse.
I bought a copy of substantially the same thing for my Amiga in 1996. Yeah, I'd be interested in hearing when these guys supposedly "invented" the idea.
To really make that story resonate on Slashdot, you should have framed it as he was trying to anonymously expose a corrupt politician. That goes over better here.