and I quote: "Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. "
The article clearly stipulates what radiation and device was used. It is a standard Trubeam linac (Varian, Palo Alto) with Cone beam CT. Which is currently the most installed linac in American RT centers. So not extremely expensive and part of the standard machinery. So no bragg peaks in sight. I would think twice of doing this with a proton machine. (BTW I am a medical physicist and do this for a living for the last 28 years.). So a single treatment which depending on the country is between $5,000 to $25,000 . This using the equipment already available in most centers. So this is indeed SBRT, fortunately the pin point accuracy and planning has changed in the years so we are much better. BTW I never considered our patients to be guinae pigs.
Bananas are rich in K-40 isotopes an alpha emitter 1 banana = 0.1 microSievert 5000 bananas = 0.5 mSv Limit for non-background contributions per year 1mSv (0.3 mSv in the UK, but they are special ).
"These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings."
From dmesg [ 421.406145] netcat: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. [ 421.406149] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint [ 421.416664] [netcat]: netcat - Cycles Per Instruction - Kernel Module Edition - 2014 [ 421.416668] [netcat]: netcat is Brandon Lucia, Andrew Olmstead, and David Balatero [ 421.416670] [netcat]: On the web at http://netcat.co/ [ 421.416671] [netcat]: 'ogg123 -
You are mistaken it is not disclosure. You just have proof that the document you produced, which only you can see, was certified to be generated on that day. It can be used if there is a dispute on prior knowledge. Let's say that you a Non disclosure agreement with someone and the topic is whatever you wanted to patent so they tell you what you wanted to patent. Then you have proof that you thought of this prior to the NDA. This could be important.
Not only that. It is also important for scientists and inventors. It allows to time stamp ideas. I just did one with one of my articles in draft form. Yes it is not ready to release to the public but the idea is solid. So having a version of this notarized would be interesting to see how this affects patenting, without going through the terrible long process of submitting and waiting. Also junior scientists working in a lab can timestamp their contributions.
Actually the SI unit for dose is Gray (Gy) which is J/kg and expresses the amount of energy used to produce ionization and it was originally developed for Air which by strange coincindence is almost equivalent to mammal meat as far as the atomic content goes. The Sievert adds a factor to take into account the biological effect of different types of radiation. If in addition the sensitivity of the irradiated organ is taken into account it is still called Sievert and is a different number. I therefore do not consider Sievert to be an SI unit.
No not a joke the only reason why you would get a "catastrophic" event is likely because the beam is focused and as such has a very high flux on a very small volume as dose = energy/mass then the mass of the irradiated part is very high. In order to get a lot of dose to the hand it is better to tune the energy down in such a way that the total energy gets deposited in the object you are interested in. Also note that also the density of the material is very important. Therefore a tungsten block would retain much more energy than a hand. I you can give me the number of particles/square cm I can calculate exactly what the dose is for the hand. This is what I do for a living. And yes I have treated patients with neutron beams, proton beams and photon beams, so I know what I am talking about. My point is that everyone seemed to be overawed by the sheer energy of the beam, while that is not the point it has to be the right energy.
As I explained in the first post the notion of high energy beams having low stopping power is counter intuitive as your reaction shows.
I was amazed at the ignorance displayed in this thread. In radiation therapy proton beams are used a lot to treat cancer so the problem is well known. Of course you will need o know the fluence of the beam (e.g. number of particles/ square cm/ second) and the amount of time the hand has been in the beam. Usually these beams are of relatively low flux, the particles in the beam do have a very high energy. The next thing you need to determine is the amount of energy that will be transferred to the tissue. For this we use the notion of stopping power (i,e, energy deposited under the form of ionizing collisions per unit length). This quantity depends on the charge of the particle (squared) and the inverse of the speed of the particle (squared). This means, and most people find this counter intuitive, that the higher the energy, the lower the amount of energy being deposited. So in this case the deposited energy is very low, e.g. the beam passes almost right through the hand. I do not have any stopping power numbers for these type of energies handy but can only presume that they are very low. Some caveats, these line of thought only follows direct interactions and collisional interactions with electrons. Most likely there is a larger component of nuclear interactions and ionizations coming from recoil events. Which will increase the dose. In order to get the maximum effect with a proton beam one has to tune the beam in such a way that it comes to a complete halt inside the persons body this is about 200MeV for a human, what is several orders of magnitude lower than the energies here at hand (pun unintended).
