So I should let 20 year old patient A with Wilson's disease die, to save 50 year old (rich! let's not forget rich!) patient B from pancreatic cancer? Patient A will survive and live another 40 years with 80% probability. Patient B will be dead in 6 months if I do nothing, and in 18 months if I give him a transplant. Now in the IDEAL world of course I save both. In the REAL world, I only have one liver (if that) and two patients. What do I do? That's ethics. They teach courses. You're kind of required to pass them to graduate from medical school and again to get your license. It's the reality of the world we live in. Every doctor on call can only work so many hours. Every hospital has only so many ICU beds. Every country has only so many pediatric neurosurgeons specialized in condition "x". And I say Jobs' transplant was anti-ethical. It only happened because the patient was Steve Jobs. No one else on the planet will ever get that treatment, ever, in the same condition.
Steve Jobs got as much cancer treatment as can be gotten for an aggressive, uncurable cancer. The removal of his liver and liver transplant was 100% anti-ethical (ask yourself why a person with cancer of the PANCREAS would need a LIVER transplant - there's only one reason - liver metastases), but of course little things like ethics don't matter if you're Steve Jobs. Just don't expect to have it done on you even if you're a mere millionaire, because you'll be told that other people have been waiting years for that liver... people who might actually live longer than a year. He got treatment alright. But it was his time.
It was done by NASA I guess. The fact that it could save millions and millions of dollars was obviously of "little practical value" to a government agency.
The reason it hasn't been done since is because it is a dubious idea.
If only Mr. Watt had realized that sticking a bunch of water into a barrel and sealing it then lighting a fire on it was a dubious idea because everyone knew it would blow up and take half the building with it....
He made it work. And not you or anyone else will EVER be able to take the credit for that away from him.
It's pretty simple. You round up a group of experts who say one thing, and a group of experts who say the opposite, then you force them to defend their positions to you. The team with the most "uhhhhs" loses. Next.
Shit I have a Honda that cost me $60k. Granted I live in the 3rd world so about $15k of that is straight up import tax, but fuck you can't get a new car for $3000 like when I was a kid.
You miss hey!'s point.... NONE of these fuckers started seriously caring about making electric cars until Tesla came on the scene. Them most of them banded together against him to try to legislate him out of business. Then finally when Tesla actually started selling cars and it turned out they were pretty decent, got the shit scared out of them and started looking into making their own cars. Even if Tesla is a total failure, Must has brought about the age of the electric car.
Why who does your car company make cars for, and how high do your satellites fly? I mean come on, you just called it RIDICULOUS NONSENSE so surely you must do much better before your morning shit. Oh wait, I see, your posts are your morning shit. I get it. Carry on.
I'm sorry I was thinking of an entirely different R so I was confused for a second... I mean I know PV = nRT can throw up some pretty weird shit sometimes but...... never mind, it's late.
You've obviously never been outside in Canada at night (any time after 3pm) in February. When you feel your balls actually entering your abdominal cavity and sheltering somewhere between your kidneys and your liver, you have reached negative temperature.
You picked a single example from his post and made the most ridiculous comparison. I'm sure there's a name for that. Wow, I'm totally convinced. I'm switching to imperial right away. Base 10 makes as much sense to humans as base 16 does to computers.
C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature.
You're right. K is where it's at baby. Until someone points out to you that the size of 1K is exactly the same as the size of 1 C....the only difference being where the scale sets the zero point.
Well, Elon could, by selling you his SpaceX shares telling you this is a really really good deal right before the IPO, then boarding the next spaceship to Mars with your money to use as rocket fuel, leaving you with an empty farm plot in Texas and a rather confused looking cow.
I really don't have time to go back and verify say, Archimedes work.
No you don't. But if you eventually figure out that what Archimedes said doesn't make sense in some new context, you should at least be able to go back and reproduce his experiment and either - obtain exactly the same result he did, leaving you to try to figure out WHY it doesn't make sense, in light of your new insight, or if you can't reproduce his results then you realize that even ancient Greeks were prone to falsifying their experiments.
