You have obviously never had to approach a screaming 2 year old with a needle in your hand. Besides the red face, the 120 decibels, and the snot everywhere, there's that look on the parents' faces that says "you only get one go".
No but seriously, there are all sorts of applications outside of pediatrics. For example palliative care - terminal patients who need regular medication can just use a patch instead of trying to find someone to inject them every 6 hours or so (ever tried injecting yourself? It can be done but it's not fun - especially when you're weak and/or dying and you can't really remember if you just did it or not). Senior citizens. Diabetics. The sky is the limit. This is something new, and the full implications of this technology haven't been explored yet.
It's never nice to have someone not take your phobia seriously.
I have absolutely no problem with needles - in fact I have locally anesthetized myself and performed minor surgery on myself (yes I am a doctor) on more than one occasion. But then again I cannot bear the sight of spiders... To each their own!
The good side is that if you can deliver a virus (or virus fragments) this way, you can deliver pretty much anything else, too. The down side is how much will it cost versus current methods. Hypodermics are very cheap. And of course there will always be practical limits - nothing will ever replace two short large bore catheters, or a central line for that matter, in certain situations...
Your average red blood cell is around 10 micrometers thick. White blood cells are even bigger. This would probably make the "needles" big enough to hurt like hell - so no, it would defeat the purpose. Besides, kids are the only ones who cry when getting a blood sample taken. But they'll cry when they see a stranger coming up to them in a white lab coat anyway, needle or not.
It is often said that true genius is coming up with the idea that makes everyone say "I could have thought of that".
One of the problems with transdermal patches has always been one of controlling dosage. This is because the skin is only permeable to lipids, thanks to layers of keratin on the outside and the basement membrane lying inconveniently just before you get to any blood vessels. So anything that you needed to give your patient via the skin had to be fat-soluble, or it just wouldn't work. And then you have the problems of concentration gradients, skin thickness, how long you leave the patch on, and how "greasy" that person's natural skin is anyway. That makes for a lot of variables in delivery. Which means you can never be exactly sure of the dose.
By piercing through the skin's outer layers into the dermis with a "microneedle", suddenly you've eliminated a few things: 1) You can deliver hydrophyllic substances (like certain viruses or their components, for example) and 2) you can control dosage much much more accurately because you can be sure that what you're delivering is going to make it to the bloodstream versus lying around in the epidermis and or never getting off the patch in the first place.
I foresee that this technology will soon be used for much more than pediatric vaccine delivery and the creators will become very rich indeed. This doctor thinks it's a great idea. In fact the only problem is going to be for those allergic people - with previous patches all they would get is red skin, an itch, and maybe a localized rash. Now they risk a full blown type I allergic reaction.
When you're in trouble, smear the competitors too. Well done, Steve. Walked by an Apple store today - still full of the brainless zombies. Fools, money, soon parted.
Re:Any success stories with Wine
on
Wine 1.2 Released
·
· Score: 3, Informative
AFAIK Wine and Cedega are still ahead of virtual machines in terms of graphics drivers and gaming. Wine is far from dead.
Re:Are IE 7 or 8 useable?
on
Wine 1.2 Released
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Obvious solution: Virtual box under linux will let you run whatever windows you want. Its graphic drivers are not good enough for most new 3D games (yet), but it certainly will let you do online banking...
But now the trick is getting these genetically modified mosquitoes to out-compete the unmodified one.
By the way, if this is done Monsanto style, will we be charged a fee if we get bitten by one of these copyrighted patented trademarked proprietary mosquitoes?
And Apple fanboys are lubing up and bending over, preparing to take it up the ass once again. Because after Apple can do no wrong. The fans can't wait to hear how they can make it up to Mr. Jobs. Liver donations are currently being accepted at all Apple stores.
In my view Hitler had started the road to WW2 probably by 1935 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland were the final straw.
Yes, this is where we get into "truth".
Now put yourself into the shoes of a man who took a bankrupt nation - bankrupt in terms of economics, and bankrupt in terms of pride. Germany lost World War One because of treachery at home - troop mutinies on the front lines, and Marxist revolutions in the towns. Germans felt that they could have won the first world war - or at least returned to status quo - their troops were still outside their borders when the armistice was signed. This was the final betrayal - their own government not only gave up their gains but gave up traditionally German territories and towns and sold the future of the German people into economic slavery in the form of war reparations.
