I don't think this amounts to anything that much different. The online doctor's visit will likely almost always boil down to some variation on:
1) You've got a cold. Get plenty of rest and fluids and take an aspirin. If it doesn't get better in 5-7 days, go see a doctor in person.
2) You've got something I can't diagnose over the Internet. You need to make an appointment to go see a doctor in person.
So like you said, triage. Except in the US it has to be a doctor who does it, because nobody would settle for a nurse.
The prescribing seems to be a bit of a red herring. Maybe the definitions are different in the US, but if the drug is not controlled, couldn't you just buy it without a prescription anyway? The only reason for having a prescription would be to get it covered under a drug plan.
Both CO2 and O2 are exchanged through passive diffusion. Basically, the blood in your lungs tries to come to equilibrium with the air in your lungs (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's close enough). So if you keep the CO2 levels in the atmosphere low but also lower the O2 levels, the CO2 levels in your blood will stay more or less the same. You can also get much the same effect by maintaining the O2 levels but dropping the CO2 levels. In the first case you'll breath more or less normally even though you're not getting enough O2. In the second, your breathing will slow down, even though the O2 level isn't high enough to maintain such a slow respiration rate.
There's a phenomenon where people who hyperventilate before diving or swimming under water sometimes suddenly lose consciousness. Normal breathing keeps your blood O2 level about as high as it can get but hyperventilation can lower your CO2 blood level. That DOES let you stay under water longer, but if you push it to far during the dive your O2 level will drop far enough for you to pass out but you will not feel the need to breathe because your CO2 level is artificially lowered.
Be careful. You can type almost anything into a search engine (and PubMed is a search engine) and get back a bunch of hits. Some of them will even be related, and sound scary. The number of hits you get is strongly affected by the amount of hype around an issue.
Scientific literature is like a massive debate. On any given issue you'll find a bunch of different viewpoints and a bunch of different proponents of each, some with more and some with less, evidence. Eventually the whole thing trends towards the right answer, but monitoring who is yelling the most is definitely not the right way to predict what that will be.
The breathing reflex is also mostly triggered by CO2 levels, not oxygen levels. So even if there's still sufficient oxygen in the air to keep you alive, you can die of asphyxiation because your body is quite content with it's CO2 level.
No, it doesn't, but think about how you would write the hypothetical no-proprietary-apps license that the article seems to be advocating for. The effect would be very similar to "thou shalt not make a profit." It's pretty hard to charge for support on a simple cell phone app. It's also hard to do ad supported under those conditions.
The GPL/BSD/etc. licenses are NOT ignored by big companies (like Google), because they do allow for a company to make a profit. But when your license starts dictating what Google's end users can do with their product, you're dooming yourself to irrelevance.
"And if the only thing, that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful, then the freedom is, well, lost."
That's fantastic. I expect you didn't mean it that way, but that's about the most pitiful "freedom" protest I've ever heard.
Put it in context. Android is free to develop for. If you want to write some "free" software, go ahead and do it. So your post basically boils down to this:
my freedom is lessened if someone else doesn't write free software for me so I can do cool stuff with my Android phone.
The beginning of your post is off topic since we're not talking about a closed environment running open source, we're talking about an open environment (well, for certain values of open) not having any non-proprietary options. I agree, that's not a threat to open source OR free software, but that IS the premise of the article.
Of course. No company is going to use a "thou shalt not make a profit" license. A "your customers shalt not make a profit" license isn't going to be very popular either.
It's one thing to limit how software can be distributed. It's a very different thing to try to limit how that software can be used after it's distributed.
One of the reasons I chose this phone is because I use the Android SDK and have written a few (VERY simple) apps and know if there's something I want bad enough, I can develop it myself and I don't have to root (or "jailbreak") my phone (voiding warranties) or get Google or Apple's approval to install it.
Unless of course you want to do something that Google/T-Mobile don't want you to do, then you DO have to root it.
Modes of transport are common exceptions, in most languages that don't otherwise use gender pronouns for objects. In english ships (boats, etc.), planes, space ships and land vehicles are usually female. Unmanned submersibles seem to more often be male though, perhaps because of the famous ALVIN.
Technically "an hero" is correct. You use "an" as opposed to "a" when the next word starts with a vowel, or with an h because in english the leading h is usually more or less silent, resulting in the word starting with a vowel sound. If you pronounce "hero" with some english accents, it works perfectly well in that case too.
"The community" could come up with a very restrictive license that doesn't allow that sort of thing, which Google et. al. will just not use anyway.
The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.
