there is no dryer that is anywhere near as efficient as a clothes line.
Balls. The sun produces about a bazillion gazillion megagiga superwatts, and about a squazillionth of that actually goes into drying your clothes. That must be the least efficient clothes dryer you could possibly imagine, unless you try and dry your clothes from a more distant star or mabe by bouncing sunlight off the moon.
He does qualify the person of the year statement by saying it is a joke, and linking to the time.com website.
If you look about half way down the page, there is a small light blue line that looks like part of the background. It is a hyperlink to a photo of him (I presume) (I think it's titled 'spot the geek'). Just from glancing at the rig he's got there, he looks like a pretty dedicated nerd!
AIDS is immunosuppression caused by HIV. There are a variety of other causes of immunosuppression caused by other things, but these are not AIDS. What's your point?
Yes, they can have similar clinical appearances, because most of the pathology seen in AIDS is due to immunosuppresion, not viral infection itself (though there are some manifestations that do appear to have a direct connection).
Maybe you are suggesting that we call all diseases characteristic of immunosuppression AIDS? So someone who has a stem cell transplant, or a bone marrow translant, or chemotherapy, or high dose radiotherapy, or a variety of other conditions, who then develops PCP pneumonia - they have AIDS?
That would be completely useless. It tells us neither the cause nor the prognosis. Someone with a stem cell transplant may get better with a few weeks, and so the infection can be treated and expected not to recur. HIV sufferers don't get better - the infection can be treated but they remain at risk as their immune system remains compromised.
So the treatment of someone who is always immunosuppressed is different from that of someone who is temporarily immunosuppressed. They get different diseases, of different severities, require different treatment, and have different outcomes. But you don't think it is worth separating the two?
Coupled with: - not being born to an HIV positive mother - not sharing needles when injecting drugs - not receiving tainted blood product transfusions - not being bitten, scratched or otherwise suffering an infectious injury from a carrier - not sustaining a needlestick injury if you are a healthcare worker from an HIV carrier - not partaking in lower (but still not zero-) risk sexual activities (e.g. oral sex) - not being exposed via other means (e.g. blood injuries in sports)
there are probably a few others I haven't thought of, but stop being so sanctimonious. There are a lot of people out there who contracted HIV through no fault of their own - one of the largest groups were haemophiliacs before the disease was even known about.
AIDS is simply HIV infection to the point where HIV has suppressed the immune system enough to cause an AIDS-defining illness (essentially an illness, usually infection, which would not normally happen in an immunocompetent individual), or the CD4 count (a kind of immune cell) is low enough to infer immunocompromise. Hardly definition by association.
The definition essentially separates HIV with no symptoms and HIV advanced enough to cause symptoms. Medically, it's quite important - someone with AIDS can have a ot more complications and will need to be treated differently from someone who caught HIV last week and is immunologically the same as someone who is not infected.
AIDS was a recognised illness prior to the discovery of the causative organism.
Your statement is like saying someone who is in the incubation period of any infectious illness does not have a link with someone who has developed the illness, purely on the grounds that one has not yet had time to develop symptoms.
Then again, you are clearly either a troll or a denier so you probably won't care what anyone says to disprove you. Why don't you go and share some needles if you are so confident?
Being gay might not increase your chances of getting HIV (-> AIDS), but having gay sex might. The reasons are:
- more tissue trauma in receptive anal sex
- more promiscuity in gay community in general
HIV has recently become more transmissible during vaginal intercourse too (possibly through its fairly rapid evolution) though so it may catch up, but until the straight community becomes as promiscuous as the gay one, the transmission rate will remain lower.
I've seen this joke a few times in this forum. I know it's a joke, but it is worth pointing out that I was pretty far down when I graduated from medical school (there were no grades, just pass or fail, but I was a slacker and the graded exams in the first few years were pretty tight).
Since I've been working, I have found out how little medical school matters as I am generally acknowledged as being extremely good at my job. As are a few of my shit-at-medical-school peers. Some of the bright sparks at uni, on the other hand, are fucking useless as far as clinical medicine is concerned.
As with most things at uni, passing means you know the work. Where in the class you pass matters not one bit.
