It's interesting to note that, the more one learns about Tuesday's son (e.g. hair color, shoe size, whether he is the first child), the closer the probability of the second child being a boy approaches 50%.
Once upon a time, there was a project that had been underway for 19 months, but had not yet delivered anything to the users. Management was concerned, and was considering drastic measures such as pulling the plug and starting over with a new project team. At this point, management brought in a trusted developer I'll call DT to help analyze the project's status.
After a series of meetings with different project team members, DT gained an understanding that some software components had already been developed and tested, and it should be possible for the team to deliver a workable system within a few months. Seeing this, management relented and decided to give the project team a bit more time to deliver something.
A few weeks later, at a weekly meeting, one of the team members mentioned they were considering using message queues, but he was leaning against using them. In agreement, DT said that using message queues to handle communications between components of the app looked like overengineering. At this point, a developer sitting across the table went ballistic and started spouting semi-comprehensible technobabble about why message queues were needed and how, at a previous workplace, nobody ever would have said this was overengineering.
To be continued?
Perhaps DT's criticism of the message queue approach makes him a duct tape developer in this case.
Placebo is a phenomenon by which medical subjects given an inert treatment still tend to exhibit positive effects. Far from being extraordinary, it is a mundane and well known phenomenon.
If science is currently unable to explain mechanisms behind phenomena such as the "placebo effect", how might one go about increasing scientific knowledge in this area?
I'm not directly familiar with the work of PEAR, but on the other hand, it's easy to see the amount of negativity this type of non-mainstream study tends to face.
With regard to refractive surgery, the cornea generally heals (scars) very slowly, over the course of years or decades, so the long term effects of refractive surgery may not yet be well understood. In my opinion, for persons with eyesight that can easily be corrected to near 20/20, refractive surgery is risky and reckless (especially so if your livelihood depends on your eyesight). See surgicaleyes.org for stories from the dark side of refractive surgery.
The reason for using a distance of 20 feet is to test distance vision. It's widely accepted that, at distances closer than 20 feet, the eye somehow "accomodates" for the close distance, but at 20 feet (6 meters) and beyond, the eye is at rest.
Here's a brief explanation of the Snellen chart typically used to test distance vision. Indeed, the critical features of each letter, etc. subtend one minute of visual angle; a whole letter subtends five minutes of visual angle.
Anyone considering laser surgery should be aware that refractive surgery is not foolproof. Reportedly, some overzealous LASIK surgery mills have even neglected to provide patients with adequate information for informed consent, as available on the FDA LASIK site. In addition, the cornea generally heals (scars) very slowly, so the long term (10-20 year) consequences of some of the newer forms of refractive surgery may not yet be fully understood.
Fortunately, natural techniques are available that may be able to help people improve blurred eyesight caused by problems such as myopia or astigmatism. For further information on the topic of natural eyesight improvement, a good starting point is the
ISEE website.
What is this "science" you speak of? Does it encompass the entire body of human knowledge? Can it create the works of Shakespeare or Picasso? Can it solve the mideast crisis?
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting to note that, the more one learns about Tuesday's son (e.g. hair color, shoe size, whether he is the first child), the closer the probability of the second child being a boy approaches 50%.
http://www.iblindness.org/
Just not profitable enough I suppose.
Once upon a time, there was a project that had been underway for 19 months, but had not yet delivered anything to the users. Management was concerned, and was considering drastic measures such as pulling the plug and starting over with a new project team. At this point, management brought in a trusted developer I'll call DT to help analyze the project's status.
After a series of meetings with different project team members, DT gained an understanding that some software components had already been developed and tested, and it should be possible for the team to deliver a workable system within a few months. Seeing this, management relented and decided to give the project team a bit more time to deliver something.
A few weeks later, at a weekly meeting, one of the team members mentioned they were considering using message queues, but he was leaning against using them. In agreement, DT said that using message queues to handle communications between components of the app looked like overengineering. At this point, a developer sitting across the table went ballistic and started spouting semi-comprehensible technobabble about why message queues were needed and how, at a previous workplace, nobody ever would have said this was overengineering.
To be continued?
Perhaps DT's criticism of the message queue approach makes him a duct tape developer in this case.
Placebo is a phenomenon by which medical subjects given an inert treatment still tend to exhibit positive effects. Far from being extraordinary, it is a mundane and well known phenomenon.
If science is currently unable to explain mechanisms behind phenomena such as the "placebo effect", how might one go about increasing scientific knowledge in this area?
I'm not directly familiar with the work of PEAR, but on the other hand, it's easy to see the amount of negativity this type of non-mainstream study tends to face.
Some web resources of potential interest:
I.S.E.E.
seeing.org
Google search
Some books of potential interest:
Relearning to See
The Bates Method for Better Eyesight Without Glasses
Perfect Sight Without Glasses
With regard to refractive surgery, the cornea generally heals (scars) very slowly, over the course of years or decades, so the long term effects of refractive surgery may not yet be well understood. In my opinion, for persons with eyesight that can easily be corrected to near 20/20, refractive surgery is risky and reckless (especially so if your livelihood depends on your eyesight). See surgicaleyes.org for stories from the dark side of refractive surgery.
Here's a brief explanation of the Snellen chart typically used to test distance vision. Indeed, the critical features of each letter, etc. subtend one minute of visual angle; a whole letter subtends five minutes of visual angle.
Fortunately, natural techniques are available that may be able to help people improve blurred eyesight caused by problems such as myopia or astigmatism. For further information on the topic of natural eyesight improvement, a good starting point is the ISEE website.
What is this "science" you speak of? Does it encompass the entire body of human knowledge? Can it create the works of Shakespeare or Picasso? Can it solve the mideast crisis?
Otherwise, OptiStock.com may be a good place to look for information about the profit potential of the vision care market.