I've been running Linux ever since Microsoft force-upgraded without my knowledge and consent, so I'm a little out of the loop. Did they ever get Fixit working for Windows 10?
If you play Scrabble using pharmacists' rules (where drug names are accepted), it already is. It's a rheumatoid arthritis medication manufactured by Pfizer.
I'm not gonna link to it (they don't pay me to advertise their product), but if you doubt me, feel free to do a quick Google search.
Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.
Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.
They're still not putting their panels on my roof and charging me money for the electricity they generate. They can lease the space from me, but if they retain full ownership interest in the panels, I'm not giving them anything for free, much less paying them for the privilege.
Aren't most doses measured by body weight? A 100 lb. woman taking four tylenol would be more affected than a 200 lb. woman. Perhaps a decent medical regulation would be factoring in whatever metrics are needed before dosing.
Proper dosing of opioids depends on a number of factors. Weight, as you mentioned, is one of them. Depending on exactly what opioid it is, you also have to consider renal function, kidney function, other drugs that might interact, and whether the patient has any genetic differences that may make them respond in a way you wouldn't expect. You also have to consider prior exposure to other opioids, as the patient may have developed cross-tolerance. Then too you have to look at the kind of social support they have, and whether they have any risk factors for adverse events. You probably want to be a little more conservative with the frail 80 year old patient who lives alone because a fall could be devastating.
Bottom line, there are so many factors in play that many prescribers pick a conservative dose and titrate upward until the desired therapeutic effect is seen.
> According to Wikipedia, an overdose "describes the ingestion or application of a drug or other substance in quantities greater than are recommended[1] or generally practiced.[2]"
So your use of the word is incorrect.
We don't recommend "ingestion or application of a drug or other substance" in quantities greater than what your body can handle, so therefore taking more drug that the body can handle is, in fact, overdose.
It's prescribed as a painkiller more often than as a treatment. I'm a pharmacist and I go through methadone like mad and not on the prescriptions I fill is for addicition.
That's because in order to use methadone to maintain addiction, both the prescriber and the dispensing pharmacy have to be specially licensed. I've never heard of a chain or independent community pharmacy licensed as such. Methadone clinics usually have the prescribers and the dispensary at the same site.
Suboxone and the other buprenorphine-containing compounds have similar restrictions on the prescribers but not on the dispensing pharmacies. That's why you see DEA numbers starting with X on Suboxone scripts . . . it means the prescriber has been specifically licensed to manage opioid dependency.
Too short of a duration of action. The purpose of using morphine as a replacement for OxyContin is because it's long acting, providing analgesia throughout the day. Diamorphine has a short, intense onset (which is why it's so addictive) and a similarly rapid cessation.
The current regulatory environment in the US, where diamorphine is Schedule I, may also have something to do with it.
(For those who are less pharmaceutically inclined, diamorphine = heroin.)
Depiction of nudity, even of minors, does not in se constitute child pornography in the United States. Refer to 18 USC 2256. The depiction has to be of sexually explicit conduct, which is defined as actual or simulated intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic region. Now, if they were in flagrante, then I would agree with you. But there are thousands of parents who have taken pictures of their children in the bathtub, and they're not (typically) considered child pornographers.
Well, that would explain a great deal why my Dell laptop has been overheating and shutting off without warning since that last kernel build. It's shut off three times today and I haven't even done any intensive computing.
What bothers me about this isn't the free internet. No, that part is pretty cool. What bothers me is the underlying political philosophy. What is a "right?" When do they start? Who creates them?
According to what Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence, rights are inborn into the nature of each person. They are endowed to everyone by their Creator. The distinction here is critical. Rights are inherent in the nature of the human being and an integral part of human dignity -- they are not given by a government. A government cannot give or abolish rights. A person has rights regardless of what his government says. A government can only protect or infringe them.