Anyway interesting question and at my next exam I will be sure to put it in. Now we will see if any of my students read slashdot;-)
Unfortunately all negative studies, that are well repeatable and do not show any increased permeability, Foiled again! If there is a mechanism, this would not be it.
Record 1 of 5 de Gannes, FP; Billaudel, B; Taxile, M; Haro, E; Ruffie, G; Leveque, P; Veyret, B; Lagroye, I. 2009. Effects of Head-Only Exposure of Rats to GSM-900 on Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability and Neuronal Degeneration. RADIATION RESEARCH 172 (3): 359-367.. Author Full Name(s): de Gannes, Florence Poulletier; Billaudel, Bernard; Taxile, Murielle; Haro, Emmanuelle; Ruffie, Gilles; Leveque, Philippe; Veyret, Bernard; Lagroye, Isabelle ISSN: 0033-7587 DOI: 10.1667/RR1578.1 Record 2 of 5 Finnie, JW; Blumbergs, PC; Cai, Z; Manavis, J. 2009. Expression of the water channel protein, aquaporin-4, in mouse brains exposed to mobile telephone radiofrequency fields. PATHOLOGY 41 (5): 473-475.. Author Full Name(s): Finnie, John W.; Blumbergs, Peter C.; Cai, Zhao; Manavis, Jim ISSN: 0031-3025 DOI: 10.1080/00313020902885045 Record 3 of 5 Masuda, H; Ushiyama, A; Takahashi, M; Wang, JQ; Fujiwara, O; Hikage, T; Nojima, T; Fujita, K; Kudo, M; Ohkubo, C. 2009. Effects of 915 MHz Electromagnetic-Field Radiation in TEM Cell on the Blood-Brain Barrier and Neurons in the Rat Brain. RADIATION RESEARCH 172 (1): 66-73.. Author Full Name(s): Masuda, Hiroshi; Ushiyama, Akira; Takahashi, Miyuki; Wang, Jianqing; Fujiwara, Osamu; Hikage, Takashi; Nojima, Toshio; Fujita, Koji; Kudo, Motoshige; Ohkubo, Chiyoji ISSN: 0033-7587 DOI: 10.1667/RR1542.1 Record 4 of 5 Masuda, H; Ushiyama, A; Hirota, S; Wake, K; Watanabe, S; Yamanaka, Y; Taki, M; Ohkubo, C. 2007. Effects of subchronic exposure to a 1439 MHz electromagnetic field on the microcirculatory parameters in rat brain. IN VIVO 21 (4): 563-570.. Author Full Name(s): Masuda, Hiroshi; Ushiyama, Akira; Hirota, Shogo; Wake, Kanako; Watanabe, Soichi; Yamanaka, Yukio; Taki, Masao; Ohkubo, Chiyoji ISSN: 0258-851X Record 5 of 5 Franke, H; Streckert, J; Bitz, A; Goeke, J; Hansen, V; Ringelstein, EB; Nattkamper, H; Galla, HJ; Stogbauer, F. 2005. Effects of universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) electromagnetic fields on the blood-brain barrier in vitro. RADIATION RESEARCH 164 (3): 258-269.. ISSN: 0033-7587
Hmm,
What is the reference article reporting this.
The blood brain barrier not only keeps out the "bad" chemicals, but also prevents us from
delivering life saving drugs to the brain.
So the prize winning treatment will be inject the drugs, apply RF to the brain. Patient saved, I get the Nobel Prize.
