Robot parents? Those thawed embryos won't last long without a placenta, a uterus, nutrition and waste control (i.e. placental supply), and parents to bring them up and change their stinky stinky bot-bots.
Very aggressive tone you have there. Most likely to get modded flamebait (as you have done) and get people to disregard what you say.
Mr. Coward, in case you have not read the article, the conversation actually is about AMD's new processor, which is a real processor. That processor will generate some amount of heat... real heat, not theoretical heat.
The conversation might have started out as that, but this thread has gone somewhere else. This is a natural part of any discussion. It does not make it offtopic or irrelevant. Part of the discussion of increasing CPU speeds naturally turns to the increased heat production, and he quite reasonably pointed out some research which, albeit theoretical at this stage, may become more relevant when heat production outstrips cooling capacity for a home computer.
What are you referring to? I never mentioned OOP, relativity, or satalites (sic) in my post.
Do you not understand the example of how theoretical ideas sometimes become working, practical items? Because it is relevant to the discussion at hand (particularly in light of you being a tool about it).
You are a coward but at least you are fair, that's good to know. A fair coward is better than a regular, run-of-the-mill coward, at least in my book. Yes, information carries information. Do you want a Nobel prize for that? O perhaps an honorary PhD degree?
Do you have anything useful to say? Because there's nothing in that rather feeble insult that really has any substance. I can't see the relevance that posting AC has to this discussion one way or another. Criticise opinions, not anonymity (or lack of pseudonymity which is not much different anyway). I don't think that his own admission of making a slightly redundant statement really carried any expectation of winning a Nobel prize. Maybe you want a Nobel prize for making up such impotent arguments? No? Then stfu because it's such a pointless non-statement and it doesn't add anything other than to make you come across as a dick.
And even better computer scientists know how to spell, or at least use a spell checker.
You only made one typo in your post, but it's still one too many when you are criticising other people's. Poor spelling isn't a particularly good way to get a point across, I will be the first to agree. But who cares? It doesn't add or detract from the underlying content.
Your pompous little diatribe however is a little different - as explored above there is no actual content in it other than you having a little wank over your nerdy agenda.
Global warming -> increased sea levels -> increased sea surface area -> increased algae (maybe) ->.... -> profit!!!
I suppose if all the planet's covered in water,the algae will sort out the greenhouse thing, then the ice caps will reform, and things will return to normal.
(See both other posts, original and other in same thread)
I agree about the clumsiness/mistakes part - I am just saying that has to be established. All I am saying is that if his outcomes are generally average, or better than average, and no evidence of actual bad practice can be found (very difficult when she was under anaesthetic during the procedure, and had no non-partisan witnesses), and she underwent the procedure with informed consent, and her poor outcome was part of the complications listed in that informed consent, then I can't see how she'd make a case.
Winning in lawsuit in the USA does not really establish anything anymore. I think all the judges in the US have used the precedent of batshit decisions to base their judgements. Might as well flip a coin.
As I also said before - I am not saying this guy is innocent of accusations. Just that the fact that I have seen are pretty inconclusive.
The last 1000 patients tell you if his outcomes are as expected, better than expected, or worse than expected.
As I already said, complications are a statistical fact regardless of whether the surgeon makes mistakes or not.
If he did the surgery expertly, and the poor outcome was for reasons other than what was in his control - then that's simply not his fault.
This has no comparison to driving. This is accepted medical fact, studied at length by a great number of researchers, with consistent findings of rates of infection in a number of circumstances.
If she had died unexpectedly as a result of the anaesthetic - statistically a 1 in 250 000 chance - then that's out of his control.
If she had a post-operative infection - for this surgery about a 2-5% rate could be expected (I would expect her to be closer to the 2%) - then as long as he has followed accepted practice (aseptic technique, good wound closure, not too heavy on the diathermy, good haemostasis, a few others) - then again, this is a statistical fact.
If we find that he has a 20% infection rate compared to his peers, who have a similar case load and all have a 2% infection rate - then we can raise issues of incompetence.