No one has time to reproduce everything. However one should be very suspect of studies that are a) so massive and complex that no one has time or money to reproduce them (I'm looking at you, pharma industry) and b) report things that are counter-intuitive or not reproducible on a smaller scale. Just because Merck sends a pretty girl into my office to get me to prescribe something revolutionary because of the Amazingly Cute Really Offbeat Name of Your Meta-study (ACRONYM study) that is totally going to cure my patients of everything and increase their credit score to boot, it doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and start selling their snake oil right away. Critical thinking should never stop. Especially when someone else stands to make a buck.
But hey if I'm just going to believe them because they're Merck and would never fake studies (cough) and besides it sort of makes sense and they did use 500,000 people over 30 years and the girl is really cute, then that's not science at all. I had better get exactly the results they claim or better even on a tiny scale, or I call the whole thing suspect.
If you don't understand the difference between expecting an expert to be competent in their field and taking everything an expert says as "gospel", then you don't belong anywhere near this discussion. And yes men can get breast cancer, with a mortality rate of around 96% so congratulations on surviving.
A real scientist doesn't even give a shit about "experts". Experts can be (and have been) wrong. No scientist should "believe" any other scientist. Show me the EXPERIMENT, show me the DATA, and let me reproduce it for myself. Then we'll talk about whether we agree or not. All of this "belief" in science or in studies or in experts is absolutely contrary to the scientific method which MANDATES reproducible experimental results. Failure of this model, which is what we have now, lets us believe in charlatan "experts" and bogus agenda driven "studies" which no one either has the time or money to reproduce, and be led down a path that's not necessarily the TRUTH - which is what science ultimately looks for.
Slashdot Mirror
So I should let 20 year old patient A with Wilson's disease die, to save 50 year old (rich! let's not forget rich!) patient B from pancreatic cancer? Patient A will survive and live another 40 years with 80% probability. Patient B will be dead in 6 months if I do nothing, and in 18 months if I give him a transplant. Now in the IDEAL world of course I save both. In the REAL world, I only have one liver (if that) and two patients. What do I do? That's ethics. They teach courses. You're kind of required to pass them to graduate from medical school and again to get your license. It's the reality of the world we live in. Every doctor on call can only work so many hours. Every hospital has only so many ICU beds. Every country has only so many pediatric neurosurgeons specialized in condition "x". And I say Jobs' transplant was anti-ethical. It only happened because the patient was Steve Jobs. No one else on the planet will ever get that treatment, ever, in the same condition.
You speak as if battery technology is something that appears out of thin air or that somehow Tesla licensed, not developed in-house.
It's too late, you've already collapsed the universe. Now it's just a matter of waiting until it catches up to us...
Only GP would use C when he meant to write c. I know a lot of astronomers and astrophysicists and believe me it's NOT a common mistake!
Takeoff, hover and landing was done forty years ago.
Exactly. He's saying that all Musk and SpaceX have achieved is basically, well, Grasshopper.
How many of those did it from suborbital flight after delivering a payload?
Steve Jobs got as much cancer treatment as can be gotten for an aggressive, uncurable cancer. The removal of his liver and liver transplant was 100% anti-ethical (ask yourself why a person with cancer of the PANCREAS would need a LIVER transplant - there's only one reason - liver metastases), but of course little things like ethics don't matter if you're Steve Jobs. Just don't expect to have it done on you even if you're a mere millionaire, because you'll be told that other people have been waiting years for that liver... people who might actually live longer than a year. He got treatment alright. But it was his time.
That's why I have a doctorate. Because I am not interested in science.
It was done by NASA I guess. The fact that it could save millions and millions of dollars was obviously of "little practical value" to a government agency.
The reason it hasn't been done since is because it is a dubious idea.
If only Mr. Watt had realized that sticking a bunch of water into a barrel and sealing it then lighting a fire on it was a dubious idea because everyone knew it would blow up and take half the building with it....
He made it work. And not you or anyone else will EVER be able to take the credit for that away from him.
It's pretty simple. You round up a group of experts who say one thing, and a group of experts who say the opposite, then you force them to defend their positions to you. The team with the most "uhhhhs" loses. Next.
