It's true that hospitals and nursing homes are the breeding grounds and storehouses of these highly-resistant bugs (e.g. MRSA). As long as you can manage to stay out of them, you are unlikely (although it's not impossible) to have a problem with, say, MRSA for now. Lots of people don't have the option, of course.
Also, other forms of drug resistance are extremely widespread and have affected how common community-acquired infections are treated. Community-acquired pneumonia is treated very differently today than in the past, and part of the reason is resistance patterns. This is assessed community by community. The point being, in the not-so-distant past _these_ resistances were mainly in hospitals and nursing homes, but now they're everywhere. In time resistance to other drugs will spread as well.
Also, the important thing about vancomycin is that it can treat some bacteria that are resistant to other antibiotics. However, even with bugs that are sensitive to it it may not be as effective as other, older, medications (not all antibiotics kill as effectively, regardless of resistance). The example I'm thinking of is bacterial meningitis, an extraordinarily nasty infection. There is a study which showed that those treated with vancomycin did significantly worse long-term (residual neurologic deficits) than those treated with an older antibiotic, if the bacteria weren't resistant to it. Problem is, there's enough resistance now in some communities that vancomycin will be the only choice for many people.
Finally, I don't think this is a case of media hype. All of the infectious diseases docs that I know are even more concerned about it (if that's possible) than the articles suggest. Problem is there are some docs out there who still hand out prescriptions for no reason other than the patient wants one. There's a big push to stop this, but it may take another generation of freshly-trained MDs IMO.
To provide some numbers in the shell vs. rocket speed contest:
Artillery shell (from another post) muzzle velocity is ~750meters/second. This is ~ mach 2.2 (at sea level). For comparison, a.308 bullet has a muzzle velocity of ~ 820m/s (mach 2.4).
Many of the #'s listed for missile speeds may be at altitude, but I did find one listing that seems to be near sea level: mgm52c = lance = american battlefield support missile, speed = mach 3.
Also, some missile speeds are listed as ~ mach 5, which is 1500 m/s even at 10,000 meters.
So, it seems that missiles are considerably faster than artillery shells. Actually an sr-71's speed is given as 1100m/s (2500 miles/hour) at altitude, which is faster than an artillery shell.
It depends what you're looking for, but here's a list with comments. Many of these are mentioned above, but I always take multiple recommendations as a useful sign.
For non-scientists wanting an understanding of things, not to solve equations: 1. Thinking Physics; Epstein. This is a little question/answer book that I picked up years ago. It's all about understanding concepts without solving equations, and I think it's very good for what the poster asked for. It's probably hard to find, though.
2. The Cosmic Code; Pagels. Also, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat; Gribbon. I read both of these ~ 15 years ago and liked them very much. I think that quantum mechanics is one of the more interesting areas of physics to read about. This is because the concepts are so interesting on their own, without working through equations. You really don't want to slog through a text on classical mechanics, on the other hand.
3. QED; Feynman. Already mentioned by several people. My only caveat is that I'm not sure that someone who hasn't read/thought about quantum mechanics a bit will get so much out of it. I read it after taking a semester of quantum mechanics and I was fascinated; it remains one of my favorite books.
4. "The Flying Circus of Physics"; Walker. A list of questions that anyone might have about how the world works (of the "why is the sky blue" sort, but on many topics) with short answers and references. Fun to have around.
Other:
The Astronomy Cafe; Odenwald and Just Visiting This Plant; Tyson. Both on astronomy/cosmology, and I found both to be enjoyable reads.
Boojums All the Way Through; Mermin. A collection of writings, and a few will likely not interest a non-physicist. However, Mermin has thought a lot about the whole "understanding quantum mechanics"/EPR paradox/quantum measurment thing and a whole section of this book is on that topic. Also, he has a couple of cute articles on math topics that should interest anyone who enjoys that sort of thing.
Finally, I didn't really enjoy "Brief History of Time" very much. It's been a while, so I don't have a great reason why, but basically I didn't feel like I got that much out of it.
>We live in a democracy, but we are not ruled by a mob.
Well, sort of. The constitution limits what the majority can do, but a sufficiently large and persistent "mob" could have the entire Constitution changed to "Everyone must read the entirety of slashdot.org each day, under penalty of death". Or, say, "The manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within the United States is prohibited." Or, "Whoops, we take that one back."
I am not opposed to (limited) copyright nor to the music industry's right to sell music at the price they choose, etc. However, IMO this is a practical issue as much as one of principle.
The problem is in what has to be done to protect their current business model/distribution system. Let's say (as they seem to think) that their distribution system is so vulnerable that the only way to protect it is to pass draconian laws stifling technological innovation and/or the free transfer of information. Should we? After all, copyright law is a practical trade-off to start with, based on giving incentive to the producers of art vs. the extra cost to society. The RIAA is obviously ready to see society take whatever measures are necessary to protect their profits. But at some point the costs are too high.
Rather than looking at the problem and changing the world to fit the RIAA's business model, I would like to see the RIAA show some flexibility and change to fit into the modern world.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also Linux lacks major software for students like games and MS Word... MS Word can check not only spelling but sentence structure, readability ... "
This is good for students? I shudder to think of the results of MS Word teaching our kids grammar.