This is your background. You take this country and you raise it up. You defy those that would have enslaved you, you give the people a sense of pride again, and you begin to claim what was rightfully yours a generation ago. And the allies give it to you - time and time again. Sometimes you need a ruse. Sometimes you just have to ask. And sometimes you take it, but you keep getting away with it.
Why would you stop? I am positive that the German government was absolutely surprised when Britain and France declared war on them when they invaded Poland. I am also positive that Germany was stunned when Britain refused peace when it was later offered.
It's easy nowadays to vilify and demonize. However it takes two to fight a war. Britain was just as instrumental in bringing about World War 2 as Germany was. The question the Germans dared to ask was "how come only Britain and France get to have an Empire?"
Well to be strictly accurate, it was the Prussians who were fond of "mobility war" - specifically Carl von Clausewitz. This concept was applied successfully by the Germans in the beginning of the First World War with German cavalry units plunging ahead deep into enemy territory. The machine gun and modern artillery however soon brought an end to any infiltration attempts by "soft" troops.
The Russians are in fact credited with the idea of developing the theory of using armor to infiltrate deep into enemy lines as far back as 1918 (remember that they left WW1 early due to the revolution at home). These deep warfare tactics were observed by Guderian and he wrote his famous book in 1929 (Panzer Leader). This book however explains tactics for, and the need for greater cooperation between armored units and motorized infantry. It does not cover what is considered to be the "classic" Blitzkrieg - the annihilation of a portion of the enemy front with artillery, armor and especially combat air support aircraft, followed by the rapid and deep penetration of armored spearheads that disrupt supply lines, followed by the penetration of motorized and mechanized infantry units to encircle the shoulders of the breach and push them back. In fact the OKW commander in charge of Fall GelB - Halder, was planning to immediately encircle French forces after the Sedan breakthrough, causing a long and drawn out fight. On May 16th, Rommel and Guderian disobeyed direct orders to that effect and moved as far west as they could, pushing deep behind enemy lines. This improvisation was at no point part of the plan. They had the advantage of air supremacy, and therefore French recon planes did not spot the move otherwise a French counterattack could have stopped the Germans there and then.
Anyway, wikipedia has the following to say about Guderian's Blitzkrieg:
"Guderian's claim to be the 'Father of Blitzkrieg' has, however, been challenged (Corum 92 pp 137-141) as gross self-exaggeration. His publications before 1936 were few, relatively mundane and did not address questions of fundamental doctrine. The famous Guderian book, Achtung Panzer, while an early military publications advocating tank warfare and while forcefully written, it was not particularly original. "
I have read his books and don't find any of them more impressive than, say, Clausewitz.
"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all evil that is in the world." -- Adolf Hitler
Of course he was in the business of lies, being a master politician, lying right up to the very end, when the Germans swore they were on the verge of unleashing secret weapons that would change the course of the war. Because the Fuhrer told them so. Few people knew that in fact he had ordered everything burned and destroyed behind the retreating armies.
But on the subject of truth and lies, Hitler never started World War II, either. Britain and France had decided that Germany had to be taken down long before the actual Polish invasion. In fact Chamberlain said, in May 1939 "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning.". I'm not saying Hitler was a good guy. Like Napoleon before him, he was not. Nor is anyone who carelessly throws men's lives away. But like Napoleon, Hitler was manipulated into a corner and forced to yield. And, like Napoleon, he decided to fight his way out instead.
And on the side of the allies, I can understand that dealing with Hitler in 1939 was probably a much wiser decision than starting a war with Hitler in 1944. Germany was not at all ready for all out war in 1939 or 1940 and its major victories were mostly due to the complete strategic incompetence of their opponents. The famed and feared "Blitzkrieg" was not a doctrine, but invented on the fly during the French invasion. Commanders (Rommel included) regularly disobeyed orders and often entire divisions weren't where they were supposed to be. The tanks used were earlier Czech models because the German tanks had severe transmission problems. Their engines/gearboxes were incapable of dealing with the heavier armor. Had the Germans had 5 more years of uninterrupted research and production, training for their conscript, and slave labor for their factories, they would have been far tougher to defeat. Such a boost to production cannot be expected on the Allied side, because the allies only made a huge effort when they realized how quickly European nations were falling under the jack boot, and how close they were to losing.
