I actually am a medical doctor and I can say that the VA EMR is very very good. It's not as shiny or pretty as some others out there, but it's solid, easy to use/learn, interconnected with every VA hospital and it's the same at every VA hospital. The scheduling problems largely revolve around lazy government employees (I'm a govt employee, so I can say that!) and trying to get doctors to work in the VA system. They only recently brought the salaries for physicians, but only for new hires, IIRC. I'm sure THAT's good for morale....
I'm also an armchair bioinformaticist (or whatever) and have seen the coding and modules behind EPIC, one of the most popular and widely-used EMRs around. It IS kludgey! I forget if the inpatient or outpatient systems came first, but the second had to be kludged in. THEN, when you factor in the very widely used radiology information system (PACS) you have to kludge that in. Then you have pathology and lab medicine using an entirely different system (CoPath, Soft, PowerPath, etc) you have to tie that into the EMR and PACS. Sometimes pathology and lab medicine use two entirely different systems, even though they're in the same department!
I think Assange SHOULD apologise. After all, he was risking the life of a head of state (admittedly, the risk was probably fairly minimal). That said, it seems like Morales deserves an apology from a lot of countries, including the U.S. Right or wrong, it would be the diplomatic thing to do. Not apologizing just reinforces the perception of the U.S. as imperialist/bullying. It seems like France is the only one to have issued an apology so far...
No, they are not, as all good scientists are. From the actual journal article:
"Some limitations of our work should be noted. Specifically, we cannot ascertain from the current studies whether acetaminophen might blunt individuals’ attention or motivation to process emotionally evocative stimuli instead of (or in addition to) their evaluative processing of these stimuli."
Honestly, it's a pretty weak self-critique. I wish they had talked more about how meaningful the differences they found were. Yes, the p values were low, so they were statistically significant, but their graphs aren't so impressive to me. Then again, I'm not a psychologist (although I am a MD) and I'm not familiar with their assessment tools (the IAPS picture database?). So what do I know?:)
I am a scientist in real life (yes, biomed PhD and everything) and I would like to offer a different opinion. We spent all this money on something that didn't work. Ok, that's less than desirable. However, I think it's inaccurate to call it a complete waste. For one, it employed people and secondly and maybe most importantly, it funded research, which is almost always a good thing. The only way this would be a complete waste, is if they did not use what they learned from these projects to take with them to the next. That's my real fear: we'll keep spending money in a very inefficient way. My only beef with the whole thing, is that they should have given that $10B to the NIH, NSF, NASA, universities, etc...
"Bulletproof" glass is actually some kind of plastic polymer that degrades with UV light, ie sunlight, as in the kind of light you get in the brutally hot summers in DC. They'd have to replace the entire thing every year.
It seems like this could be a useful training tool, especially for more complex/dangerous threats like multiple agent terrorist attacks. However, I fail to see how this will improve an agent's ability to stop a guy from jumping a fence and making a break for it. This might be simplistic, but isn't the solution to that problem to keep your eyes open and then radio it in? You know, like every other security job in the country?
Came here to say the same thing. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
I would also add, that now we know how powerful wide collection nets of metadata can be (eg, NSA surveillance), I wonder if other types of donation, such as bone marrow registries, are going to be subpoenaed and how that will affect donations.
For museums in general, it depends on the exhibit and whether or not the works have been copyrighted. If so, no photography of any kind is allowed. For the Louvre, it seems like most exhibits should allow photography, although not necessarily flash. Even so, it seems like flash photography may not harm paintings after all...
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us. Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system. Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
As others have pointed out, these zombie studies are generally based on epidemic/pandemic disease spread. I think your zombie list is interesting, but all those things are highly dependant on how a zombie outbreak might occur, specifically on modes of transmission. Are you infected if a zombie bites you? What if some blood gets on your skin? Will that infect you? What about in a paper cut? What about if you get zombie blood in your mouth, eyes, or lungs? What happens when you set off a bomb in the middle of a zombie hoard? Did you just aerosolize the zombie virus/particle/whatever? 1 human might kill 3 zombies, but that doesn't do any good if that 1 human becomes a zombie, and the resulting battles infected 10 other human bystanders.
The point is not to kill zombies necessarily, but to contain them, eradicate them and most importantly, not to become one yourself.
One issue I have, is that the very first sentence of the abstract is probably incorrect. NAFLD doesn't lead to diabetes, it's the other way around. In the full article, they back away from saying NAFLD causes diabetes and merely says they are related. The biggest problem, is that they used rats, and rats just don't get diabetes, NASH, or NAFLD (or heart disease either, for that fact), so they have to heavily heavily manipulate the rats' genetic background, as well as a ludicrous diet. I'm not saying their study is bad, but just that in a heavily modified animal model system, well... let's not break out the champagne and Noble prizes just yet. What might be more interesting is the chemistry involved to make a "safe" form of DNP. Don't tell the high school girls, they'll all want it!
The title of the Slashdot summary should really be edited to end with "... in rats."
The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?
Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.
Completely agree. However, if the bandwidth is so dramatically improved, can't the caps be also dramatically increased? Kind of like how when 4G first came out, that was unlimited, while 3G was capped or something like that? I might have that situation reversed but still, you get the idea.