This is long established. Ultimately, I also have no idea whether he was at fault or not - all I am saying is that sometimes, despite the best will and ability in the world, the outcomes are not ideal, and this is what needs to be established before accusing him of anything.
surgeons say that if you haven't had enough complications, you haven't done enough surgery. They are a statistical thing. The guy clearly is well qualified, and perfectly capable of doing the surgery, technically.
The difficulty here is whether or not she can complain about it - and I would say that she can, but not the way she has done.
Calling it a 'botch' implies that it was done badly. The only way to check this is to look at perhaps the last 1000 patients and see if his results are acceptable or not. Medical confidentiality would mean this would have to be done by internal audit, unless those patients volunteered (which would likely mean all the unhappy customers come forward, skewing results).
Maybe if she could prove he was drunk during the operation or something that would also qualify.
As it is, I think it is fair for her to put up before and after pictures, say who did the surgery, say that she is unhappy, and really do all sorts of free speech things that don't amount to libel.
What if he has the best results of any surgeon, ever, and this is the first 'poor' outcome? That hardly makes it a botch - just her more unlucky.
About 2% of medical negligence cases are found against the doctor. There are often a lot of emotional issues - and she has admitted to these.
I will assume that she also signed an informed consent document which listed all the possible adverse outcomes - such as disfigurement, scarring, infection, death, spontaneous combustion. Maybe she should have weighed up those small but significant risks beforehand a bit more.
Interestingly enough, I just pulled up Google Earth to see if the pictures of my flat in Leith (Edinburgh) had been updated recently (last time I checked, they were really blurry).
Turns out they are from 2007 - so 2 weeks old (don't know how long they have been up for though).
It's not a dynamically updated year either - there are still tonnes of maps that have 2004, 2005 and 2006 on them.
I can't sa for sure when it was actually taken, but they are more recent for some areas (no idea what they are in Iraq though).
For the record, the free release of information like this can only lead, on the whole, to the world being a better place. If this causes the war on terror (ha!) to be lost, then maybe it wasn't such a clever idea after all.
You're really a fucking pharmacist? You don't seem to actually have much concept of the way things work.
Stomach ulcers have a cure. In some people. Those with helicobacter. And it's not just an antibiotic - it's three drugs (amoxicillin, metronidazole, and a PPI of your choice - let's say omeprazole. You mention a mineral (presume you mean bismuth?). There are a few different treatment regimens available, some with differences. I believe you can even get them as one pill with all the drugs in. Usually a week's course.
However, that doesn't address: 1. people who don't respond to this first treatment, or the second line treatment, or anything. 2. people who have non-infectious ulcers 3. people who have 'acid indigestion' - a myriad of diagnoses from oesophagitis, reflux, candida, and gastritis to functional dyspepsia (also called 'we don't have a diagnosis, but we've ruled all the treatable ones out, so w'll just treat your symptoms').
And the drug companies love it because they can market 'new' drugs from old, cheap generics (i.e. package them as one treatment, put it in a fancy box - they're not going to make much money off those same drugs otherwise).
Now, dexamphetamine is still a very popular drug for ADHD. I won't even go into how marketing directly to the parents causes overprescription as they demand that as it had the best glossy ad in their lifestyle magazine. Or how the condition is totally overdiagnosed by a society that is forgetting how to look after its kids (try it a hundred years ago, with no TV to babysit them while they eat their preservative laden dinner, before 4 hours of playstation then bed at 2am).
(PS to the indignant parents of ADHD kids - your little precious may or may not be 'real' ADHD. That's not my point. The sad fact is it's becoming a diagnosis of convenience for shit parents).
Anyway - I digress. There are a number of other holes in your statements (some of which have already been addressed by another physician) but in future, try to at least have a bit of knowledge about what you are talking about. I certainly don't believe you are a pharmacist, unless you trained a long time ago and never kept current.
Cloning has potential; the problem is that cloning a cell is a far cry from cloning a cell and managing to get it to differentiate into a full grown kidney with the important bits available for transplant (i.e. renal artery, vein and ureter). We don't understand the complex messages that need to get through to the developing cells during that. It may take years from single cell to fully grown kidney (i.e. it might be quicker to wait for a conventional transplant, unless we take samples from everyone and grow them a heart, liver, pancreas, cornea, kidneys - just in case - years before disease sets in).