Is there a way to make sure you log this/. ? It was discovered here first. I know the guys at Cleveland. If this was true it would have
been patented long ago. And gazillions of presentations at all the big conferences would be the reward together with fame and fortune. No matter how much they got from the "cell phone" dark suits.
That Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics is far fetched. This is the guy who invented the photo electric effect. He was well aware of the quantum nature of the electron orbits. What he doubted was the Kopenhagen interpretation. This (in a few very crude words) says that there is no way to observe the underlying truth and that we should stick to observables only. The Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper takes this logic to an extreme and comes out at the
"spooky" interaction at distance. Note that everything stays within the boundaries dictated by the relativity theory in that not all information can be
exchanged over the distance instantaneous but that part of the information already needs to have traveled the distance (the other half of the entangled pair),
The beauty is that he did not need to let his belief system dictate the logic of the argument. It might be that at the time his conclusions were wrong as the result he obtained was contrary to the experience he had up till now.
Temps for superfluidity are much lower than those needed for superconductivity. To get superfluid Helium you have to get a single isotope and cool it to something below 4K. The Helium used in the LHC is the normal kind (He3-He4 mix) and serves to get superconductivity in the magnets.
BTW every hospital has a few MRI using superconducting coils to get magnetic fields between 1 to 7 Tesla. The only thing to fear in the neighborhood of these babies is office chairs on wheels (scary but funny) and metal oxygen bottles (scary and not funny).
Looking at the model the electric field will inhibit the process of mitosis by disturbing the attempted bonding of
particular molecules. In order to do that the field will need to be in the correct direction for a limited time. If the
time is too short everything will cancel out.
Harmonics created in other environment could have an effect, but also note that the tests were performed with
the electrodes in contact with the tissue. Radiative delivery of these frequencies is very inefficient. Contact is needed.
I should precurse this by saying that I am a medical physicist, irradiating cancer cells is what I do for a living.
Unlike the hype and scaremongering about cell phones, this actually has some science behind it. An article in Cancer Research (2004) (: Cancer Res. 2004 May 1;64(9):3288-95.) desribes the same technique (by the same authors) applied in vitro. This means they took some cancer cells in a test tube and subjected them to the fields. There they saw that over the course of 24 hours there is an inhibition in growth, over several days in tumors implanted in mice a reduction in tumor growth was seen (this means that the tumor grows slower).
Independently, a group in Cleveland investigated the influence of electric fields at very low frequencies (50Hz, yes that's the frequency of our daily AC-current) and found inhibition of cell cycles, (this means that the cell is moving through it's cycle).
To put things into context, we see some inhibition at low frequency (50Hz), and disruption of cell division at 100-300kHz.
Cell phones work at frequencies of the horder of GHz. (for you slashdotters, replacing Hz with bytes will tell you all you need to now about the relative values of kHz, MHz and GHz;-) )
So I am reasonably optimistic that there is some truth to all this. However, there seems to be a selectivity that will not work as an advantage all of the time. The technique only seems to work if the field is switched on during cell mitosis. This means it will only work on cells that are actively replicating. So the it will only work well if and when the cells you are targeting have a different proliferation rate, than the ones you do not want to affect. Of course brain cells are a good example as their replication rate is extremely slow (if any).
Some caveats: The experiment (in vitro) as described, has not been reproduced by an independent group. The number of patients used in the in vivo experiment is very low, too low to distinguish with any significant probability that the
results obtained are not merely a statistical effect. The results however are promising.
But that is the way science works. Slowly and methodically: FYI there is a specific way things are done when new modalities
are found: 1) You look for dose effects, what is the dose that does no harm. This means you take a group of people and
give each subsection and ever increasing dose until you see some bad effects. 2) Then perform a study of efficacy giving a large group of people the determined dose and see if there still is an effect, 3) Finally you compare this with a standard of care (the thing you normally do) with your new stuff in a double blind study (which means you, nor the patient knows beforehand what the treatment is going to be and see if you see a different cure rate.