(That said, a person can abrogate his own rights through the exercise of criminal activity -- this is why governments can licitly infringe on the rights of criminals by imprisoning them.)
Now, if someone has a right to a broadband connection, that means he has always had this right. All humans in all times and places have always had the right to a broadband connection, because this right is a part of their nature. Now, given the fact that broadband connections have not always existed, it's difficult to see how having a broadband connection is an inherent part of human dignity.
It bothers me that lot of Americans seem a bit fuzzy on the concept of rights and are departing more and more from the Locke-Paine-Jefferson school of thought. Ask any given sample of Americans about the subject, and I'll bet 95% of them would say that rights come from the government. A people who look to their government rather to themselves as a source of their rights is a people cowed by tyranny.
how many people here know the resistor coloring codes to even know if they were looking at a 150k Ohm 1 watt resister with a 5% tolerance?
I remember the mnemonic for it. Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly. Black=0, Brown=1, Red=2, Orange=3, etc.
Learned it from my dad, a cold warrior who spent his Air Force career in a ballistic missile silo and had to know basic electronics in case something went wrong.
Tamiflu is rx only because it can cause psychotic symptoms, particularly in pediatric patients. It's not as safe as most otc products and requires closer monitoring.
Another reason to make it rx only is to prevent people from hoarding it and profiteering from a pandemic. This might happen anyway, but it's harder to do. Pharmacies are under a lot more scrutiny regarding their financial practices than John Q. Public.
Yet another reason that it's good to be rx only is that Tamiflu is covered by most people's prescription insurance. Were it over the counter, insurances wouldn't cover it. When Zyrtec made the switch from rx only to otc, insurance plans dropped it like a hot potato.
And then there's protecting physicians' income streams. Docs will gladly write you a prescription for Tamiflu, and charge you a $45 office visit fee. Were it otc, that income stream would dry up.
Why can't aircraft engine manufacturers retrofit engines with a sturdy 2 inch mesh screen over the air intakes of their engines? That would keep birds from being sucked into the intake manifolds.
Abortifacient drugs have only been available from the pharmacy in the last few years - WRONG! Birth control pills are available for about 40 years now.
Nobody really knows how birth control pills work in humans. Based on animal models, we can say to the best of our knowledge that old-school birth control pills prevent ovulation, not implantation. New-school birth control pills prevent the changes in the cervical mucus that allow sperm to enter the uterus.
Oh, you're wrong. Some brands of Orthodox Christianity (now almost extinct) in Russia forbid injections.
I'll keep that in mind next time I need an intravenous injection in the backwoods of Russia, where my only source of medical care comes from a brand of almost-extinct Orthodox.
Do you want to die because ER-medic refuses to perform blood transfusion?
I take comfort in the fact that there are lots of medics in the ER. If one doesn't want to do a blood transfusion, I'm sure there will be others who do.
Plus, I thought JW's believed that their rules applied only to them, and not unbelievers.
And I think you forgot to address my argument about how being forced to dispense abortifacients infringes on my right to contract.
So? If you object to abortions - don't become a pharmacist!
Sorry, that's not an acceptable solution. Abortifacient drugs have only been available from the pharmacy in the last few years. Most people who are now pharmacists became pharmacists with no inkling that they would ever have to dispense such things. Many people who are now in pharmacy school (myself included) have no idea what future drugs may come onto the market that conflict with their moral views. Should nobody practice pharmacy, just because at some point in the future, some drug might be developed that we all object to?
A larger problem is that in forcing pharmacists to dispense abortifacients, the government is interfering with the freedom of individuals. I accept that people are free to seek abortions (though I would disagree with that). But I insist on being accorded the same freedom -- the freedom to choose to contract with such people to deliver services, or the freedom to decline to contract with such people. Tolerance must be a two-way street, otherwise it's not tolerance. It's tyranny.
Oh, and your strawman fails too. There is no recognized belief system that objects to giving intravenous injections on moral grounds. Let's stick to the realm of what actually exists.
