It's impossible to detect copyrighted content on any large scale.
ALL the content is copyrighted. If you film the contents of your left nostril, it's copyrighted by you (not that I imagine many people would care about it, but there's always a few...).
You mean infringing content - ie content uploaded without the author's permission.
Only Napster didn't take down copyrighted material when they were told to do so by the copyright holders. It was all about piracy. YouTube did take it down and continues to do so. There's a big difference.
It's unreasonable to assume, however, that youtube must police every single item uploaded and check for copyright infringement. Starting with the fact that EVERY upload is copyrighted by the creator, whether it be a fart lighting contest or an episode of Battlestar Galactica.
A copyright is automatic, and the owner in theory should not have to go after the infringer. However this law was designed before a service like YouTube was conceived, and perhaps there are some aspects that need to be rethought. Merely silencing the voice of the people is not enough. There's an obvious demand for this kind of service and the VAST majority of videos are NOT blatant piracy. Change the law before trying to go against what the people want (again).
I am not taking sides on this, but how could you find a submission on Youtube without key search terms. For example Jon Stewart, daily show, etc. If Youtube would not display items found by these search terms, wouldn't this stop most uploads?
IANAL, but I think the idea is if they do any routine "policing" at all, then they are liable if they don't get all the infringers. As it is, they are not responsible for the content people upload. There's a warning to not upload copyrighted material, and if you do that, YOU are liable, not them. They make a reasonable effort to take down material known to infringe once they are informed of it. And that's that.
If you include blanket filters - then what about parody, for example? You are allowed to use the words "A "Star Wars" Parody" without being sued by Lucasfilms. But if this is filtered automatically - you are disallowing part of what copyright law permits. Not only that, but automatic filters are easy to get around. How about $tar Worz, st4r w4rs, wtar sars, etc. It's impossible to filter keywords 100% effectively.
Funnily, if you shove it down their throat like M$ did, you would find most people will actually find no difference between a linux desktop and a windows desktop.
The problem is, this system will probably be as or more expensive than the windows version, since Dell won't be able to install their extra revenue-generating crapware. Unless Norton, AOL and their cronies are working on linux versions of their junk. Joe Sixpack will certainly care a lot about the final price of the system!
Why should he buy a linux system if it's the same price as Windows? It will be hard to sell him just on linux's strong points - since Windows already has a tough one - almost everyone else has Windows already. If Joe gave a damn about security we wouldn't have all the pwned boxes we have today. Plus - I hate Vista as much as the next slashdotter, but there hasn't been any earth shattering, instant pwnage, security flaw discovered with that OS so far. Or it would certainly have been posted here.
The OBVIOUS advantage linux has is that it (and most of its software) is free. But if Dell doesn't pass that on, linux probably won't sell.
Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox). Stop putting triclosan, etc. in every fucking toiletry and soap under the sun.
Ok I agree with being against "antibacterial" soaps, unless for wound cleaning or surgical prep. It's just a marketing thing, regular soap and water is just as good for household purposes.
But people can die from chickenpox. Admittedly, not many people. 99% suffer no lasting effects apart from the odd scar. But some can develop a severe case of varicella pneumonitis or meningitis and die. This begs an ethical question - if a vaccine is available and we can prevent those deaths, shouldn't we?
What exactly is an "acceptable" death rate for a "preventable" disease? Who gets to determine that figure?
Another example is the HPV vaccine. Cervical cancer is fully preventable with routine pap smears. Do the women who avoid their gyno visits because of embarassment or for social reasons "deserve" to die because we choose to deny them a vaccine?
Food for thought. Not everything is simple, especially on a public health level.
The same system of recognizing a bacterial cell is used when recognizing an infected body cell. There are, perhaps, different cell lines of macrophages and lymphocytes to ingest bacteria as opposed to virus producing body cells but the initial system of recognition and activation is similarly alerted.
Actually, stopping when you feel better is a pretty good idea. The bug is gone
Clearly you have no idea how this process works. You have merely transformed an infection into a subclinical infection. You haven't killed all the bacteria by any means. You've just killed the most vulnerable ones - enough to allow what was bothering you - the swollen tissue, massive release of histamine, bradykinin, etc that was causing you pain.
Oh you feel better - but bacteria are still there - and these are the ones that were harder to kill. The more resistant ones. Oh you may or may not have a relapse. You are no longer infected, but you are colonized. And these resistant bacteria you can pass on to other people, or they can come back to haunt you with a resistant infection at a later date.
Bacterial suceptibility to antibiotics is dose dependent. I could kill all bacteria with a massive dose of any drug, but I would probably kill you, too.