You might say, if it is so good we want it now. I can say the process described above goes faster the bigger the difference is with the standard of care.
When did Dell change it's policy? I bought a fully installed Dell workstation with red hat 9.0 fully installed about 2 years ago.
Worked right out of the box and ran (runs) like a charm.
What am I not seeing? Or is the the OP a troll?
Well I am not an Anonymous Coward and have something to say about this.
Maybe people get this because you do not allow them to do anything or learn anything (and I mean really learn, not the umpteenth course on how to use word or excel).
I have stood on both sides of the coin being in charge of a departemental network and now working in a large hospital with a bunch of paranoid M$ freaks.
I use computers a lot for my work, doing image analyss, model fitting and working with large files. Heck I even have a minor in computer science.
People are rude to you because you treat them like shit. IT tells you what software to use, what you can and cannot install on your computer, they check your email, follow your surfing behavior, ask you to change your password every three months and don't even allow you to use something you can remember easily, so now everyone uses their initials followed by 1234 in some order, try it you will see how many times it works in a larger environment. So essentially they give you a cash register to punch up the numbers they think you will need to do.
They make sure that you can't transfer large files outside of the network so now you try e-mail because for your work you need to transfer large files from time to time.
They give you some user space on the network drive (typically 100MB). You can get more but you have to ask them first.
These are clearly all small things, but I like to compare it with running on one of these Finnish running tracks, they are covered with hardened mulch. It is easy for a few stepa and doesn't seem to be a big deal, but try running a mile and then we'll talk.
After all that they are amazed that I bring a linux laptop with a large hard drive. piggyback onto the network, use a secure shell to get my mail (oh yes of course we can only use Outlook and Pegasus and IE).
Next stop of course is that everyone will be doinng that, using WIFI by passing the firm network all together.
People get pissed when they feel that they have no control over what they are doing. So now the printer goes down, and the machines for the patients are set up in such a way
that treatment can't start unless a print is generated. So patients get worried about their treatment, (why does it take so long?) the nurses get worried. They call IT
they tell them that it has been registered. That is not the right answer. Patient is on the table in less than comfortable situation.
Meanwhile IT is in a quiet back office trying to get the printer network to work again, instead of having a local body do this work, who knows how important this is.
Excuse my rant. But that is the way things go. There are of course many possible solutions to these problems, but most IT departments can't live with the concept of modular self sufficient small networks. They want everything centralized so they can control everything. Of course the lowly IT worker who has to solve the problems is the only one people get to talk to. He comes in and solves some problems, which are sometimes trivial, but which the user can't do anything about because they are not even allowed to know.
The consequence is that he gets the full load about these "incompetent asses in IT"
So in short, yes we feel that IT are a bunch of arrogant pricks, who think they know how we should do our jobs. Make everything "secure" so that it is impossible to get anything done and threaten you with dismissal if you don't follow their little schemes
I seem to have a subtle problem with this. Lets say, for the sake of argument, I downloaded the garbage file from the torrent.
Sure it has a title which is close to a copyrighted movie, but nowhere does it tell me it is copyrighted.
Then I try to play the movie and get 2 hours of white noise. Nowhere does it tell me that the noise I am watching is copyrighted! So how do I infringe any law here.
Taking this argument one step further. Let us say that MPAA figures this out and puts one of these FBI-(blue or red) warning screens before the movie. I now know that
the item is copyrighted, so technically I am in trouble. At that time I realize to my utter horror that I downloaded a copyrighted item. Should I not now return this
item to the rightful owner with my apologies. Because I could only know this was copyrighted until the complete download was performed. Where do I send my copy together with a letter that I found this item?
Downloading something from a torrent is not illegal. So when it is not marked as copyrighted I have no way of knowing.