Speaking about rethinking assumptions, there is a serious flaw in your argument (and that of everyone else who are quoting CO2 stats in this thread).
This thread is about air quality, and you're talking about greenhouse gases and global warming. You are conflating the issues by using CO2 emissions as a marker for air pollution in general. Air quality in a particular region, e.g. Beijing is not impacted by CO2 emissions. Likewise, Kyoto was about global warming, not air quality or smog. Now, if you wanted to quote particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen-containing gas emissions, we'd have an argument. As it is, this thread is veering offtopic and probably confusing those without a critical eye.
Exactly! The fast, minimalist outlook was the guiding philosophy behind the development of Phoenix/Firebird, and that's what originally attracted me to it. I think this philosophy was lost about the time of the name change to Firefox, and it's been all downhill since then. We've come a long way with the increasing memory and cpu burdens posed by feature creep and "must-have" plugins, themes, etc. Phoenix/Firefox worked fast and well. Yes, I don't remember it doing much in the way of Flash, Java, JavaScript, eye candy etc. But when I needed those things, I fired up Mozilla suite/Seamonkey.
It'd be nice if someone made a minimalist, fast alternative to Firefox, just as Phoenix was the minimalist, fast alternative to Mozilla suite. Something like Lynx, with graphics.
I get the idea that the non-scientist who wrote this article has no clue what he's talking about, and that casts aspersions on the credibility of the whole article. Positrons and electrons have the same mass, which is several orders of magnitude less massive than a proton. Positronium really isn't hydrogen-like at all.
It all sounds like Harry Potter magic BS to me. Expecto positronium!
Yeah, when I first read this, I thought it was a typo and they meant Chiron, a large asteroid with an orbit between Saturn and Uranus. It seems to fit the requirements better than Charon, though with a mass of 3 x 10^18 kg and a diameter of approximately 135 km, it might be a bit small for the gravity requirement.
Can any slashdotter tell me why despite the fact that Katrina was known to be coming, and that it would be huge, there was so much devastation amid confusion without clear leadership?
I think it comes down to a confusion of responsibility. Decades ago, people would have known that the hurricane was coming and that it would be big. They would have taken the personal responsibility to get the hell out of dodge. Boat, plane, train, hitchhike, hike, swim . . . ANYTHING, just to get the hell out. But it's the new millennium, and people are used to being coddled by their government, which has been arrogating more and more power to itself so that people think it's omnipotent. "This is America. This isn't a third-world country. Nothing bad can happen to me. Uncle Sam will figure it out so I won't get hurt" is a common thought that runs through people's heads. (I see this line of reasoning all the time, exempli gratia, at the pharmacy at which I work, when people don't understand why the federal government won't somehow make their drug copayments go away.)
The federal government does not do anything well that involves actual people except for killing them. The states have limited means, because what state senator wants to vote for a tax increase to fund emergency preparedness, especially when the federal government ostensibly has the will and the means to do it for them. So the people give up the buck, the states pass the buck, and the feds drop the buck. And so you have a mess like New Orleans after Katrina.
Less clear to me is why we don't hear too much about any recovery efforts in Mississippi, even though it was in the right front quadrant of Katrina, and therefore bore the real brunt of the storm. Was it simply less damaged, were people better prepared, or was the response better managed? We're learning a lot from what Louisiana did wrong. What can we learn from what Mississippi did right?
Slashdot Mirror
If a program refuses to uninstall, use the Microsoft Fix-It utility.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/17588/fix-problems-that-block-programs-from-being-installed-or-removed
I've been running Linux ever since Microsoft force-upgraded without my knowledge and consent, so I'm a little out of the loop. Did they ever get Fixit working for Windows 10?
If you play Scrabble using pharmacists' rules (where drug names are accepted), it already is. It's a rheumatoid arthritis medication manufactured by Pfizer.