Many (probably most) democracies in the world have very strong third (fourth, fifth) parties. Many European democracies almost always end up with coalition governments.
Firefox is far from perfect. I've found it to be slow on OS X (although I've heard it's faster on other OSes). I went to install it on my girlfriend's netbook and it crashed on launch. I still don't know why - she didn't see any reason to choose Firefox, which wouldn't start, over IE, which would.
Firefox is a great project, but like any software, open source or otherwise, it will only remain that way if the developers respond well to criticism and keep their focus on quality.
No, I'm not talking about reciprocity failure. I'm talking about where the film stops responding at all. Film simply isn't sensitive to anything like individual photons, whereas digital sensors are.
Perhaps you originally replied to the wrong post. I was talking about astronomical cameras. You don't use those to take pictures of cities.
Good points, but the question here is apps vs. web apps. None of your examples are really web apps, never mind have regular applications as alternatives.
I will certainly give you that the web has pasted the newspaper and phone book businesses though.
Not in astronomy. Film and digital sensors respond to light in different ways. Digital sensors are MUCH more sensitive than film is, but much of that sensitivity is unusable in a regular camera because digital sensors also experience much higher levels of noise than film does.
So if you're shooting regular landscape, portrait, whatever, you might well be right. But in astronomy that extra sensitivity actually buys you something.
Most astronomical pictures you see are the result of long exposures, from seconds to weeks. With a digital sensor you can capture even very faint objects by taking lots of short exposures and then averaging them together. That gets you a bunch of advantages, such as being able to salvage data if something happens halfway through, exposing over multiple nights, and taking a LOT of pressure off your tracking apparatus. It's much easier to accurately track a target over a short exposure (and align the images afterward) than it is to keep up accurate tracking over an entire, long exposure.
If you tried the same trick with film you simply wouldn't be able to image dimmer objects because they'd fall below the base sensitivity of each exposure.
There's a reason astronomers were some of the first to use digital cameras, and that amateur astronomy was revolutionized by them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the kid's non peer reviewed work were valid, that was calculating the impact risk on the pass AFTER the next one.
I don't think this amounts to anything that much different. The online doctor's visit will likely almost always boil down to some variation on:
1) You've got a cold. Get plenty of rest and fluids and take an aspirin. If it doesn't get better in 5-7 days, go see a doctor in person.
2) You've got something I can't diagnose over the Internet. You need to make an appointment to go see a doctor in person.
So like you said, triage. Except in the US it has to be a doctor who does it, because nobody would settle for a nurse.
The prescribing seems to be a bit of a red herring. Maybe the definitions are different in the US, but if the drug is not controlled, couldn't you just buy it without a prescription anyway? The only reason for having a prescription would be to get it covered under a drug plan.
"Given that the only ingredients are sine waves, we're impressed."
This is different from all other sounds, including regular music, how?
Both CO2 and O2 are exchanged through passive diffusion. Basically, the blood in your lungs tries to come to equilibrium with the air in your lungs (it's a little more complicated than that, but that's close enough). So if you keep the CO2 levels in the atmosphere low but also lower the O2 levels, the CO2 levels in your blood will stay more or less the same. You can also get much the same effect by maintaining the O2 levels but dropping the CO2 levels. In the first case you'll breath more or less normally even though you're not getting enough O2. In the second, your breathing will slow down, even though the O2 level isn't high enough to maintain such a slow respiration rate.
Low blood CO2 is called hypocapnia.
There's a phenomenon where people who hyperventilate before diving or swimming under water sometimes suddenly lose consciousness. Normal breathing keeps your blood O2 level about as high as it can get but hyperventilation can lower your CO2 blood level. That DOES let you stay under water longer, but if you push it to far during the dive your O2 level will drop far enough for you to pass out but you will not feel the need to breathe because your CO2 level is artificially lowered.
Be careful. You can type almost anything into a search engine (and PubMed is a search engine) and get back a bunch of hits. Some of them will even be related, and sound scary. The number of hits you get is strongly affected by the amount of hype around an issue.
Scientific literature is like a massive debate. On any given issue you'll find a bunch of different viewpoints and a bunch of different proponents of each, some with more and some with less, evidence. Eventually the whole thing trends towards the right answer, but monitoring who is yelling the most is definitely not the right way to predict what that will be.
The breathing reflex is also mostly triggered by CO2 levels, not oxygen levels. So even if there's still sufficient oxygen in the air to keep you alive, you can die of asphyxiation because your body is quite content with it's CO2 level.
As it should be. Perhaps the system does work.