Slashdot Mirror
https://lipsum.com/
and I quote:
"Lorem Ipsum comes from sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum" (The Extremes of Good and Evil) by Cicero, written in 45 BC. "
Hm Firefox/Android ?
The article clearly stipulates what radiation and device was used.
It is a standard Trubeam linac (Varian, Palo Alto) with Cone beam CT. Which is currently the most installed linac in American RT centers. So not extremely expensive and part of the standard machinery. So no bragg peaks in sight. I would think twice of doing this with a proton machine. (BTW I am a medical physicist and do this for a living for the last 28 years.). So a single treatment which depending on the country is between $5,000 to $25,000 . This using the equipment already available in most centers. So this is indeed SBRT, fortunately the pin point accuracy and planning has changed in the years so we are much better. BTW I never considered our patients to be guinae pigs.
Bananas are rich in K-40 isotopes an alpha emitter
1 banana = 0.1 microSievert
5000 bananas = 0.5 mSv
Limit for non-background contributions per year 1mSv (0.3 mSv in the UK, but they are special ).
Was that not something introduces about 20 years ago by Silicon Graphics? Or am I getting old
http://manx.classiccmp.org/mir...
"These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings."
Do YOU feel manipulated?
Signed: A male (smelly) scientist
From dmesg
[ 421.406145] netcat: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
[ 421.406149] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint
[ 421.416664] [netcat]: netcat - Cycles Per Instruction - Kernel Module Edition - 2014
[ 421.416668] [netcat]: netcat is Brandon Lucia, Andrew Olmstead, and David Balatero
[ 421.416670] [netcat]: On the web at http://netcat.co/
[ 421.416671] [netcat]: 'ogg123 -
So yes
You are mistaken it is not disclosure. You just have proof that the document you produced, which only you can see, was certified to be generated on that day. It can be used if there is a dispute on prior knowledge. Let's say that you a Non disclosure agreement with someone and the topic is whatever you wanted to patent so they tell you what you wanted to patent. Then you have proof that you thought of this prior to the NDA. This could be important.
Not only that. It is also important for scientists and inventors.
It allows to time stamp ideas. I just did one with one of my articles in draft form. Yes it is not ready to release to the public but the idea is solid. So having a version of this notarized would be interesting to see how this affects patenting, without going through the terrible long process of submitting and waiting. Also junior scientists working in a lab can timestamp their contributions.
Actually the SI unit for dose is Gray (Gy) which is J/kg and expresses the amount of energy used to produce ionization and it was originally developed for Air which by strange coincindence is almost equivalent to mammal meat as far as the atomic content goes. The Sievert adds a factor to take into account the biological effect of different types of radiation. If in addition the sensitivity of the irradiated organ is taken into account it is still called Sievert and is a different number. I therefore do not consider Sievert to be an SI unit.
Hope this helps
No not a joke the only reason why you would get a "catastrophic" event is likely because the beam is focused and as such has a very high flux on a very small volume as dose = energy /mass then the mass of the irradiated part is very high. In order to get a lot of dose to the hand it is better to tune the energy down in such a way that the total energy gets deposited in the object you are interested in. Also note that also the density of the material is very important. Therefore a tungsten block would retain much more energy than a hand. I you can give me the number of particles/square cm I can calculate exactly what the dose is for the hand. This is what I do for a living. And yes I have treated patients with neutron beams, proton beams and photon beams, so I know what I am talking about. My point is that everyone seemed to be overawed by the sheer energy of the beam, while that is not the point it has to be the right energy.
As I explained in the first post the notion of high energy beams having low stopping power is counter intuitive as your reaction shows.
Hope this helps
I was amazed at the ignorance displayed in this thread. In radiation therapy proton beams are used a lot to treat cancer so the problem is well known.
Of course you will need o know the fluence of the beam (e.g. number of particles/ square cm/ second) and the amount of time the hand has been in the beam.