I'm not gonna link to it (they don't pay me to advertise their product), but if you doubt me, feel free to do a quick Google search.
Lignocellulose is only considered a food if you're a termite.
Trump is of course utterly unacceptable, and the Democratic Party has shown itself to be controlled by an unaccountable politburo that fixed the nomination. I wont be a part of either of these criminals' rise to power.
Im moving on from Feeling the Bern to Feeling the Johnson.
Good for Solar City.
They're still not putting their panels on my roof and charging me money for the electricity they generate. They can lease the space from me, but if they retain full ownership interest in the panels, I'm not giving them anything for free, much less paying them for the privilege.
Hell must have frozen over. People on Slashdot are actually *recommending* Internet Explorer.
Aren't most doses measured by body weight? A 100 lb. woman taking four tylenol would be more affected than a 200 lb. woman. Perhaps a decent medical regulation would be factoring in whatever metrics are needed before dosing.
Proper dosing of opioids depends on a number of factors. Weight, as you mentioned, is one of them. Depending on exactly what opioid it is, you also have to consider renal function, kidney function, other drugs that might interact, and whether the patient has any genetic differences that may make them respond in a way you wouldn't expect. You also have to consider prior exposure to other opioids, as the patient may have developed cross-tolerance. Then too you have to look at the kind of social support they have, and whether they have any risk factors for adverse events. You probably want to be a little more conservative with the frail 80 year old patient who lives alone because a fall could be devastating.
Bottom line, there are so many factors in play that many prescribers pick a conservative dose and titrate upward until the desired therapeutic effect is seen.
> According to Wikipedia, an overdose "describes the ingestion or application of a drug or other substance in quantities greater than are recommended[1] or generally practiced.[2]"
So your use of the word is incorrect.
We don't recommend "ingestion or application of a drug or other substance" in quantities greater than what your body can handle, so therefore taking more drug that the body can handle is, in fact, overdose.
Seriously, you're going to bicker over semantics?
I know, I know, I must be new here, etc. etc.
It's prescribed as a painkiller more often than as a treatment. I'm a pharmacist and I go through methadone like mad and not on the prescriptions I fill is for addicition.
That's because in order to use methadone to maintain addiction, both the prescriber and the dispensing pharmacy have to be specially licensed. I've never heard of a chain or independent community pharmacy licensed as such. Methadone clinics usually have the prescribers and the dispensary at the same site.
Suboxone and the other buprenorphine-containing compounds have similar restrictions on the prescribers but not on the dispensing pharmacies. That's why you see DEA numbers starting with X on Suboxone scripts . . . it means the prescriber has been specifically licensed to manage opioid dependency.
Why not use diamorphine?
Too short of a duration of action. The purpose of using morphine as a replacement for OxyContin is because it's long acting, providing analgesia throughout the day. Diamorphine has a short, intense onset (which is why it's so addictive) and a similarly rapid cessation.
The current regulatory environment in the US, where diamorphine is Schedule I, may also have something to do with it.
(For those who are less pharmaceutically inclined, diamorphine = heroin.)
Depiction of nudity, even of minors, does not in se constitute child pornography in the United States. Refer to 18 USC 2256. The depiction has to be of sexually explicit conduct, which is defined as actual or simulated intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic region. Now, if they were in flagrante, then I would agree with you. But there are thousands of parents who have taken pictures of their children in the bathtub, and they're not (typically) considered child pornographers.
Well, that would explain a great deal why my Dell laptop has been overheating and shutting off without warning since that last kernel build. It's shut off three times today and I haven't even done any intensive computing.
Methinks I need a new box.
What bothers me about this isn't the free internet. No, that part is pretty cool. What bothers me is the underlying political philosophy. What is a "right?" When do they start? Who creates them?