No, it doesn't, but think about how you would write the hypothetical no-proprietary-apps license that the article seems to be advocating for. The effect would be very similar to "thou shalt not make a profit." It's pretty hard to charge for support on a simple cell phone app. It's also hard to do ad supported under those conditions.
The GPL/BSD/etc. licenses are NOT ignored by big companies (like Google), because they do allow for a company to make a profit. But when your license starts dictating what Google's end users can do with their product, you're dooming yourself to irrelevance.
Just like the other guy, you appear to be protesting my use of the word "better" by arguing in effect that free != better. Interesting.
So what proprietary software is required to use an Android phone? Besides the baseband code, of course, which isn't what the article is about.
"And if the only thing, that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful, then the freedom is, well, lost."
That's fantastic. I expect you didn't mean it that way, but that's about the most pitiful "freedom" protest I've ever heard.
Put it in context. Android is free to develop for. If you want to write some "free" software, go ahead and do it. So your post basically boils down to this:
my freedom is lessened if someone else doesn't write free software for me so I can do cool stuff with my Android phone.
The beginning of your post is off topic since we're not talking about a closed environment running open source, we're talking about an open environment (well, for certain values of open) not having any non-proprietary options. I agree, that's not a threat to open source OR free software, but that IS the premise of the article.
So you're arguing with me that freedom != better?
Of course. No company is going to use a "thou shalt not make a profit" license. A "your customers shalt not make a profit" license isn't going to be very popular either.
It's one thing to limit how software can be distributed. It's a very different thing to try to limit how that software can be used after it's distributed.
Unless of course you want to do something that Google/T-Mobile don't want you to do, then you DO have to root it.
Modes of transport are common exceptions, in most languages that don't otherwise use gender pronouns for objects. In english ships (boats, etc.), planes, space ships and land vehicles are usually female. Unmanned submersibles seem to more often be male though, perhaps because of the famous ALVIN.
Technically "an hero" is correct. You use "an" as opposed to "a" when the next word starts with a vowel, or with an h because in english the leading h is usually more or less silent, resulting in the word starting with a vowel sound. If you pronounce "hero" with some english accents, it works perfectly well in that case too.
"The community" could come up with a very restrictive license that doesn't allow that sort of thing, which Google et. al. will just not use anyway.
The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.
Wow. A music chart that follows what the public is listening to! That is crazy!
Many (probably most) democracies in the world have very strong third (fourth, fifth) parties. Many European democracies almost always end up with coalition governments.
How can you get any more anti-establishment than listening to a bunch of people who have nothing better to do than participate in Facebook campaigns?
Wow. My early cancellation fee is $500. And contracts are three years, not two.
Now that's fame: to become a Slashdot meme.
Firefox is far from perfect. I've found it to be slow on OS X (although I've heard it's faster on other OSes). I went to install it on my girlfriend's netbook and it crashed on launch. I still don't know why - she didn't see any reason to choose Firefox, which wouldn't start, over IE, which would.
Firefox is a great project, but like any software, open source or otherwise, it will only remain that way if the developers respond well to criticism and keep their focus on quality.
No, I'm not talking about reciprocity failure. I'm talking about where the film stops responding at all. Film simply isn't sensitive to anything like individual photons, whereas digital sensors are.
Perhaps you originally replied to the wrong post. I was talking about astronomical cameras. You don't use those to take pictures of cities.
Good points, but the question here is apps vs. web apps. None of your examples are really web apps, never mind have regular applications as alternatives.
I will certainly give you that the web has pasted the newspaper and phone book businesses though.
Not in astronomy. Film and digital sensors respond to light in different ways. Digital sensors are MUCH more sensitive than film is, but much of that sensitivity is unusable in a regular camera because digital sensors also experience much higher levels of noise than film does.
So if you're shooting regular landscape, portrait, whatever, you might well be right. But in astronomy that extra sensitivity actually buys you something.
Most astronomical pictures you see are the result of long exposures, from seconds to weeks. With a digital sensor you can capture even very faint objects by taking lots of short exposures and then averaging them together. That gets you a bunch of advantages, such as being able to salvage data if something happens halfway through, exposing over multiple nights, and taking a LOT of pressure off your tracking apparatus. It's much easier to accurately track a target over a short exposure (and align the images afterward) than it is to keep up accurate tracking over an entire, long exposure.
If you tried the same trick with film you simply wouldn't be able to image dimmer objects because they'd fall below the base sensitivity of each exposure.
There's a reason astronomers were some of the first to use digital cameras, and that amateur astronomy was revolutionized by them.