So while cloning might be a future possibility, unless our understanding is dramatically altered, it's a long way off (some would say a pipe dream, but a lot of things are until they are realised).
Cloning is actually precisely what I meant by 'figure out a way to grow new ones'.
As for one anecdotal case of someone who recovered from renal failure (of which there are hundreds of causes), that is hardly relevant in the face of millions who die worldwide from kidney failure each year. In the context of a diabetic on long term dialysis - different story. The broad definitions are acute renal failure, acute-on-chronic renal failure, and chronic renal failure. In very general terms, only the first two can recover (there is a reversible component). In the long term dialysed - if their kidneys were going to recover, they would have done it already. It would show up on their blood tests pre-dialysis (they are checked each session).
It's all risk management. If you don't feel you're likely to get a return on your investment, don't do it.
His point was that you should rethink whether or not you really need to spend time and money on something which may not give any return. That rethink could ultimately have the conclusion that it is worth spending the money despite the smaller potential return.
Think of it this way: you have 1 hour (and only one hour) to put up a website for your business. Do you optimise for lynx, or IE?
This is the reality of finite resources (although an exaggerated scenario). The vast majority will optimise for IE - it's simply more likely to give them overall benefit.
It may in fact be the case that your company produces something e.g. Apple peripherals, which means you don't code for IE but instead Safari. Maybe you make text to speech software so you spend most of your time coding for people who are blind. Maybe your market is mobile phone users and most of them have portable Opera installed so you target that.
But if you think that the majority of your customers use IE, and you have finite resources, why would you optimise for anything else? That's like coding a page in Chinese for an english-speaking target userbase.
Bottom line is return on investment. It sucks that IE is often buggy and non-copmliant, and that MS abused its monopoly to achieve this, but that doesn't mean a fledgling company should spend all its venture capital on creating a page for an audience that might never see it.
The renal failure wont be changed by this. It's the result of actual physical damage to the kidneys, something that we have no cure for yet (beyond transplant), and are unlikely ever to unless we figure out a way to grow new ones.
The only thing this would help is reducing the progress of renal failure in those who are not end stage (i.e. those not on dialysis).
Saliva contains tonnes of cool stuff. As another poster mentioned, it helps bacterial killing. It also has natural antiseptics and epithelial growth factors (i.e. skin growth encouragers) which speed up wound healing by promoting the migration of neighbouring skin cells to cover the wound.
There's a bunch of other stuff too. The evolutionary steps to get these developed in conjunction with wound licking as an instinctive response to promote wounds healing are mind boggling and probably support creationism, at least in cats. And dogs with sore anuses.
U23 GB and Ireland? Pretty high level. I even had a card which said 'elite athlete' on it. It meant I didn't have to pay to use council owned facilities and got all my related expenses refunded.
I (and more so my friends) thought the 'elite' thing was pretty funny. Suppose it depends on how you define it - top 1%? Definitely. Top 0.1%? Definitely. 0.01%? Maybe. I think it extends past olympians and suchlike but not sure how far down it goes. Could I have been an olympian? My coach thought so. My life went in a different direction though. I saw the top of my achievements being qualifying and maybe getting to round 1 or 2.
BMI is quick and dirty. Everyone, just about, knows their weight and height. It is probably good enough for 95% of the population (figure picked from my ass, but the 95% confidence interval is the standard for medical testing so I reckon it's a likely figure). Best way would be either caliper body fat, DEXA scanning (though radiation dose), MRI, or about 10 other time-consuming and expensive ways which would make estimation on a population scale impossible.
It doesn't take account of people who are heavy because of extra muscle. But they aren't too common in population terms.
I use it, even though it puts me just into the 'obese' range. Eyeballing someone will tell you whether it's totally out or not.