We determine an effective dose at which almost ALL bacteria are inhibited/destroyed. The treatment time isn't a number we pull out of our backsides - it's determined statistically as the shortest time at which virtually all bacteria are killed (ie, cultures of the affective site turn negative), at the effective dose. Yes most bacteria are killed in the first couple days. But diminishing returns means that we need to keep giving the antibiotic for a longer time to make sure vitually all (if not all) bacteria are eradicated.
What you propose is worthy of the "Tom Cruise Medical Award". Make sure you clean your Thetans while you're at it.
On the other hand you make a vaild point. Most patients EXPECT an antibiotic, and hate us when they go home with the "take a tylenol and get some rest" line. It puts a lot of pressure on a doc who makes his living from "word of mouth" advertising.
Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
Funny, these guys seem to disagree with you. Specifically: "Clinical misuse of antibiotics may be more common among private practitioners than among public health personnel--private practitioners charge higher fees, the demand for antibiotics seen in private patients is higher, and more drugs are available in private clinics than in public hospitals "
Oh look, so do these guys. My search returned over 100 hits and it's really not my job to educate you, so I won't go on. But there IS a causal link. Ask any infectious disease specialist and s/he will cite a lot more articles for you.
people's immune systems actually atrophy. So when they get a little bug that a 'normal' immune system could kick without much trouble, theirs can't, or they fraek out because they are ultra health concious, so they go to the Dr. Dr sees what's going on, prescribes an anti-biotic because John Q and Sally public are so afraid to go a few weeks with the sniffles and let it run their course.
This is an interesting theory that has been kicking around for some time. But then again what do you suggest? We should stop vaccinating/treating people and let a certain percentage of people die, and write John and Sally Q Public off as an "acceptable loss"?
Immune system just doesn't work well for fighting off certain bacteria, such as tuberculosis
Actually one could argue that the immune system works very well, in fact. Only in these cases the bacteria found a way to adapt to it so that it wouldn't harm them. Neutralizing hydrogen peroxide, or inhibiting phagocytosis, etc. The damage done from TB is caused by your own immune system, not by the bacteria. Those guys are just trying to, like, get along, man! Compare this to, say, Staph pyogenes with all his yummy tissue digesting enzymes...
You are completely right. Poor medical practice consists in lack of effective hand-washing and other hygene measures on behalf of medical staff and visiting family members, and overprescription of antibiotics when they are not really necessary. I always sigh when nursing decides to place the HIV patient with muti-resistant TB in the room right next door to the neutropenic (read - no immune defense system) leukemia patient.
Poor patient practice - not completing the full course of antibiotics is also responsible in part to bacterial resistance. Yeah you may FEEL better after 2 days, but you should take those antibiotics for the full 5, 7, 10 or 14 days...(depending on the prescription).
However one could consider the argument that these measures would only serve to delay the inevitable. If bacteria have the ability to develop resistance, then it's only a matter of time before they would - despite the most effective measures possible to prevent it.
After all, remember whose planet this is. (Hint, there are a LOT more bacteria than any other life form!).
If this works on the immune system and not directly on the pathogen, then couldn't it work on viral infections as well? And possibly other issues, like fungal infections, even?
Maybe. Maybe not. The immune system is pretty darned complex (ask any medical student - I know I hated it!), with many different pathways, and we haven't finished understanding it ourselves yet. Really TFA was rather vague ("stimulation of infection-clearing chemokines"), but I would safely assume that since TFA talks principally about its use against bacteria, this would NOT work on viruses. That's usually a whole different part of the immune system.
Slashdot Mirror
It's impossible to detect copyrighted content on any large scale.
ALL the content is copyrighted. If you film the contents of your left nostril, it's copyrighted by you (not that I imagine many people would care about it, but there's always a few...).
You mean infringing content - ie content uploaded without the author's permission.
There are vast similarites with Napster
First, IANAL, obviously.
Only Napster didn't take down copyrighted material when they were told to do so by the copyright holders. It was all about piracy. YouTube did take it down and continues to do so. There's a big difference.
It's unreasonable to assume, however, that youtube must police every single item uploaded and check for copyright infringement. Starting with the fact that EVERY upload is copyrighted by the creator, whether it be a fart lighting contest or an episode of Battlestar Galactica.
A copyright is automatic, and the owner in theory should not have to go after the infringer. However this law was designed before a service like YouTube was conceived, and perhaps there are some aspects that need to be rethought. Merely silencing the voice of the people is not enough. There's an obvious demand for this kind of service and the VAST majority of videos are NOT blatant piracy. Change the law before trying to go against what the people want (again).
I am not taking sides on this, but how could you find a submission on Youtube without key search terms. For example Jon Stewart, daily show, etc. If Youtube would not display items found by these search terms, wouldn't this stop most uploads?