According to what Jefferson laid out in the Declaration of Independence, rights are inborn into the nature of each person. They are endowed to everyone by their Creator. The distinction here is critical. Rights are inherent in the nature of the human being and an integral part of human dignity -- they are not given by a government. A government cannot give or abolish rights. A person has rights regardless of what his government says. A government can only protect or infringe them.
(That said, a person can abrogate his own rights through the exercise of criminal activity -- this is why governments can licitly infringe on the rights of criminals by imprisoning them.)
Now, if someone has a right to a broadband connection, that means he has always had this right. All humans in all times and places have always had the right to a broadband connection, because this right is a part of their nature. Now, given the fact that broadband connections have not always existed, it's difficult to see how having a broadband connection is an inherent part of human dignity.
It bothers me that lot of Americans seem a bit fuzzy on the concept of rights and are departing more and more from the Locke-Paine-Jefferson school of thought. Ask any given sample of Americans about the subject, and I'll bet 95% of them would say that rights come from the government. A people who look to their government rather to themselves as a source of their rights is a people cowed by tyranny.
how many people here know the resistor coloring codes to even know if they were looking at a 150k Ohm 1 watt resister with a 5% tolerance?
I remember the mnemonic for it. Bad Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly. Black=0, Brown=1, Red=2, Orange=3, etc.
Learned it from my dad, a cold warrior who spent his Air Force career in a ballistic missile silo and had to know basic electronics in case something went wrong.
Tamiflu is rx only because it can cause psychotic symptoms, particularly in pediatric patients. It's not as safe as most otc products and requires closer monitoring.
Another reason to make it rx only is to prevent people from hoarding it and profiteering from a pandemic. This might happen anyway, but it's harder to do. Pharmacies are under a lot more scrutiny regarding their financial practices than John Q. Public.
Yet another reason that it's good to be rx only is that Tamiflu is covered by most people's prescription insurance. Were it over the counter, insurances wouldn't cover it. When Zyrtec made the switch from rx only to otc, insurance plans dropped it like a hot potato.
And then there's protecting physicians' income streams. Docs will gladly write you a prescription for Tamiflu, and charge you a $45 office visit fee. Were it otc, that income stream would dry up.
Why can't aircraft engine manufacturers retrofit engines with a sturdy 2 inch mesh screen over the air intakes of their engines? That would keep birds from being sucked into the intake manifolds.
But when you retire, you won't be making any taxable income, right? I don't think you've thought your clever plan all the way through.
Abortifacient drugs have only been available from the pharmacy in the last few years - WRONG! Birth control pills are available for about 40 years now.
Nobody really knows how birth control pills work in humans. Based on animal models, we can say to the best of our knowledge that old-school birth control pills prevent ovulation, not implantation. New-school birth control pills prevent the changes in the cervical mucus that allow sperm to enter the uterus.
Oh, you're wrong. Some brands of Orthodox Christianity (now almost extinct) in Russia forbid injections.
I'll keep that in mind next time I need an intravenous injection in the backwoods of Russia, where my only source of medical care comes from a brand of almost-extinct Orthodox.
Do you want to die because ER-medic refuses to perform blood transfusion?
I take comfort in the fact that there are lots of medics in the ER. If one doesn't want to do a blood transfusion, I'm sure there will be others who do.
Plus, I thought JW's believed that their rules applied only to them, and not unbelievers.
And I think you forgot to address my argument about how being forced to dispense abortifacients infringes on my right to contract.
So? If you object to abortions - don't become a pharmacist!
Sorry, that's not an acceptable solution. Abortifacient drugs have only been available from the pharmacy in the last few years. Most people who are now pharmacists became pharmacists with no inkling that they would ever have to dispense such things. Many people who are now in pharmacy school (myself included) have no idea what future drugs may come onto the market that conflict with their moral views. Should nobody practice pharmacy, just because at some point in the future, some drug might be developed that we all object to?
