And then the harddrive with $5000 of copy protected and backup-proof books dies, and the children in the Kiddie Korner learn some new words from the librarian. ^_~
But, in all seriousness, having more selection at your local library *would* be a good thing. But I wouldn't really want to go to the library to read an ebook, and I don't have hundreds of dollars to plunk down on an ebook reader. And even if I did, it's much cheaper to replace a $15 book that you dropped in the bathtub than an ebook reader or PDA.
Not to mention there would be, I think, a great risk in limiting federally funded science to "important things" like AIDS or cancer.
Certainly, a cure for AIDS and cancer would be wonderful, but the danger comes in deciding what is "important" and what isn't. What happens when a rather uncommon disease has it's funding yanked because "it doesn't affect as many people as cancer, so it's obviously less important"?
While there obviously has to be some point where you have to draw the line, I don't think we should go around drawing it so that it narrows the field of research. While it might not affect the general public much, it certainly would affect the people who had funding for life-saving research cut because their disease "isn't as big as cancer or AIDS".
And besides, what about the whole "too many cooks spoil the soup" saying? ^_~
Naw, they'd probably charge you more becuase they could fill up the disc with less compressed data and then use "87 Giga-Bytes of entertainment!" as a reason to tack on another $15 >.>
Something you said reminded me of an article I read once (which I can't really find now). It was written by someone who contracted a highly resistant "superbug" while in the hospital.
In a nutshell, it said that so-called "superbugs", while being strong against antibiotics, have quite weak defenses against other bacteria, fungi, and viri. The fact that he was already on antibiotics and the hospital was a pretty sterile environment would explain why he would have so few natural benign or not-too-harmful microbes in his system.
He then mentions that his doctor basically told him to go home, go outside in the fresh air and sunshine, and more or less roll around in the dirt, which would expose him to plenty of "regular germs" which would push out the "superbug".
Granted, this article was on a rather closed-minded, high-and-mighty, conservative Christian creationist site, so I don't know how medically accurate it is. (While I am in fact a Christian and a creationist, I was still put off by the fact that they were ever-so-self-righteous)
But, the theory does make sense. As far as I know, it's generally seen that people (some people in particular) are more susceptible to the candida mold (responsable for oral thrush and yeast infections, if I'm not mistaken) when on antibiotics, because the antibiotics kill the bacteria that are the natural enemy of the fungi.
Insert standard medical disclaimer here. Don't go and play in the mud without asking your doctor first;-P
Not always, at any rate. The only time you should be prescribed antibiotics for a viral infection is if you have a secondary bacterial infection as well.
For example, some people with long-standing bacterial infections (that can come with diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis) are put on antibiotics when they contract a virus because it makes said bacterial infection flare up, and treating that with antibiotics will let your immune system concentrate on the viral infection.
Another thing about overuse of antibiotics is they kill off all of the "friendly bacteria" in addition to the ones that are making you sick. I believe that is part of the reason antibiotics upset some people's stomachs so badly. Or, at least, I've known some people who have found relief from that problem by taking supplements of friendly bacteria such as Lactobacillus Acidophilus.
I'm not a medical doctor, so consult yours before you make any changes in your healthcare management. Duh;-P
Slashdot Mirror
And then the harddrive with $5000 of copy protected and backup-proof books dies, and the children in the Kiddie Korner learn some new words from the librarian. ^_~ But, in all seriousness, having more selection at your local library *would* be a good thing. But I wouldn't really want to go to the library to read an ebook, and I don't have hundreds of dollars to plunk down on an ebook reader. And even if I did, it's much cheaper to replace a $15 book that you dropped in the bathtub than an ebook reader or PDA.
Not to mention there would be, I think, a great risk in limiting federally funded science to "important things" like AIDS or cancer. Certainly, a cure for AIDS and cancer would be wonderful, but the danger comes in deciding what is "important" and what isn't. What happens when a rather uncommon disease has it's funding yanked because "it doesn't affect as many people as cancer, so it's obviously less important"? While there obviously has to be some point where you have to draw the line, I don't think we should go around drawing it so that it narrows the field of research. While it might not affect the general public much, it certainly would affect the people who had funding for life-saving research cut because their disease "isn't as big as cancer or AIDS". And besides, what about the whole "too many cooks spoil the soup" saying? ^_~
Naw, they'd probably charge you more becuase they could fill up the disc with less compressed data and then use "87 Giga-Bytes of entertainment!" as a reason to tack on another $15 >.>
Something you said reminded me of an article I read once (which I can't really find now). It was written by someone who contracted a highly resistant "superbug" while in the hospital.
;-P
In a nutshell, it said that so-called "superbugs", while being strong against antibiotics, have quite weak defenses against other bacteria, fungi, and viri. The fact that he was already on antibiotics and the hospital was a pretty sterile environment would explain why he would have so few natural benign or not-too-harmful microbes in his system.
He then mentions that his doctor basically told him to go home, go outside in the fresh air and sunshine, and more or less roll around in the dirt, which would expose him to plenty of "regular germs" which would push out the "superbug".
Granted, this article was on a rather closed-minded, high-and-mighty, conservative Christian creationist site, so I don't know how medically accurate it is. (While I am in fact a Christian and a creationist, I was still put off by the fact that they were ever-so-self-righteous)
But, the theory does make sense. As far as I know, it's generally seen that people (some people in particular) are more susceptible to the candida mold (responsable for oral thrush and yeast infections, if I'm not mistaken) when on antibiotics, because the antibiotics kill the bacteria that are the natural enemy of the fungi.
Insert standard medical disclaimer here. Don't go and play in the mud without asking your doctor first
~Silvermask
Not always, at any rate. The only time you should be prescribed antibiotics for a viral infection is if you have a secondary bacterial infection as well.
;-P
For example, some people with long-standing bacterial infections (that can come with diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis) are put on antibiotics when they contract a virus because it makes said bacterial infection flare up, and treating that with antibiotics will let your immune system concentrate on the viral infection.
Another thing about overuse of antibiotics is they kill off all of the "friendly bacteria" in addition to the ones that are making you sick. I believe that is part of the reason antibiotics upset some people's stomachs so badly. Or, at least, I've known some people who have found relief from that problem by taking supplements of friendly bacteria such as Lactobacillus Acidophilus.
I'm not a medical doctor, so consult yours before you make any changes in your healthcare management. Duh
~Silvermask