Disclaimer: I am a MD and formerly an elite athlete (international track and field at high school) - while I've put on a few pounds since then I'm still not either overweight or obese. BMI had me at overweight even when my actual body fat (on DEXA scanning - you won't get much more accurate than that) was around 5%.
The internet as such a low signal:noise ration anyway it's difficult to devalue it.
Ideally this should make all the search engines get smarter - if Google drops the ball, someone else will pick it up. I certainly don't get too many spam results in my search query answers.
It all depends on where people go to get their searches - Google might make more money 'supporting' parking sites, but if the users go somewhere else it should self-correct.
I think he's replying to badasscat, not you. He was the one who made the assertion. Maybe you should brush up no your reading comprehension before you get all aggro?
If someone gets a product that they paid for and are happy with, and the click-through ad gets a cut, and the crappy site gets its cut... who cares? There's arguably no fraud there. A product was sold and everyone in the chain got their cut.
As for worthless search results - if the outcome is the same, does it matter?
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - US naval plane the F14 tomcat was found dead in its Maine home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you did not enjoy flying it, there is no denying its contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
You mean type 1, IDDM (insulin dependent), or juvenile diabetes, I presume?
It would actually cause type 2 (NIDDM (non-insulin dependent), diabetes of maturity) diabetes, if you believe some authors.
Type 1 (which is what I think you mean by type A) is destruction of pancreatic islet cells and reduction in insulin production. Type 2 is 'insulin resistant', where the body can produce insulin but cells don't respond to it the way they should, with one hypothesis being that chronic overconsumption of carbohydrates leads to such generally high levels of insulin that the cells stop responding to it.
Given the fact that fat 2 year olds are now getting it (we're looking at you mainly, america) there's a growing body (non pun intended) of evidence to support that theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Robot parents? Those thawed embryos won't last long without a placenta, a uterus, nutrition and waste control (i.e. placental supply), and parents to bring them up and change their stinky stinky bot-bots.
Got your money's worth for the $400 warranty?
Sounds more like you got screwed on the original purchase.
Mr. Coward, in case you have not read the article, the conversation actually is about AMD's new processor, which is a real processor. That processor will generate some amount of heat ... real heat, not theoretical heat.
The conversation might have started out as that, but this thread has gone somewhere else. This is a natural part of any discussion. It does not make it offtopic or irrelevant. Part of the discussion of increasing CPU speeds naturally turns to the increased heat production, and he quite reasonably pointed out some research which, albeit theoretical at this stage, may become more relevant when heat production outstrips cooling capacity for a home computer.
What are you referring to? I never mentioned OOP, relativity, or satalites (sic) in my post.
Do you not understand the example of how theoretical ideas sometimes become working, practical items? Because it is relevant to the discussion at hand (particularly in light of you being a tool about it).
You are a coward but at least you are fair, that's good to know. A fair coward is better than a regular, run-of-the-mill coward, at least in my book. Yes, information carries information. Do you want a Nobel prize for that? O perhaps an honorary PhD degree?
Do you have anything useful to say? Because there's nothing in that rather feeble insult that really has any substance. I can't see the relevance that posting AC has to this discussion one way or another. Criticise opinions, not anonymity (or lack of pseudonymity which is not much different anyway). I don't think that his own admission of making a slightly redundant statement really carried any expectation of winning a Nobel prize. Maybe you want a Nobel prize for making up such impotent arguments? No? Then stfu because it's such a pointless non-statement and it doesn't add anything other than to make you come across as a dick.
And even better computer scientists know how to spell, or at least use a spell checker. You only made one typo in your post, but it's still one too many when you are criticising other people's. Poor spelling isn't a particularly good way to get a point across, I will be the first to agree. But who cares? It doesn't add or detract from the underlying content.
Your pompous little diatribe however is a little different - as explored above there is no actual content in it other than you having a little wank over your nerdy agenda.
Global warming ....
,the algae will sort out the greenhouse thing, then the ice caps will reform, and things will return to normal.
-> increased sea levels
-> increased sea surface area
-> increased algae (maybe)
->
-> profit!!!