A larger problem is that in forcing pharmacists to dispense abortifacients, the government is interfering with the freedom of individuals. I accept that people are free to seek abortions (though I would disagree with that). But I insist on being accorded the same freedom -- the freedom to choose to contract with such people to deliver services, or the freedom to decline to contract with such people. Tolerance must be a two-way street, otherwise it's not tolerance. It's tyranny.
Oh, and your strawman fails too. There is no recognized belief system that objects to giving intravenous injections on moral grounds. Let's stick to the realm of what actually exists.
Speaking about rethinking assumptions, there is a serious flaw in your argument (and that of everyone else who are quoting CO2 stats in this thread).
This thread is about air quality, and you're talking about greenhouse gases and global warming. You are conflating the issues by using CO2 emissions as a marker for air pollution in general. Air quality in a particular region, e.g. Beijing is not impacted by CO2 emissions. Likewise, Kyoto was about global warming, not air quality or smog. Now, if you wanted to quote particulate matter, ozone, and nitrogen-containing gas emissions, we'd have an argument. As it is, this thread is veering offtopic and probably confusing those without a critical eye.
Exactly! The fast, minimalist outlook was the guiding philosophy behind the development of Phoenix/Firebird, and that's what originally attracted me to it. I think this philosophy was lost about the time of the name change to Firefox, and it's been all downhill since then. We've come a long way with the increasing memory and cpu burdens posed by feature creep and "must-have" plugins, themes, etc. Phoenix/Firefox worked fast and well. Yes, I don't remember it doing much in the way of Flash, Java, JavaScript, eye candy etc. But when I needed those things, I fired up Mozilla suite/Seamonkey.
It'd be nice if someone made a minimalist, fast alternative to Firefox, just as Phoenix was the minimalist, fast alternative to Mozilla suite. Something like Lynx, with graphics.
I get the idea that the non-scientist who wrote this article has no clue what he's talking about, and that casts aspersions on the credibility of the whole article. Positrons and electrons have the same mass, which is several orders of magnitude less massive than a proton. Positronium really isn't hydrogen-like at all.
It all sounds like Harry Potter magic BS to me. Expecto positronium!
It puts more power in the hands of the stupid.
That in a nutshell is why democracy is ineffective, dangerous, and should be abolished.
Yeah, when I first read this, I thought it was a typo and they meant Chiron, a large asteroid with an orbit between Saturn and Uranus. It seems to fit the requirements better than Charon, though with a mass of 3 x 10^18 kg and a diameter of approximately 135 km, it might be a bit small for the gravity requirement.
Can any slashdotter tell me why despite the fact that Katrina was known to be coming, and that it would be huge, there was so much devastation amid confusion without clear leadership?
I think it comes down to a confusion of responsibility. Decades ago, people would have known that the hurricane was coming and that it would be big. They would have taken the personal responsibility to get the hell out of dodge. Boat, plane, train, hitchhike, hike, swim . . . ANYTHING, just to get the hell out. But it's the new millennium, and people are used to being coddled by their government, which has been arrogating more and more power to itself so that people think it's omnipotent. "This is America. This isn't a third-world country. Nothing bad can happen to me. Uncle Sam will figure it out so I won't get hurt" is a common thought that runs through people's heads. (I see this line of reasoning all the time, exempli gratia, at the pharmacy at which I work, when people don't understand why the federal government won't somehow make their drug copayments go away.)
The federal government does not do anything well that involves actual people except for killing them. The states have limited means, because what state senator wants to vote for a tax increase to fund emergency preparedness, especially when the federal government ostensibly has the will and the means to do it for them. So the people give up the buck, the states pass the buck, and the feds drop the buck. And so you have a mess like New Orleans after Katrina.
Less clear to me is why we don't hear too much about any recovery efforts in Mississippi, even though it was in the right front quadrant of Katrina, and therefore bore the real brunt of the storm. Was it simply less damaged, were people better prepared, or was the response better managed? We're learning a lot from what Louisiana did wrong. What can we learn from what Mississippi did right?