Usually these beams are of relatively low flux, the particles in the beam do have a very high energy. The next thing you need to determine is
the amount of energy that will be transferred to the tissue. For this we use the notion of stopping power (i,e, energy deposited under the form of ionizing collisions per unit length). This quantity depends on the charge of the particle (squared) and the inverse of the speed of the particle (squared). This means, and most people find this counter intuitive, that the higher the energy, the lower the amount of energy being deposited. So in this case the deposited energy is very low, e.g. the beam passes almost right through the hand. I do not have any stopping power numbers for these type of energies handy but can only presume that they are very low. Some caveats, these line of thought only follows direct interactions and collisional interactions with electrons.
Most likely there is a larger component of nuclear interactions and ionizations coming from recoil events. Which will increase the dose.
In order to get the maximum effect with a proton beam one has to tune the beam in such a way that it comes to a complete halt inside the persons body
this is about 200MeV for a human, what is several orders of magnitude lower than the energies here at hand (pun unintended).
Anyway interesting question and at my next exam I will be sure to put it in. Now we will see if any of my students read slashdot ;-)
In follow up to my own submission.
Unfortunately all negative studies, that are well repeatable and do not show any increased permeability, Foiled again!
If there is a mechanism, this would not be it.
Record 1 of 5
de Gannes, FP; Billaudel, B; Taxile, M; Haro, E; Ruffie, G; Leveque, P; Veyret, B; Lagroye, I. 2009. Effects of Head-Only Exposure of Rats to GSM-900 on Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability and Neuronal Degeneration. RADIATION RESEARCH 172 (3): 359-367..
Author Full Name(s): de Gannes, Florence Poulletier; Billaudel, Bernard; Taxile, Murielle; Haro, Emmanuelle; Ruffie, Gilles; Leveque, Philippe; Veyret, Bernard; Lagroye, Isabelle
ISSN: 0033-7587
DOI: 10.1667/RR1578.1
Record 2 of 5
Finnie, JW; Blumbergs, PC; Cai, Z; Manavis, J. 2009. Expression of the water channel protein, aquaporin-4, in mouse brains exposed to mobile telephone radiofrequency fields. PATHOLOGY 41 (5): 473-475..
Author Full Name(s): Finnie, John W.; Blumbergs, Peter C.; Cai, Zhao; Manavis, Jim
ISSN: 0031-3025
DOI: 10.1080/00313020902885045
Record 3 of 5
Masuda, H; Ushiyama, A; Takahashi, M; Wang, JQ; Fujiwara, O; Hikage, T; Nojima, T; Fujita, K; Kudo, M; Ohkubo, C. 2009. Effects of 915 MHz Electromagnetic-Field Radiation in TEM Cell on the Blood-Brain Barrier and Neurons in the Rat Brain. RADIATION RESEARCH 172 (1): 66-73..
Author Full Name(s): Masuda, Hiroshi; Ushiyama, Akira; Takahashi, Miyuki; Wang, Jianqing; Fujiwara, Osamu; Hikage, Takashi; Nojima, Toshio; Fujita, Koji; Kudo, Motoshige; Ohkubo, Chiyoji
ISSN: 0033-7587
DOI: 10.1667/RR1542.1
Record 4 of 5
Masuda, H; Ushiyama, A; Hirota, S; Wake, K; Watanabe, S; Yamanaka, Y; Taki, M; Ohkubo, C. 2007. Effects of subchronic exposure to a 1439 MHz electromagnetic field on the microcirculatory parameters in rat brain. IN VIVO 21 (4): 563-570..
Author Full Name(s): Masuda, Hiroshi; Ushiyama, Akira; Hirota, Shogo; Wake, Kanako; Watanabe, Soichi; Yamanaka, Yukio; Taki, Masao; Ohkubo, Chiyoji
ISSN: 0258-851X
Record 5 of 5
Franke, H; Streckert, J; Bitz, A; Goeke, J; Hansen, V; Ringelstein, EB; Nattkamper, H; Galla, HJ; Stogbauer, F. 2005. Effects of universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) electromagnetic fields on the blood-brain barrier in vitro. RADIATION RESEARCH 164 (3): 258-269..