I suppose if all the planet's covered in water
(See both other posts, original and other in same thread)
I agree about the clumsiness/mistakes part - I am just saying that has to be established. All I am saying is that if his outcomes are generally average, or better than average, and no evidence of actual bad practice can be found (very difficult when she was under anaesthetic during the procedure, and had no non-partisan witnesses), and she underwent the procedure with informed consent, and her poor outcome was part of the complications listed in that informed consent, then I can't see how she'd make a case.
Winning in lawsuit in the USA does not really establish anything anymore. I think all the judges in the US have used the precedent of batshit decisions to base their judgements. Might as well flip a coin.
As I also said before - I am not saying this guy is innocent of accusations. Just that the fact that I have seen are pretty inconclusive.
The last 1000 patients tell you if his outcomes are as expected, better than expected, or worse than expected.
As I already said, complications are a statistical fact regardless of whether the surgeon makes mistakes or not.
If he did the surgery expertly, and the poor outcome was for reasons other than what was in his control - then that's simply not his fault.
This has no comparison to driving. This is accepted medical fact, studied at length by a great number of researchers, with consistent findings of rates of infection in a number of circumstances.
If she had died unexpectedly as a result of the anaesthetic - statistically a 1 in 250 000 chance - then that's out of his control.
If she had a post-operative infection - for this surgery about a 2-5% rate could be expected (I would expect her to be closer to the 2%) - then as long as he has followed accepted practice (aseptic technique, good wound closure, not too heavy on the diathermy, good haemostasis, a few others) - then again, this is a statistical fact.
If we find that he has a 20% infection rate compared to his peers, who have a similar case load and all have a 2% infection rate - then we can raise issues of incompetence.
This is long established. Ultimately, I also have no idea whether he was at fault or not - all I am saying is that sometimes, despite the best will and ability in the world, the outcomes are not ideal, and this is what needs to be established before accusing him of anything.
surgeons say that if you haven't had enough complications, you haven't done enough surgery. They are a statistical thing. The guy clearly is well qualified, and perfectly capable of doing the surgery, technically.
The difficulty here is whether or not she can complain about it - and I would say that she can, but not the way she has done.
Calling it a 'botch' implies that it was done badly. The only way to check this is to look at perhaps the last 1000 patients and see if his results are acceptable or not. Medical confidentiality would mean this would have to be done by internal audit, unless those patients volunteered (which would likely mean all the unhappy customers come forward, skewing results).
Maybe if she could prove he was drunk during the operation or something that would also qualify.
As it is, I think it is fair for her to put up before and after pictures, say who did the surgery, say that she is unhappy, and really do all sorts of free speech things that don't amount to libel.
What if he has the best results of any surgeon, ever, and this is the first 'poor' outcome? That hardly makes it a botch - just her more unlucky.
About 2% of medical negligence cases are found against the doctor. There are often a lot of emotional issues - and she has admitted to these.
I will assume that she also signed an informed consent document which listed all the possible adverse outcomes - such as disfigurement, scarring, infection, death, spontaneous combustion. Maybe she should have weighed up those small but significant risks beforehand a bit more.
Interestingly enough, I just pulled up Google Earth to see if the pictures of my flat in Leith (Edinburgh) had been updated recently (last time I checked, they were really blurry).
Turns out they are from 2007 - so 2 weeks old (don't know how long they have been up for though).
It's not a dynamically updated year either - there are still tonnes of maps that have 2004, 2005 and 2006 on them.
I can't sa for sure when it was actually taken, but they are more recent for some areas (no idea what they are in Iraq though).
For the record, the free release of information like this can only lead, on the whole, to the world being a better place. If this causes the war on terror (ha!) to be lost, then maybe it wasn't such a clever idea after all.
You're really a fucking pharmacist? You don't seem to actually have much concept of the way things work.
Stomach ulcers have a cure. In some people. Those with helicobacter. And it's not just an antibiotic - it's three drugs (amoxicillin, metronidazole, and a PPI of your choice - let's say omeprazole. You mention a mineral (presume you mean bismuth?). There are a few different treatment regimens available, some with differences. I believe you can even get them as one pill with all the drugs in. Usually a week's course.