Now, at 12 000 feet pO2 is only about 60 mm Hg. This is less than half the distance to the top of Mount Everest. The highest human habitation occurs at about 20,000 feet where the pO2 is in the low 50s. I don't expect non-acclimatised people to go for a jog up there but we're not going to need close to that low levels here. References here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MoniqueAnthony .shtml.
At sea level, 21% O2 gives pO2 of 21/100 x 760=159 mm Hg This gives 18% O2 -> 18/100 x 760 = 136 mm Hg; 15% O2 gives 114 mm Hg; 10% O2 gives 76 mm Hg.
Lactic acidosis will occur with inadequate tissue oxygenation, but minute ventilation would be increased by peripheral chemoreceptor stimulation.
So, to sum up: the low oxygen levels would be detected and the body would adjust ventilation accordingly. Levels of )2 lower than 10% are certainly compatible with life.
I would have preferred if everyone would have just taken my word for it originally rather than argue, but I suppose this is slashdot...
The CO2 driven respiratory drive is the main one, but there is also a hypoxic drive from peripheral chemoreceptors. If the O2 levels get low enough, then this will take over. In most normal circumstances it is the CO2 receptors that are used. In the setting of low oxygen, the O2 receptors will stimulate breathing.
I see from the other replier that your paper actually backs me on this, not you. Thanks - it'll save me having to find some links to back me up.
No, I understand that - but are diabetics actually affected more? As long as they take their insulin, they should b affeted just the same as a non-diabetic.
I'm not saying it's not unhealthy, just that I'm not convinced that diabetics will be worse of than non-diabetics.
Is ketoacidosis with Atkins a theoretical or actual problem in diabetics? I don't see why it would cause ketoacidosis - it's more a result of insufficient insulin than excess ketones.
What happens is: 1. not enough circulating insulin 2. cells won't take up glucose from blood without insulin 3. this results in high blood sugar but low intracellular glucose 4. cells turn to alternate sources of energy (mainly lipolysis -> free fatty acids -> keto acids I think) as they don't have enough intracellular glucose to do their business.
Your body can make glucose from a few sources, and doesn't need much carbohydrate to do it. I suppose if there's a big lack of carbohydrate then that could cause problems, but shouldn't be any worse in a diabetic compared to non-diabetic.
(I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm just curious as I don't see how it would necessarily cause ketoacidosis)
Posting from a position of ignorance? Not really - the medical degree I hold gives me some 'inside info'. The physiology exams I have to sit as part of my postgraduate training also ensure my knowledge is current. I can say, with absolute certainty, that your facts are wrong. There is no doubt of this. I did offer some explanations as to why the 'documented' calories were incorrect.
Simply put, these are not the facts. As a student and practitioner of medicine and physiology I can guarantee that. Others in this thread have even done the sums.
I am sorry if I sounded inflammatory. My intention was to convey my (justified) skepticism only.
While it is true that the enzymes in the body can be more or less efficient between different people, and that some people can be better or worse at extracting all the available calories in the foods in the digestive tract, the fact remains that weight gain or loss equals calories in minus calories consumed. Perhaps her appetite was higher. Perhaps she was a little more efficient at storing fat. But enough excuses - that simply means she needs to eat a little less (and it really is just a little - every day of too much calories adds up over the course of a few years) or do a bit more activity.
Making excuses for fat people pisses me off. How many fat people do you see in Somalia or Ethopia? Bugger all. They simply don't have enough food.
Your friend didn't eat 300 cal a day. She ate way more, but either lied about it, underestimated it, or was slowly losing weight. Expect 10 years of weight gain to take 10 years to lose.
I don't believe anyone has a natural right to use a plane, a gun or a car. They don't exist in nature. Poor examples. Aside from the fact that the plane is a private business' asset - not government; i.e. they can refuse anyone for any reason, pretty much.
I have no desire to be killed when your leaky gas tap is left on after your home improvements. Buildings inspections are a societal must.
Guns and cars are regulated for different reasons - such as not harming those around you (that includes the societal financial burden of looking after you and cleaning the drool from your cheek after you drink-drive into a wall without your seatbelt).
There are always limits to 'freedom'. You make it out like society has stopped you from your god-given right to kill and rape.