"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa. " -- George Orwell
concocted the entire fiasco is a bit of a stretch...
Your words, not mine.
However I was impressed with how newsworthy the story was, especially considering the number of cases involved - what was it: 3? 7? In the single digits, anyway. Yep, less than a dozen cases got almost a good month worth of constant Toyota stories. Whereas the latest GM recall of 1.5 million vehicles because their cars were catching fire (5 cars) after another major recall (1.3 million cars) after at least 14 crashes due to defective power steering gets barely a mention in the news.
Truth is, recalls happen all the time, to all manufacturers. There's no conspiracy. Except that the news media were especially happy to engage in Toyota bashing in an apparently "buy American" subliminal campaign (as if Toyota wasn't an American company nowadays). Well that's ok, the truth will always come out in the end. And I am still never buying an American car again.
GM had more to lose. Co-incidence that all this unintended acceleration crap came out right in the middle of the recession and right in the middle of the GM bankruptcy/bailout? Open your eyes.
Currently breathing is not mentioned at all in the law. It's a right. Start to worry when someone decides to guarantee you that right. It will only take a few years before the anti-bad breath league successfully lobby the government to restrict certain types of breathing, and it only gets worse from there...
I agree that you seem to be more of an optimist than me. I just believe in boundaries - although they are not necessarily absolute, the universe is full of them on every scale. Places where the electron goes, and places where it doesn't go. Places where you have (more) galaxies, and places where you don't (have as many). While I think you're right in that our capacity to learn is always changing, I also believe that the exponential growth in our knowledge simply cannot be sustained. At one point we will start tapering off, and hit an age of "diminishing returns". I think that in the end our total "knowledge" of the universe is finite, or at least approaches some arbitrary level asymptotically at one point. We're smart, but we're not THAT smart. If we were, we wouldn't be plagued with all the social problems we have here and now even in this "englightened" age.
Laws (or even worse regulations) listing what content is "legitimate" soon to follow. This is not a victory, it's the first step to an erosion of freedom.
No problem with respect to AC. I read at -1 anyway.
As to your answer, it is good. I am not trying to anthropomorphise. My original answer to OP also was not intended to "answer" a "question". I am also a very scientific, very rational atheist. So no "great spirit" either. However my point was that because of our scale - either in size or time-span, there are a great many things about the universe that we will never be able to know with the same certainty as, for example, something closer to home which we can measure, predict, interfere with and corroborate that it behaves according to our assumptions.
On a universal scale however all we will ever have is supposition, theories that come and go with current fashion, and doubts. And that is not counting all the things that are so large, or happen so slowly, that we will never be able to understand them or even perceive them - just like an ant is completely unaware of what a galaxy is, or even their existance.
But then will a mayfly (which lives at most a single day) ever understand that a blade of grass is a living thing?
Our classification of "animate" and "inanimate" might not be as accurate as we think. The Earth is certainly a dynamic thing even in our frame of reference. From the trembling of its crust to the currents in its oceans and atmospheres, the Earth is not static at all.
That a lot of "Free" stuff also turns out to be crap. Therefore the hidden cost is the time it takes in sorting out the good free stuff from the crap. With payware certain standards are expected - or even enforced by third parties (ie an app store). In cases where some crapware does find its way into that third party store, usually there is someone to complain to and the crapware is removed quickly.
It's the old argument of "I can't be bothered to do it myself". It's why we have politicians. It's why we have religions and "gods". Because we prefer to have 'someone else' to delegate certain fears and worries to (even if that 'someone else' turns out to be corrupt in the case of politicians and clerics, or even non-existent in the case of gods). Humans are funny that way.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the point of a single-use patch?
You have obviously never had to approach a screaming 2 year old with a needle in your hand. Besides the red face, the 120 decibels, and the snot everywhere, there's that look on the parents' faces that says "you only get one go".