However, that doesn't address:
1. people who don't respond to this first treatment, or the second line treatment, or anything.
2. people who have non-infectious ulcers
3. people who have 'acid indigestion' - a myriad of diagnoses from oesophagitis, reflux, candida, and gastritis to functional dyspepsia (also called 'we don't have a diagnosis, but we've ruled all the treatable ones out, so w'll just treat your symptoms').
And the drug companies love it because they can market 'new' drugs from old, cheap generics (i.e. package them as one treatment, put it in a fancy box - they're not going to make much money off those same drugs otherwise).
Now, dexamphetamine is still a very popular drug for ADHD. I won't even go into how marketing directly to the parents causes overprescription as they demand that as it had the best glossy ad in their lifestyle magazine. Or how the condition is totally overdiagnosed by a society that is forgetting how to look after its kids (try it a hundred years ago, with no TV to babysit them while they eat their preservative laden dinner, before 4 hours of playstation then bed at 2am).
(PS to the indignant parents of ADHD kids - your little precious may or may not be 'real' ADHD. That's not my point. The sad fact is it's becoming a diagnosis of convenience for shit parents).
Anyway - I digress. There are a number of other holes in your statements (some of which have already been addressed by another physician) but in future, try to at least have a bit of knowledge about what you are talking about. I certainly don't believe you are a pharmacist, unless you trained a long time ago and never kept current.
Cloning has potential; the problem is that cloning a cell is a far cry from cloning a cell and managing to get it to differentiate into a full grown kidney with the important bits available for transplant (i.e. renal artery, vein and ureter). We don't understand the complex messages that need to get through to the developing cells during that. It may take years from single cell to fully grown kidney (i.e. it might be quicker to wait for a conventional transplant, unless we take samples from everyone and grow them a heart, liver, pancreas, cornea, kidneys - just in case - years before disease sets in).
So while cloning might be a future possibility, unless our understanding is dramatically altered, it's a long way off (some would say a pipe dream, but a lot of things are until they are realised).
Cloning is actually precisely what I meant by 'figure out a way to grow new ones'.
As for one anecdotal case of someone who recovered from renal failure (of which there are hundreds of causes), that is hardly relevant in the face of millions who die worldwide from kidney failure each year. In the context of a diabetic on long term dialysis - different story. The broad definitions are acute renal failure, acute-on-chronic renal failure, and chronic renal failure. In very general terms, only the first two can recover (there is a reversible component). In the long term dialysed - if their kidneys were going to recover, they would have done it already. It would show up on their blood tests pre-dialysis (they are checked each session).
Or more likely... they're not among them.
It's all risk management. If you don't feel you're likely to get a return on your investment, don't do it.
His point was that you should rethink whether or not you really need to spend time and money on something which may not give any return. That rethink could ultimately have the conclusion that it is worth spending the money despite the smaller potential return.
Think of it this way: you have 1 hour (and only one hour) to put up a website for your business. Do you optimise for lynx, or IE?
This is the reality of finite resources (although an exaggerated scenario). The vast majority will optimise for IE - it's simply more likely to give them overall benefit.
It may in fact be the case that your company produces something e.g. Apple peripherals, which means you don't code for IE but instead Safari. Maybe you make text to speech software so you spend most of your time coding for people who are blind. Maybe your market is mobile phone users and most of them have portable Opera installed so you target that.
But if you think that the majority of your customers use IE, and you have finite resources, why would you optimise for anything else? That's like coding a page in Chinese for an english-speaking target userbase.
Bottom line is return on investment. It sucks that IE is often buggy and non-copmliant, and that MS abused its monopoly to achieve this, but that doesn't mean a fledgling company should spend all its venture capital on creating a page for an audience that might never see it.
The renal failure wont be changed by this. It's the result of actual physical damage to the kidneys, something that we have no cure for yet (beyond transplant), and are unlikely ever to unless we figure out a way to grow new ones.
The only thing this would help is reducing the progress of renal failure in those who are not end stage (i.e. those not on dialysis).