IANAL, but I think the idea is if they do any routine "policing" at all, then they are liable if they don't get all the infringers. As it is, they are not responsible for the content people upload. There's a warning to not upload copyrighted material, and if you do that, YOU are liable, not them. They make a reasonable effort to take down material known to infringe once they are informed of it. And that's that.
If you include blanket filters - then what about parody, for example? You are allowed to use the words "A "Star Wars" Parody" without being sued by Lucasfilms. But if this is filtered automatically - you are disallowing part of what copyright law permits. Not only that, but automatic filters are easy to get around. How about $tar Worz, st4r w4rs, wtar sars, etc. It's impossible to filter keywords 100% effectively.
Donald, you have too much time on your hands, dog. Hehehe. Thanks tho ;)
If you want to get vaccinated for it, fine.
:)
uhh, being male, no thanks
Even if you are vaccinated you still have to get pap smears, though you can opt for less frequent
ones.
You sure? Wonder what the Cochrane study on this will say. Doesn't make much sense, really. Almost everything else can be detected by other means.
Scientists at the MIT Media Lab have invented a way to reversibly silence brain cells using pulses of yellow light
I wonder exactly how long this has been happening to president George W Bush, and is there any way to get his brain back?
Funnily, if you shove it down their throat like M$ did, you would find most people will actually find no difference between a linux desktop and a windows desktop.
The problem is, this system will probably be as or more expensive than the windows version, since Dell won't be able to install their extra revenue-generating crapware. Unless Norton, AOL and their cronies are working on linux versions of their junk. Joe Sixpack will certainly care a lot about the final price of the system!
Why should he buy a linux system if it's the same price as Windows? It will be hard to sell him just on linux's strong points - since Windows already has a tough one - almost everyone else has Windows already. If Joe gave a damn about security we wouldn't have all the pwned boxes we have today. Plus - I hate Vista as much as the next slashdotter, but there hasn't been any earth shattering, instant pwnage, security flaw discovered with that OS so far. Or it would certainly have been posted here.
The OBVIOUS advantage linux has is that it (and most of its software) is free. But if Dell doesn't pass that on, linux probably won't sell.
Doesn't the Windows EULA say that if you don't agree, you get a refund? Or has that been removed?
/sarcasm
He obviously agreed to the EULA. After all, he bought it, didn't he?
But - but - will it run linux? Oh... nevermind!
Now I have one custom built at my local computer-geeks store.
Yeah that's great for a desktop - I always build my own; but I have yet to see custom built laptops - at least in my neighborhood.
Don't vaccinate against things for which there is no real reason to i.e; varicella (chicken pox).
Stop putting triclosan, etc. in every fucking toiletry and soap under the sun.
Ok I agree with being against "antibacterial" soaps, unless for wound cleaning or surgical prep. It's just a marketing thing, regular soap and water is just as good for household purposes.
But people can die from chickenpox. Admittedly, not many people. 99% suffer no lasting effects apart from the odd scar. But some can develop a severe case of varicella pneumonitis or meningitis and die. This begs an ethical question - if a vaccine is available and we can prevent those deaths, shouldn't we?
What exactly is an "acceptable" death rate for a "preventable" disease? Who gets to determine that figure?
Another example is the HPV vaccine. Cervical cancer is fully preventable with routine pap smears. Do the women who avoid their gyno visits because of embarassment or for social reasons "deserve" to die because we choose to deny them a vaccine?
Food for thought. Not everything is simple, especially on a public health level.
on the grounds that if they're going to accept them all anyway, what does it matter?
:)
Oh come ON, be FAIR! It's not like they accepted the warp drive without a working prototype!
The same system of recognizing a bacterial cell is used when recognizing an infected body cell. There are, perhaps, different cell lines of macrophages and lymphocytes to ingest bacteria as opposed to virus producing body cells but the initial system of recognition and activation is similarly alerted.
;)
I agree, but either way Immunology still sucks
We need to develop a new, superstrong antibiotic called Placebocillin. If that doesn't work, we can always try intravenous Cephplacebo.
For those patients who expect a little more, there's always Levoplaceboxacin, Vancoplacebomycin (which can turn you red, too!) and Placebozolid.
Actually, stopping when you feel better is a pretty good idea. The bug is gone
Clearly you have no idea how this process works. You have merely transformed an infection into a subclinical infection. You haven't killed all the bacteria by any means. You've just killed the most vulnerable ones - enough to allow what was bothering you - the swollen tissue, massive release of histamine, bradykinin, etc that was causing you pain.