No but seriously, there are all sorts of applications outside of pediatrics. For example palliative care - terminal patients who need regular medication can just use a patch instead of trying to find someone to inject them every 6 hours or so (ever tried injecting yourself? It can be done but it's not fun - especially when you're weak and/or dying and you can't really remember if you just did it or not). Senior citizens. Diabetics. The sky is the limit. This is something new, and the full implications of this technology haven't been explored yet.
It's never nice to have someone not take your phobia seriously.
I have absolutely no problem with needles - in fact I have locally anesthetized myself and performed minor surgery on myself (yes I am a doctor) on more than one occasion. But then again I cannot bear the sight of spiders... To each their own!
The good side is that if you can deliver a virus (or virus fragments) this way, you can deliver pretty much anything else, too. The down side is how much will it cost versus current methods. Hypodermics are very cheap. And of course there will always be practical limits - nothing will ever replace two short large bore catheters, or a central line for that matter, in certain situations...
Your average red blood cell is around 10 micrometers thick. White blood cells are even bigger. This would probably make the "needles" big enough to hurt like hell - so no, it would defeat the purpose. Besides, kids are the only ones who cry when getting a blood sample taken. But they'll cry when they see a stranger coming up to them in a white lab coat anyway, needle or not.
It is often said that true genius is coming up with the idea that makes everyone say "I could have thought of that".
One of the problems with transdermal patches has always been one of controlling dosage. This is because the skin is only permeable to lipids, thanks to layers of keratin on the outside and the basement membrane lying inconveniently just before you get to any blood vessels. So anything that you needed to give your patient via the skin had to be fat-soluble, or it just wouldn't work. And then you have the problems of concentration gradients, skin thickness, how long you leave the patch on, and how "greasy" that person's natural skin is anyway. That makes for a lot of variables in delivery. Which means you can never be exactly sure of the dose.
By piercing through the skin's outer layers into the dermis with a "microneedle", suddenly you've eliminated a few things: 1) You can deliver hydrophyllic substances (like certain viruses or their components, for example) and 2) you can control dosage much much more accurately because you can be sure that what you're delivering is going to make it to the bloodstream versus lying around in the epidermis and or never getting off the patch in the first place.
I foresee that this technology will soon be used for much more than pediatric vaccine delivery and the creators will become very rich indeed. This doctor thinks it's a great idea. In fact the only problem is going to be for those allergic people - with previous patches all they would get is red skin, an itch, and maybe a localized rash. Now they risk a full blown type I allergic reaction.
When you're in trouble, smear the competitors too. Well done, Steve. Walked by an Apple store today - still full of the brainless zombies. Fools, money, soon parted.
AFAIK Wine and Cedega are still ahead of virtual machines in terms of graphics drivers and gaming. Wine is far from dead.
Obvious solution: Virtual box under linux will let you run whatever windows you want. Its graphic drivers are not good enough for most new 3D games (yet), but it certainly will let you do online banking...
But now the trick is getting these genetically modified mosquitoes to out-compete the unmodified one.
By the way, if this is done Monsanto style, will we be charged a fee if we get bitten by one of these copyrighted patented trademarked proprietary mosquitoes?
It's as if a million trolls suddenly cried out, and were silenced...
A great excuse to stay away from Droid.
And Apple fanboys are lubing up and bending over, preparing to take it up the ass once again. Because after Apple can do no wrong. The fans can't wait to hear how they can make it up to Mr. Jobs. Liver donations are currently being accepted at all Apple stores.
But can't you smell the per-monitor pricing scheme coming up?
In my view Hitler had started the road to WW2 probably by 1935 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland were the final straw.
Yes, this is where we get into "truth".
Now put yourself into the shoes of a man who took a bankrupt nation - bankrupt in terms of economics, and bankrupt in terms of pride. Germany lost World War One because of treachery at home - troop mutinies on the front lines, and Marxist revolutions in the towns. Germans felt that they could have won the first world war - or at least returned to status quo - their troops were still outside their borders when the armistice was signed. This was the final betrayal - their own government not only gave up their gains but gave up traditionally German territories and towns and sold the future of the German people into economic slavery in the form of war reparations.