Freedom does not mean behaving however the hell you want at the expense of others. It means being able to behave in a manner which our society has agreed does not put others at risk, respecting others and their possessions, but at the same time being allowed to hold beliefs, encourage beliefs, protest, report on things, dress the way you want, and a thousand other things that make our society what it is.
I do agree with you on one hand though - the USA's weird complex about Janet Jackson's tit shows how superficial some of the supposed freedoms are and the ignorance of the masses probably has more to do with that than anything.
Yes, your figures make sense. But why do unproven bands have money chucked at them (though not in their pockets) for tone-sided deals anyway? The recording time, engineering, mixing etc. don't have to be so expensive when they are essentially an unknown quantity. The fact that there is a large (and growing) number of bedroom sound engineers attests to the fact that, although the quality may not be quite up to the same standard, it can get pretty close - close enough that sales don't suffer (e.g. Daniel Bedingfield's 'Gotta get thru this', recorded in his bedroom with a PC and a microphone).
Technology and the internet have shown a few things in the last few years with regard to music: 1. It can be produced much more cheaply (for close to the same quality in some but not all cases) 2. It can be distributed much more cheaply 3. People are still willing to pay an inflated amount for it if that amount is low (iTunes - $1 a track or thereabouts is probably more than each individual track is worth but such a low price point that people still will pay it)
There is still a place for expensive studios and expensive staff and even expensive marketing - but not at some up and coming band that might turn out to be a one-hit wonder who gets the arse end of the bargain with a record company and ends up in servitude for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Jokes are always funnier when someone explains why they're wrong in painstaking detail.
;)
Dude, it's a joke. Get over it
Balls. The sun produces about a bazillion gazillion megagiga superwatts, and about a squazillionth of that actually goes into drying your clothes. That must be the least efficient clothes dryer you could possibly imagine, unless you try and dry your clothes from a more distant star or mabe by bouncing sunlight off the moon.
Drove home with dilated pupils? Nice. Hit any kids?
He does qualify the person of the year statement by saying it is a joke, and linking to the time.com website.
If you look about half way down the page, there is a small light blue line that looks like part of the background. It is a hyperlink to a photo of him (I presume) (I think it's titled 'spot the geek'). Just from glancing at the rig he's got there, he looks like a pretty dedicated nerd!
AIDS is immunosuppression caused by HIV. There are a variety of other causes of immunosuppression caused by other things, but these are not AIDS. What's your point?
Yes, they can have similar clinical appearances, because most of the pathology seen in AIDS is due to immunosuppresion, not viral infection itself (though there are some manifestations that do appear to have a direct connection).
Maybe you are suggesting that we call all diseases characteristic of immunosuppression AIDS? So someone who has a stem cell transplant, or a bone marrow translant, or chemotherapy, or high dose radiotherapy, or a variety of other conditions, who then develops PCP pneumonia - they have AIDS?
That would be completely useless. It tells us neither the cause nor the prognosis. Someone with a stem cell transplant may get better with a few weeks, and so the infection can be treated and expected not to recur. HIV sufferers don't get better - the infection can be treated but they remain at risk as their immune system remains compromised.
So the treatment of someone who is always immunosuppressed is different from that of someone who is temporarily immunosuppressed. They get different diseases, of different severities, require different treatment, and have different outcomes. But you don't think it is worth separating the two?
Abstinence is not 100% effective.
Coupled with:
- not being born to an HIV positive mother
- not sharing needles when injecting drugs
- not receiving tainted blood product transfusions
- not being bitten, scratched or otherwise suffering an infectious injury from a carrier
- not sustaining a needlestick injury if you are a healthcare worker from an HIV carrier
- not partaking in lower (but still not zero-) risk sexual activities (e.g. oral sex)
- not being exposed via other means (e.g. blood injuries in sports)
there are probably a few others I haven't thought of, but stop being so sanctimonious. There are a lot of people out there who contracted HIV through no fault of their own - one of the largest groups were haemophiliacs before the disease was even known about.
AIDS is simply HIV infection to the point where HIV has suppressed the immune system enough to cause an AIDS-defining illness (essentially an illness, usually infection, which would not normally happen in an immunocompetent individual), or the CD4 count (a kind of immune cell) is low enough to infer immunocompromise. Hardly definition by association.