ISSN: 0033-7587
Wait a minute I had already posted this http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=210580&cid=17159284
I received exactly one reply to a engineering article with no substantial follow up generated. I don't think there is anything to it.
The beauty is that he did not need to let his belief system dictate the logic of the argument. It might be that at the time his conclusions were wrong as the result he obtained was contrary to the experience he had up till now.
Temps for superfluidity are much lower than those needed for superconductivity. To get superfluid Helium you have to get a single isotope and cool it to something below 4K. The Helium used in the LHC is the normal kind (He3-He4 mix) and serves to get superconductivity in the magnets.
BTW every hospital has a few MRI using superconducting coils to get magnetic fields between 1 to 7 Tesla. The only thing to fear in the neighborhood of these babies is office chairs on wheels (scary but funny) and metal oxygen bottles (scary and not funny).
nuff said
Looking at the model the electric field will inhibit the process of mitosis by disturbing the attempted bonding of particular molecules. In order to do that the field will need to be in the correct direction for a limited time. If the time is too short everything will cancel out. Harmonics created in other environment could have an effect, but also note that the tests were performed with the electrodes in contact with the tissue. Radiative delivery of these frequencies is very inefficient. Contact is needed.
Hope this helps
I should precurse this by saying that I am a medical physicist, irradiating cancer cells is what I do for a living.
Unlike the hype and scaremongering about cell phones, this actually has some science behind it. An article in Cancer Research (2004) (: Cancer Res. 2004 May 1;64(9):3288-95.) desribes the same technique (by the same authors) applied in vitro. This means they took some cancer cells in a test tube and subjected them to the fields. There they saw that over the course of 24 hours there is an inhibition in growth, over several days in tumors implanted in mice a reduction in tumor growth was seen (this means that the tumor grows slower).
Independently, a group in Cleveland investigated the influence of electric fields at very low frequencies (50Hz, yes that's the frequency of our daily AC-current) and found inhibition of cell cycles, (this means that the cell is moving through it's cycle).
To put things into context, we see some inhibition at low frequency (50Hz), and disruption of cell division at 100-300kHz. Cell phones work at frequencies of the horder of GHz. (for you slashdotters, replacing Hz with bytes will tell you all you need to now about the relative values of kHz, MHz and GHz ;-) )
So I am reasonably optimistic that there is some truth to all this. However, there seems to be a selectivity that will not work as an advantage all of the time. The technique only seems to work if the field is switched on during cell mitosis. This means it will only work on cells that are actively replicating. So the it will only work well if and when the cells you are targeting have a different proliferation rate, than the ones you do not want to affect. Of course brain cells are a good example as their replication rate is extremely slow (if any).
Some caveats: The experiment (in vitro) as described, has not been reproduced by an independent group. The number of patients used in the in vivo experiment is very low, too low to distinguish with any significant probability that the results obtained are not merely a statistical effect. The results however are promising. But that is the way science works. Slowly and methodically: FYI there is a specific way things are done when new modalities are found: 1) You look for dose effects, what is the dose that does no harm. This means you take a group of people and give each subsection and ever increasing dose until you see some bad effects. 2) Then perform a study of efficacy giving a large group of people the determined dose and see if there still is an effect, 3) Finally you compare this with a standard of care (the thing you normally do) with your new stuff in a double blind study (which means you, nor the patient knows beforehand what the treatment is going to be and see if you see a different cure rate.
You might say, if it is so good we want it now. I can say the process described above goes faster the bigger the difference is with the standard of care.
When did Dell change it's policy? I bought a fully installed Dell workstation with red hat 9.0 fully installed about 2 years ago. Worked right out of the box and ran (runs) like a charm. What am I not seeing? Or is the the OP a troll?