This is your background. You take this country and you raise it up. You defy those that would have enslaved you, you give the people a sense of pride again, and you begin to claim what was rightfully yours a generation ago. And the allies give it to you - time and time again. Sometimes you need a ruse. Sometimes you just have to ask. And sometimes you take it, but you keep getting away with it.
Why would you stop? I am positive that the German government was absolutely surprised when Britain and France declared war on them when they invaded Poland. I am also positive that Germany was stunned when Britain refused peace when it was later offered.
It's easy nowadays to vilify and demonize. However it takes two to fight a war. Britain was just as instrumental in bringing about World War 2 as Germany was. The question the Germans dared to ask was "how come only Britain and France get to have an Empire?"
Well to be strictly accurate, it was the Prussians who were fond of "mobility war" - specifically Carl von Clausewitz. This concept was applied successfully by the Germans in the beginning of the First World War with German cavalry units plunging ahead deep into enemy territory. The machine gun and modern artillery however soon brought an end to any infiltration attempts by "soft" troops.
The Russians are in fact credited with the idea of developing the theory of using armor to infiltrate deep into enemy lines as far back as 1918 (remember that they left WW1 early due to the revolution at home). These deep warfare tactics were observed by Guderian and he wrote his famous book in 1929 (Panzer Leader). This book however explains tactics for, and the need for greater cooperation between armored units and motorized infantry. It does not cover what is considered to be the "classic" Blitzkrieg - the annihilation of a portion of the enemy front with artillery, armor and especially combat air support aircraft, followed by the rapid and deep penetration of armored spearheads that disrupt supply lines, followed by the penetration of motorized and mechanized infantry units to encircle the shoulders of the breach and push them back. In fact the OKW commander in charge of Fall GelB - Halder, was planning to immediately encircle French forces after the Sedan breakthrough, causing a long and drawn out fight. On May 16th, Rommel and Guderian disobeyed direct orders to that effect and moved as far west as they could, pushing deep behind enemy lines. This improvisation was at no point part of the plan. They had the advantage of air supremacy, and therefore French recon planes did not spot the move otherwise a French counterattack could have stopped the Germans there and then.
Anyway, wikipedia has the following to say about Guderian's Blitzkrieg:
"Guderian's claim to be the 'Father of Blitzkrieg' has, however, been challenged (Corum 92 pp 137-141) as gross self-exaggeration. His publications before 1936 were few, relatively mundane and did not address questions of fundamental doctrine. The famous Guderian book, Achtung Panzer, while an early military publications advocating tank warfare and while forcefully written, it was not particularly original. "
I have read his books and don't find any of them more impressive than, say, Clausewitz.
"The belief that there is only one truth and that oneself is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all evil that is in the world." -- Adolf Hitler
Of course he was in the business of lies, being a master politician, lying right up to the very end, when the Germans swore they were on the verge of unleashing secret weapons that would change the course of the war. Because the Fuhrer told them so. Few people knew that in fact he had ordered everything burned and destroyed behind the retreating armies.
But on the subject of truth and lies, Hitler never started World War II, either. Britain and France had decided that Germany had to be taken down long before the actual Polish invasion. In fact Chamberlain said, in May 1939 "the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning.". I'm not saying Hitler was a good guy. Like Napoleon before him, he was not. Nor is anyone who carelessly throws men's lives away. But like Napoleon, Hitler was manipulated into a corner and forced to yield. And, like Napoleon, he decided to fight his way out instead.
And on the side of the allies, I can understand that dealing with Hitler in 1939 was probably a much wiser decision than starting a war with Hitler in 1944. Germany was not at all ready for all out war in 1939 or 1940 and its major victories were mostly due to the complete strategic incompetence of their opponents. The famed and feared "Blitzkrieg" was not a doctrine, but invented on the fly during the French invasion. Commanders (Rommel included) regularly disobeyed orders and often entire divisions weren't where they were supposed to be. The tanks used were earlier Czech models because the German tanks had severe transmission problems. Their engines/gearboxes were incapable of dealing with the heavier armor. Had the Germans had 5 more years of uninterrupted research and production, training for their conscript, and slave labor for their factories, they would have been far tougher to defeat. Such a boost to production cannot be expected on the Allied side, because the allies only made a huge effort when they realized how quickly European nations were falling under the jack boot, and how close they were to losing.