"two dot.com millionaires" Are there that many left?
It's true that hospitals and nursing homes are the breeding grounds and storehouses of these highly-resistant bugs (e.g. MRSA). As long as you can manage to stay out of them, you are unlikely (although it's not impossible) to have a problem with, say, MRSA for now. Lots of people don't have the option, of course.
Also, other forms of drug resistance are extremely widespread and have affected how common community-acquired infections are treated. Community-acquired pneumonia is treated very differently today than in the past, and part of the reason is resistance patterns. This is assessed community by community. The point being, in the not-so-distant past _these_ resistances were mainly in hospitals and nursing homes, but now they're everywhere. In time resistance to other drugs will spread as well.
Also, the important thing about vancomycin is that it can treat some bacteria that are resistant to other antibiotics. However, even with bugs that are sensitive to it it may not be as effective as other, older, medications (not all antibiotics kill as effectively, regardless of resistance). The example I'm thinking of is bacterial meningitis, an extraordinarily nasty infection. There is a study which showed that those treated with vancomycin did significantly worse long-term (residual neurologic deficits) than those treated with an older antibiotic, if the bacteria weren't resistant to it. Problem is, there's enough resistance now in some communities that vancomycin will be the only choice for many people.
Finally, I don't think this is a case of media hype. All of the infectious diseases docs that I know are even more concerned about it (if that's possible) than the articles suggest. Problem is there are some docs out there who still hand out prescriptions for no reason other than the patient wants one. There's a big push to stop this, but it may take another generation of freshly-trained MDs IMO.
To provide some numbers in the shell vs. rocket speed contest: Artillery shell (from another post) muzzle velocity is ~750meters/second. This is ~ mach 2.2 (at sea level). For comparison, a .308 bullet has a muzzle velocity of ~ 820m/s (mach 2.4).
Many of the #'s listed for missile speeds may be at altitude, but I did find one listing that seems to be near sea level: mgm52c = lance = american battlefield support missile, speed = mach 3.
Also, some missile speeds are listed as ~ mach 5, which is 1500 m/s even at 10,000 meters.
So, it seems that missiles are considerably faster than artillery shells. Actually an sr-71's speed is given as 1100m/s (2500 miles/hour) at altitude, which is faster than an artillery shell.
It depends what you're looking for, but here's a list with comments. Many of these are mentioned above, but I always take multiple recommendations
as a useful sign.
For non-scientists wanting an understanding of things, not to solve equations:
1. Thinking Physics; Epstein. This is a little question/answer book that I picked up years ago. It's all about understanding concepts without solving equations, and I think it's very good for what the poster asked for. It's probably hard to find, though.
2. The Cosmic Code; Pagels. Also, In Search of Schrodinger's Cat; Gribbon.
I read both of these ~ 15 years ago and liked them very much. I think that quantum mechanics is one of the more interesting areas of physics to read about. This is because the concepts are so interesting on their own, without working through equations. You really don't want to slog through a text on classical mechanics, on the other hand.
3. QED; Feynman. Already mentioned by several people. My only caveat is that I'm not sure that someone who hasn't read/thought about quantum mechanics a bit will get so much out of it. I read it after taking a semester of quantum mechanics and I was fascinated; it remains one of my favorite books.
4. "The Flying Circus of Physics"; Walker. A list of questions that anyone might have about how the world works (of the "why is the sky blue" sort, but on many topics) with short answers and references.
Fun to have around.
Other:
The Astronomy Cafe; Odenwald and Just Visiting This Plant; Tyson. Both on astronomy/cosmology, and I found both to be enjoyable reads.
Boojums All the Way Through; Mermin. A collection of writings, and a few will likely not interest a non-physicist. However, Mermin has thought a lot about the whole "understanding quantum mechanics"/EPR paradox/quantum measurment thing and a whole section of this book is on that topic. Also, he has a couple of cute articles on math topics that should interest anyone who enjoys that sort of thing.
Finally, I didn't really enjoy "Brief History of Time" very much. It's been a while, so I don't have a great reason why, but basically I didn't feel like I got that much out of it.
>We live in a democracy, but we are not ruled by a mob.
Well, sort of. The constitution limits what the majority can do, but a sufficiently large and persistent "mob" could have the entire Constitution changed to "Everyone must read the entirety of slashdot.org each day, under penalty of death". Or, say, "The manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within the United States is prohibited." Or, "Whoops, we take that one back."
I am not opposed to (limited) copyright nor to the music industry's right to sell music at the price they choose, etc. However, IMO this is a practical issue as much as one of principle.
The problem is in what has to be done to protect their current business model/distribution system. Let's say (as they seem to think) that their distribution system is so vulnerable that the only way to protect it is to pass draconian laws stifling technological innovation and/or the free transfer of information. Should we? After all, copyright law is a practical trade-off to start with, based on giving incentive to the producers of art vs. the extra cost to society. The RIAA is obviously ready to see society take whatever measures are necessary to protect their profits. But at some point the costs are too high.
Rather than looking at the problem and changing the world to fit the RIAA's business model, I would like to see the RIAA show some flexibility and change to fit into the modern world.