So Michigan should be less religeous than the rest of the US?
Maybe people get this because you do not allow them to do anything or learn anything (and I mean really learn, not the umpteenth course on how to use word or excel).
I have stood on both sides of the coin being in charge of a departemental network and now working in a large hospital with a bunch of paranoid M$ freaks. I use computers a lot for my work, doing image analyss, model fitting and working with large files. Heck I even have a minor in computer science.
People are rude to you because you treat them like shit. IT tells you what software to use, what you can and cannot install on your computer, they check your email, follow your surfing behavior, ask you to change your password every three months and don't even allow you to use something you can remember easily, so now everyone uses their initials followed by 1234 in some order, try it you will see how many times it works in a larger environment. So essentially they give you a cash register to punch up the numbers they think you will need to do.They make sure that you can't transfer large files outside of the network so now you try e-mail because for your work you need to transfer large files from time to time. They give you some user space on the network drive (typically 100MB). You can get more but you have to ask them first.
These are clearly all small things, but I like to compare it with running on one of these Finnish running tracks, they are covered with hardened mulch. It is easy for a few stepa and doesn't seem to be a big deal, but try running a mile and then we'll talk.
After all that they are amazed that I bring a linux laptop with a large hard drive. piggyback onto the network, use a secure shell to get my mail (oh yes of course we can only use Outlook and Pegasus and IE).
Next stop of course is that everyone will be doinng that, using WIFI by passing the firm network all together.
People get pissed when they feel that they have no control over what they are doing. So now the printer goes down, and the machines for the patients are set up in such a way that treatment can't start unless a print is generated. So patients get worried about their treatment, (why does it take so long?) the nurses get worried. They call IT they tell them that it has been registered. That is not the right answer. Patient is on the table in less than comfortable situation. Meanwhile IT is in a quiet back office trying to get the printer network to work again, instead of having a local body do this work, who knows how important this is.Excuse my rant. But that is the way things go. There are of course many possible solutions to these problems, but most IT departments can't live with the concept of modular self sufficient small networks. They want everything centralized so they can control everything. Of course the lowly IT worker who has to solve the problems is the only one people get to talk to. He comes in and solves some problems, which are sometimes trivial, but which the user can't do anything about because they are not even allowed to know.
The consequence is that he gets the full load about these "incompetent asses in IT"
So in short, yes we feel that IT are a bunch of arrogant pricks, who think they know how we should do our jobs. Make everything "secure" so that it is impossible to get anything done and threaten you with dismissal if you don't follow their little schemes
He, he that felt good!Tools not rules!!
Energy is in Joules (J)!
I seem to have a subtle problem with this. Lets say, for the sake of argument, I downloaded the garbage file from the torrent. Sure it has a title which is close to a copyrighted movie, but nowhere does it tell me it is copyrighted.
Then I try to play the movie and get 2 hours of white noise. Nowhere does it tell me that the noise I am watching is copyrighted! So how do I infringe any law here.Taking this argument one step further. Let us say that MPAA figures this out and puts one of these FBI-(blue or red) warning screens before the movie. I now know that the item is copyrighted, so technically I am in trouble. At that time I realize to my utter horror that I downloaded a copyrighted item. Should I not now return this item to the rightful owner with my apologies. Because I could only know this was copyrighted until the complete download was performed. Where do I send my copy together with a letter that I found this item?
Downloading something from a torrent is not illegal. So when it is not marked as copyrighted I have no way of knowing.The Antwerp our lady Cathedral was started in 1300. The second tower was never built so they put a roof on it (1540). Hence a one towered Cathedral.
BTW is Stonehenge finished, Easter Island has some unfinished heads lying around. DOES ANYBODY FINISH ANYTHING!!
In Soviet Russia the work finishes you!"Hola bambe, hungala dimba Gerald Ford.. *click* *click* *click* *click* ..hola bambe, allah bumba bubba hulla humba hey."