"The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa. " -- George Orwell
concocted the entire fiasco is a bit of a stretch...
Your words, not mine.
However I was impressed with how newsworthy the story was, especially considering the number of cases involved - what was it: 3? 7? In the single digits, anyway. Yep, less than a dozen cases got almost a good month worth of constant Toyota stories. Whereas the latest GM recall of 1.5 million vehicles because their cars were catching fire (5 cars) after another major recall (1.3 million cars) after at least 14 crashes due to defective power steering gets barely a mention in the news.
Truth is, recalls happen all the time, to all manufacturers. There's no conspiracy. Except that the news media were especially happy to engage in Toyota bashing in an apparently "buy American" subliminal campaign (as if Toyota wasn't an American company nowadays). Well that's ok, the truth will always come out in the end. And I am still never buying an American car again.
GM had more to lose. Co-incidence that all this unintended acceleration crap came out right in the middle of the recession and right in the middle of the GM bankruptcy/bailout? Open your eyes.
OMG what if they make breathing illegal???
Currently breathing is not mentioned at all in the law. It's a right. Start to worry when someone decides to guarantee you that right. It will only take a few years before the anti-bad breath league successfully lobby the government to restrict certain types of breathing, and it only gets worse from there...
I agree that you seem to be more of an optimist than me. I just believe in boundaries - although they are not necessarily absolute, the universe is full of them on every scale. Places where the electron goes, and places where it doesn't go. Places where you have (more) galaxies, and places where you don't (have as many). While I think you're right in that our capacity to learn is always changing, I also believe that the exponential growth in our knowledge simply cannot be sustained. At one point we will start tapering off, and hit an age of "diminishing returns". I think that in the end our total "knowledge" of the universe is finite, or at least approaches some arbitrary level asymptotically at one point. We're smart, but we're not THAT smart. If we were, we wouldn't be plagued with all the social problems we have here and now even in this "englightened" age.
Key weasel word inserted: legitimate.
Laws (or even worse regulations) listing what content is "legitimate" soon to follow. This is not a victory, it's the first step to an erosion of freedom.
No problem with respect to AC. I read at -1 anyway.
As to your answer, it is good. I am not trying to anthropomorphise. My original answer to OP also was not intended to "answer" a "question". I am also a very scientific, very rational atheist. So no "great spirit" either. However my point was that because of our scale - either in size or time-span, there are a great many things about the universe that we will never be able to know with the same certainty as, for example, something closer to home which we can measure, predict, interfere with and corroborate that it behaves according to our assumptions.
On a universal scale however all we will ever have is supposition, theories that come and go with current fashion, and doubts. And that is not counting all the things that are so large, or happen so slowly, that we will never be able to understand them or even perceive them - just like an ant is completely unaware of what a galaxy is, or even their existance.
You're imputing motivations to inanimate things.
But then will a mayfly (which lives at most a single day) ever understand that a blade of grass is a living thing?
Our classification of "animate" and "inanimate" might not be as accurate as we think. The Earth is certainly a dynamic thing even in our frame of reference. From the trembling of its crust to the currents in its oceans and atmospheres, the Earth is not static at all.
That a lot of "Free" stuff also turns out to be crap. Therefore the hidden cost is the time it takes in sorting out the good free stuff from the crap. With payware certain standards are expected - or even enforced by third parties (ie an app store). In cases where some crapware does find its way into that third party store, usually there is someone to complain to and the crapware is removed quickly.
It's the old argument of "I can't be bothered to do it myself". It's why we have politicians. It's why we have religions and "gods". Because we prefer to have 'someone else' to delegate certain fears and worries to (even if that 'someone else' turns out to be corrupt in the case of politicians and clerics, or even non-existent in the case of gods). Humans are funny that way.
I guess BP was drilling there, too.
what happens when you leave the root login as "root" on the database. I mean Cisco and security? LOL. Oh and Hayley Williams was "hacked" too.