I think you mean the cerebrum.
Unless you mean that they need to be more physically co-ordinated, particularly with repetitive movements such as walking?
Saliva contains tonnes of cool stuff. As another poster mentioned, it helps bacterial killing. It also has natural antiseptics and epithelial growth factors (i.e. skin growth encouragers) which speed up wound healing by promoting the migration of neighbouring skin cells to cover the wound.
There's a bunch of other stuff too. The evolutionary steps to get these developed in conjunction with wound licking as an instinctive response to promote wounds healing are mind boggling and probably support creationism, at least in cats. And dogs with sore anuses.
what about people like me who often cut and paste from a site into thunderbird?
/dev/null.
I don't routinely double-check. I'll get
U23 GB and Ireland? Pretty high level. I even had a card which said 'elite athlete' on it. It meant I didn't have to pay to use council owned facilities and got all my related expenses refunded.
I (and more so my friends) thought the 'elite' thing was pretty funny. Suppose it depends on how you define it - top 1%? Definitely. Top 0.1%? Definitely. 0.01%? Maybe. I think it extends past olympians and suchlike but not sure how far down it goes. Could I have been an olympian? My coach thought so. My life went in a different direction though. I saw the top of my achievements being qualifying and maybe getting to round 1 or 2.
BMI is quick and dirty. Everyone, just about, knows their weight and height. It is probably good enough for 95% of the population (figure picked from my ass, but the 95% confidence interval is the standard for medical testing so I reckon it's a likely figure). Best way would be either caliper body fat, DEXA scanning (though radiation dose), MRI, or about 10 other time-consuming and expensive ways which would make estimation on a population scale impossible.
It doesn't take account of people who are heavy because of extra muscle. But they aren't too common in population terms.
I use it, even though it puts me just into the 'obese' range. Eyeballing someone will tell you whether it's totally out or not.
Disclaimer: I am a MD and formerly an elite athlete (international track and field at high school) - while I've put on a few pounds since then I'm still not either overweight or obese. BMI had me at overweight even when my actual body fat (on DEXA scanning - you won't get much more accurate than that) was around 5%.
- Voltaire
This is an interesting quotation.
Would it not be more significant if it was, say...
I may not agree with what you say, but to our deaths I will defend your right to say it
The internet as such a low signal:noise ration anyway it's difficult to devalue it.
Ideally this should make all the search engines get smarter - if Google drops the ball, someone else will pick it up. I certainly don't get too many spam results in my search query answers.
It all depends on where people go to get their searches - Google might make more money 'supporting' parking sites, but if the users go somewhere else it should self-correct.
Hopefully.
I think he's replying to badasscat, not you. He was the one who made the assertion. Maybe you should brush up no your reading comprehension before you get all aggro?
If someone gets a product that they paid for and are happy with, and the click-through ad gets a cut, and the crappy site gets its cut... who cares? There's arguably no fraud there. A product was sold and everyone in the chain got their cut.
As for worthless search results - if the outcome is the same, does it matter?
Or am I missing something?
I just heard some sad news on talk radio - US naval plane the F14 tomcat was found dead in its Maine home this morning. There were not any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss it - even if you did not enjoy flying it, there is no denying its contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.
How about Solitaire?
That must be the most played at least...
(Part serious, part joking).
You'll note I said allowing them into a bar, not consuming alcohol. The appropriate content is what goes on with the drunk adults.
You mean type 1, IDDM (insulin dependent), or juvenile diabetes, I presume?
It would actually cause type 2 (NIDDM (non-insulin dependent), diabetes of maturity) diabetes, if you believe some authors.
Type 1 (which is what I think you mean by type A) is destruction of pancreatic islet cells and reduction in insulin production. Type 2 is 'insulin resistant', where the body can produce insulin but cells don't respond to it the way they should, with one hypothesis being that chronic overconsumption of carbohydrates leads to such generally high levels of insulin that the cells stop responding to it.
Given the fact that fat 2 year olds are now getting it (we're looking at you mainly, america) there's a growing body (non pun intended) of evidence to support that theory.