Shit I have a Honda that cost me $60k. Granted I live in the 3rd world so about $15k of that is straight up import tax, but fuck you can't get a new car for $3000 like when I was a kid.
You miss hey!'s point.... NONE of these fuckers started seriously caring about making electric cars until Tesla came on the scene. Them most of them banded together against him to try to legislate him out of business. Then finally when Tesla actually started selling cars and it turned out they were pretty decent, got the shit scared out of them and started looking into making their own cars. Even if Tesla is a total failure, Must has brought about the age of the electric car.
Why who does your car company make cars for, and how high do your satellites fly? I mean come on, you just called it RIDICULOUS NONSENSE so surely you must do much better before your morning shit. Oh wait, I see, your posts are your morning shit. I get it. Carry on.
Shhhh don't let the truthers hear you say that!
I'm sorry I was thinking of an entirely different R so I was confused for a second... I mean I know PV = nRT can throw up some pretty weird shit sometimes but...... never mind, it's late.
I bet you're great fun at parties.
HOW can you have a negative temperature?
You've obviously never been outside in Canada at night (any time after 3pm) in February. When you feel your balls actually entering your abdominal cavity and sheltering somewhere between your kidneys and your liver, you have reached negative temperature.
You picked a single example from his post and made the most ridiculous comparison. I'm sure there's a name for that. Wow, I'm totally convinced. I'm switching to imperial right away. Base 10 makes as much sense to humans as base 16 does to computers.
C is just a terrible unit of measurement for expressing temperature.
You're right. K is where it's at baby. Until someone points out to you that the size of 1K is exactly the same as the size of 1 C....the only difference being where the scale sets the zero point.
Well, Elon could, by selling you his SpaceX shares telling you this is a really really good deal right before the IPO, then boarding the next spaceship to Mars with your money to use as rocket fuel, leaving you with an empty farm plot in Texas and a rather confused looking cow.
I think you're confusing the companies. Tesla is not SpaceX. Nor vice versa.
I really don't have time to go back and verify say, Archimedes work.
No you don't. But if you eventually figure out that what Archimedes said doesn't make sense in some new context, you should at least be able to go back and reproduce his experiment and either - obtain exactly the same result he did, leaving you to try to figure out WHY it doesn't make sense, in light of your new insight, or if you can't reproduce his results then you realize that even ancient Greeks were prone to falsifying their experiments.
No one has time to reproduce everything. However one should be very suspect of studies that are a) so massive and complex that no one has time or money to reproduce them (I'm looking at you, pharma industry) and b) report things that are counter-intuitive or not reproducible on a smaller scale. Just because Merck sends a pretty girl into my office to get me to prescribe something revolutionary because of the Amazingly Cute Really Offbeat Name of Your Meta-study (ACRONYM study) that is totally going to cure my patients of everything and increase their credit score to boot, it doesn't mean I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and start selling their snake oil right away. Critical thinking should never stop. Especially when someone else stands to make a buck.
But hey if I'm just going to believe them because they're Merck and would never fake studies (cough) and besides it sort of makes sense and they did use 500,000 people over 30 years and the girl is really cute, then that's not science at all. I had better get exactly the results they claim or better even on a tiny scale, or I call the whole thing suspect.
If you don't understand the difference between expecting an expert to be competent in their field and taking everything an expert says as "gospel", then you don't belong anywhere near this discussion. And yes men can get breast cancer, with a mortality rate of around 96% so congratulations on surviving.
A real scientist doesn't even give a shit about "experts". Experts can be (and have been) wrong. No scientist should "believe" any other scientist. Show me the EXPERIMENT, show me the DATA, and let me reproduce it for myself. Then we'll talk about whether we agree or not. All of this "belief" in science or in studies or in experts is absolutely contrary to the scientific method which MANDATES reproducible experimental results. Failure of this model, which is what we have now, lets us believe in charlatan "experts" and bogus agenda driven "studies" which no one either has the time or money to reproduce, and be led down a path that's not necessarily the TRUTH - which is what science ultimately looks for.