The definition essentially separates HIV with no symptoms and HIV advanced enough to cause symptoms. Medically, it's quite important - someone with AIDS can have a ot more complications and will need to be treated differently from someone who caught HIV last week and is immunologically the same as someone who is not infected.
AIDS was a recognised illness prior to the discovery of the causative organism.
Your statement is like saying someone who is in the incubation period of any infectious illness does not have a link with someone who has developed the illness, purely on the grounds that one has not yet had time to develop symptoms.
Then again, you are clearly either a troll or a denier so you probably won't care what anyone says to disprove you. Why don't you go and share some needles if you are so confident?
Being gay might not increase your chances of getting HIV (-> AIDS), but having gay sex might. The reasons are:
- more tissue trauma in receptive anal sex
- more promiscuity in gay community in general
HIV has recently become more transmissible during vaginal intercourse too (possibly through its fairly rapid evolution) though so it may catch up, but until the straight community becomes as promiscuous as the gay one, the transmission rate will remain lower.
I've seen this joke a few times in this forum. I know it's a joke, but it is worth pointing out that I was pretty far down when I graduated from medical school (there were no grades, just pass or fail, but I was a slacker and the graded exams in the first few years were pretty tight).
Since I've been working, I have found out how little medical school matters as I am generally acknowledged as being extremely good at my job. As are a few of my shit-at-medical-school peers. Some of the bright sparks at uni, on the other hand, are fucking useless as far as clinical medicine is concerned.
As with most things at uni, passing means you know the work. Where in the class you pass matters not one bit.
receipt?
0
_____ ---you
¦
apologies for crap ascii art
Brain is central chemoreceptors. There are also peripheral chemoreceptors which are sensitive to O2.
p tor for a very basic stub summary
5 9 for a slightly more in depth analysis of O2 as a breathing stimulus.
y .shtml.
t ion4/4ch7/s4ch7_27.htm (you may have to read a few pages).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_chemorece
http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/96/1/3
Now, at 12 000 feet pO2 is only about 60 mm Hg. This is less than half the distance to the top of Mount Everest. The highest human habitation occurs at about 20,000 feet where the pO2 is in the low 50s. I don't expect non-acclimatised people to go for a jog up there but we're not going to need close to that low levels here. References here: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/MoniqueAnthon
At sea level, 21% O2 gives pO2 of 21/100 x 760=159 mm Hg
This gives 18% O2 -> 18/100 x 760 = 136 mm Hg; 15% O2 gives 114 mm Hg; 10% O2 gives 76 mm Hg.
Lactic acidosis will occur with inadequate tissue oxygenation, but minute ventilation would be increased by peripheral chemoreceptor stimulation.
A summary of the physiology can be found at http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/eshuphysio/program/sec
So, to sum up: the low oxygen levels would be detected and the body would adjust ventilation accordingly. Levels of )2 lower than 10% are certainly compatible with life.
I would have preferred if everyone would have just taken my word for it originally rather than argue, but I suppose this is slashdot...
were you replying to me or the other guy?
They don't need to be perfectly balanced - only adequately balanced. Well controlled diabetics (which takes a lot of effort on their part) do exist.
This only applies to type 1 diabetics anyway. Type 2 is a whole different disease, with different complications (type 2 don't get ketoacidosis).
The CO2 driven respiratory drive is the main one, but there is also a hypoxic drive from peripheral chemoreceptors. If the O2 levels get low enough, then this will take over. In most normal circumstances it is the CO2 receptors that are used. In the setting of low oxygen, the O2 receptors will stimulate breathing.
I see from the other replier that your paper actually backs me on this, not you. Thanks - it'll save me having to find some links to back me up.
No, I understand that - but are diabetics actually affected more? As long as they take their insulin, they should b affeted just the same as a non-diabetic.
I'm not saying it's not unhealthy, just that I'm not convinced that diabetics will be worse of than non-diabetics.
Is ketoacidosis with Atkins a theoretical or actual problem in diabetics? I don't see why it would cause ketoacidosis - it's more a result of insufficient insulin than excess ketones.