Oh you feel better - but bacteria are still there - and these are the ones that were harder to kill. The more resistant ones. Oh you may or may not have a relapse. You are no longer infected, but you are colonized. And these resistant bacteria you can pass on to other people, or they can come back to haunt you with a resistant infection at a later date.
Bacterial suceptibility to antibiotics is dose dependent. I could kill all bacteria with a massive dose of any drug, but I would probably kill you, too.
We determine an effective dose at which almost ALL bacteria are inhibited/destroyed. The treatment time isn't a number we pull out of our backsides - it's determined statistically as the shortest time at which virtually all bacteria are killed (ie, cultures of the affective site turn negative), at the effective dose. Yes most bacteria are killed in the first couple days. But diminishing returns means that we need to keep giving the antibiotic for a longer time to make sure vitually all (if not all) bacteria are eradicated.
What you propose is worthy of the "Tom Cruise Medical Award". Make sure you clean your Thetans while you're at it.
On the other hand you make a vaild point. Most patients EXPECT an antibiotic, and hate us when they go home with the "take a tylenol and get some rest" line. It puts a lot of pressure on a doc who makes his living from "word of mouth" advertising.
Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.
Funny, these guys seem to disagree with you. Specifically: "Clinical misuse of antibiotics may be more common among private practitioners than among public health personnel--private practitioners charge higher fees, the demand for antibiotics seen in private patients is higher, and more drugs are available in private clinics than in public hospitals "
Oh look, so do these guys. My search returned over 100 hits and it's really not my job to educate you, so I won't go on. But there IS a causal link. Ask any infectious disease specialist and s/he will cite a lot more articles for you.
If people wouldn't run to their doctor every time they get a little sniffle, we wouldn't have this problem.
:-)
Hey hang on a second, I earn a living from those sniffles!!!
You cut the number of patients I see per day, and I'm going to have to put my rates up. You don't mind $500 a consult do you?
I agree that antibiotics are overprescribed by many doctors. But please DO visit your doctor if you don't feel well!!!
people's immune systems actually atrophy. So when they get a little bug that a 'normal' immune system could kick without much trouble, theirs can't, or they fraek out because they are ultra health concious, so they go to the Dr. Dr sees what's going on, prescribes an anti-biotic because John Q and Sally public are so afraid to go a few weeks with the sniffles and let it run their course.
This is an interesting theory that has been kicking around for some time. But then again what do you suggest? We should stop vaccinating/treating people and let a certain percentage of people die, and write John and Sally Q Public off as an "acceptable loss"?
Immune system just doesn't work well for fighting off certain bacteria, such as tuberculosis
Actually one could argue that the immune system works very well, in fact. Only in these cases the bacteria found a way to adapt to it so that it wouldn't harm them. Neutralizing hydrogen peroxide, or inhibiting phagocytosis, etc. The damage done from TB is caused by your own immune system, not by the bacteria. Those guys are just trying to, like, get along, man! Compare this to, say, Staph pyogenes with all his yummy tissue digesting enzymes...
You are completely right. Poor medical practice consists in lack of effective hand-washing and other hygene measures on behalf of medical staff and visiting family members, and overprescription of antibiotics when they are not really necessary. I always sigh when nursing decides to place the HIV patient with muti-resistant TB in the room right next door to the neutropenic (read - no immune defense system) leukemia patient.
Poor patient practice - not completing the full course of antibiotics is also responsible in part to bacterial resistance. Yeah you may FEEL better after 2 days, but you should take those antibiotics for the full 5, 7, 10 or 14 days...(depending on the prescription).
However one could consider the argument that these measures would only serve to delay the inevitable. If bacteria have the ability to develop resistance, then it's only a matter of time before they would - despite the most effective measures possible to prevent it.
After all, remember whose planet this is. (Hint, there are a LOT more bacteria than any other life form!).
results in the loss of 25 million of the enemy's population.
Ahh, but does it work on terrorists?
If this works on the immune system and not directly on the pathogen, then couldn't it work on viral infections as well? And possibly other issues, like fungal infections, even?
Maybe. Maybe not. The immune system is pretty darned complex (ask any medical student - I know I hated it!), with many different pathways, and we haven't finished understanding it ourselves yet. Really TFA was rather vague ("stimulation of infection-clearing chemokines"), but I would safely assume that since TFA talks principally about its use against bacteria, this would NOT work on viruses. That's usually a whole different part of the immune system.
Kittie or Kiddie? Either way.... you sick bastard!
I can't help it! I just can't get enough of that pussy...
If you did, a simple reductio ad absurdum dictates that they'd have no value, and therefore I would not want them anyway.
Bravo Sir, stated like a true Nerd!
PSST: I'll have his!
Great! Now I know where to store all that kittie po...uhh, nevermind.