What happens is:
1. not enough circulating insulin
2. cells won't take up glucose from blood without insulin
3. this results in high blood sugar but low intracellular glucose
4. cells turn to alternate sources of energy (mainly lipolysis -> free fatty acids -> keto acids I think) as they don't have enough intracellular glucose to do their business.
Your body can make glucose from a few sources, and doesn't need much carbohydrate to do it. I suppose if there's a big lack of carbohydrate then that could cause problems, but shouldn't be any worse in a diabetic compared to non-diabetic.
(I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm just curious as I don't see how it would necessarily cause ketoacidosis)
Humans can detect both. Main drive is from CO2 levels, but low oxygen will work too.
I am disappointed to see my attempt at humour modded into -1 oblivion. The title of this article is like a meme parody of slashdot.
Maybe my subtlety is too much. Or maybe I'm just not funny.
OMG think of the children the terrorists have won WTF
Posting from a position of ignorance? Not really - the medical degree I hold gives me some 'inside info'. The physiology exams I have to sit as part of my postgraduate training also ensure my knowledge is current. I can say, with absolute certainty, that your facts are wrong. There is no doubt of this. I did offer some explanations as to why the 'documented' calories were incorrect.
Simply put, these are not the facts. As a student and practitioner of medicine and physiology I can guarantee that. Others in this thread have even done the sums.
I am sorry if I sounded inflammatory. My intention was to convey my (justified) skepticism only.
Better hook her up to a perpetual motion machine.
While it is true that the enzymes in the body can be more or less efficient between different people, and that some people can be better or worse at extracting all the available calories in the foods in the digestive tract, the fact remains that weight gain or loss equals calories in minus calories consumed. Perhaps her appetite was higher. Perhaps she was a little more efficient at storing fat. But enough excuses - that simply means she needs to eat a little less (and it really is just a little - every day of too much calories adds up over the course of a few years) or do a bit more activity.
Making excuses for fat people pisses me off. How many fat people do you see in Somalia or Ethopia? Bugger all. They simply don't have enough food.
Your friend didn't eat 300 cal a day. She ate way more, but either lied about it, underestimated it, or was slowly losing weight. Expect 10 years of weight gain to take 10 years to lose.
the laws of thermodyamics?
I don't believe anyone has a natural right to use a plane, a gun or a car. They don't exist in nature. Poor examples. Aside from the fact that the plane is a private business' asset - not government; i.e. they can refuse anyone for any reason, pretty much.
I have no desire to be killed when your leaky gas tap is left on after your home improvements. Buildings inspections are a societal must.
Guns and cars are regulated for different reasons - such as not harming those around you (that includes the societal financial burden of looking after you and cleaning the drool from your cheek after you drink-drive into a wall without your seatbelt).
There are always limits to 'freedom'. You make it out like society has stopped you from your god-given right to kill and rape.
Freedom does not mean behaving however the hell you want at the expense of others. It means being able to behave in a manner which our society has agreed does not put others at risk, respecting others and their possessions, but at the same time being allowed to hold beliefs, encourage beliefs, protest, report on things, dress the way you want, and a thousand other things that make our society what it is.
I do agree with you on one hand though - the USA's weird complex about Janet Jackson's tit shows how superficial some of the supposed freedoms are and the ignorance of the masses probably has more to do with that than anything.
Yes, your figures make sense. But why do unproven bands have money chucked at them (though not in their pockets) for tone-sided deals anyway? The recording time, engineering, mixing etc. don't have to be so expensive when they are essentially an unknown quantity. The fact that there is a large (and growing) number of bedroom sound engineers attests to the fact that, although the quality may not be quite up to the same standard, it can get pretty close - close enough that sales don't suffer (e.g. Daniel Bedingfield's 'Gotta get thru this', recorded in his bedroom with a PC and a microphone).
Technology and the internet have shown a few things in the last few years with regard to music:
1. It can be produced much more cheaply (for close to the same quality in some but not all cases)
2. It can be distributed much more cheaply
3. People are still willing to pay an inflated amount for it if that amount is low (iTunes - $1 a track or thereabouts is probably more than each individual track is worth but such a low price point that people still will pay it)
There is still a place for expensive studios and expensive staff and even expensive marketing - but not at some up and coming band that might turn out to be a one-hit wonder who gets the arse end of the bargain with a record company and ends up in servitude for it.