Aren't carrieres already calling LTE and 4G+, etc 5G? Since it seems like 5G is such a dramatic improvement, should it have an entirely new name? A la Intel's move away from the x86 lines of processors?
You obviously aren't aware of a tool called rhetoric. Using facts, logic, and argument are useful for rhetoric but not necessary. These people are using rhetoric (shockingly well, in some cases) and not interested in using facts, logic, and argument at all.
Correct, you aren't a feminist. News flash: women have brains and they do what they want. They don't want to code, because they are passively (mostly) discouraged from pursuing that hobby/career. Deal with it.
Slashdot Mirror
EPIC itself is kludgey and cumbersome, but it somehow works. And yes, it's outrageously expensive.
I actually am a medical doctor and I can say that the VA EMR is very very good. It's not as shiny or pretty as some others out there, but it's solid, easy to use/learn, interconnected with every VA hospital and it's the same at every VA hospital. The scheduling problems largely revolve around lazy government employees (I'm a govt employee, so I can say that!) and trying to get doctors to work in the VA system. They only recently brought the salaries for physicians, but only for new hires, IIRC. I'm sure THAT's good for morale....
I'm also an armchair bioinformaticist (or whatever) and have seen the coding and modules behind EPIC, one of the most popular and widely-used EMRs around. It IS kludgey! I forget if the inpatient or outpatient systems came first, but the second had to be kludged in. THEN, when you factor in the very widely used radiology information system (PACS) you have to kludge that in. Then you have pathology and lab medicine using an entirely different system (CoPath, Soft, PowerPath, etc) you have to tie that into the EMR and PACS. Sometimes pathology and lab medicine use two entirely different systems, even though they're in the same department!
Yes, it's a mess!
I think Assange SHOULD apologise. After all, he was risking the life of a head of state (admittedly, the risk was probably fairly minimal). That said, it seems like Morales deserves an apology from a lot of countries, including the U.S. Right or wrong, it would be the diplomatic thing to do. Not apologizing just reinforces the perception of the U.S. as imperialist/bullying. It seems like France is the only one to have issued an apology so far...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
No, they are not, as all good scientists are. From the actual journal article:
"Some limitations of our work should be noted. Specifically, we cannot ascertain from the current studies whether acetaminophen might blunt individuals’ attention or motivation to process emotionally evocative stimuli instead of (or in addition to) their evaluative processing of these stimuli."
Honestly, it's a pretty weak self-critique. I wish they had talked more about how meaningful the differences they found were. Yes, the p values were low, so they were statistically significant, but their graphs aren't so impressive to me. Then again, I'm not a psychologist (although I am a MD) and I'm not familiar with their assessment tools (the IAPS picture database?). So what do I know? :)
I am a scientist in real life (yes, biomed PhD and everything) and I would like to offer a different opinion. We spent all this money on something that didn't work. Ok, that's less than desirable. However, I think it's inaccurate to call it a complete waste. For one, it employed people and secondly and maybe most importantly, it funded research, which is almost always a good thing. The only way this would be a complete waste, is if they did not use what they learned from these projects to take with them to the next. That's my real fear: we'll keep spending money in a very inefficient way. My only beef with the whole thing, is that they should have given that $10B to the NIH, NSF, NASA, universities, etc...
"Bulletproof" glass is actually some kind of plastic polymer that degrades with UV light, ie sunlight, as in the kind of light you get in the brutally hot summers in DC. They'd have to replace the entire thing every year.
It seems like this could be a useful training tool, especially for more complex/dangerous threats like multiple agent terrorist attacks. However, I fail to see how this will improve an agent's ability to stop a guy from jumping a fence and making a break for it. This might be simplistic, but isn't the solution to that problem to keep your eyes open and then radio it in? You know, like every other security job in the country?
Yes, because NSA *surely* can't hack those types of sites, too...
Came here to say the same thing. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
I would also add, that now we know how powerful wide collection nets of metadata can be (eg, NSA surveillance), I wonder if other types of donation, such as bone marrow registries, are going to be subpoenaed and how that will affect donations.
For museums in general, it depends on the exhibit and whether or not the works have been copyrighted. If so, no photography of any kind is allowed. For the Louvre, it seems like most exhibits should allow photography, although not necessarily flash. Even so, it seems like flash photography may not harm paintings after all...
http://www.arthistorynews.com/...
Obligatory....
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of us.
Man 1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
As others have pointed out, these zombie studies are generally based on epidemic/pandemic disease spread. I think your zombie list is interesting, but all those things are highly dependant on how a zombie outbreak might occur, specifically on modes of transmission. Are you infected if a zombie bites you? What if some blood gets on your skin? Will that infect you? What about in a paper cut? What about if you get zombie blood in your mouth, eyes, or lungs? What happens when you set off a bomb in the middle of a zombie hoard? Did you just aerosolize the zombie virus/particle/whatever? 1 human might kill 3 zombies, but that doesn't do any good if that 1 human becomes a zombie, and the resulting battles infected 10 other human bystanders.
The point is not to kill zombies necessarily, but to contain them, eradicate them and most importantly, not to become one yourself.
Well, NAFLD is a real thing and related to NASH.
One issue I have, is that the very first sentence of the abstract is probably incorrect. NAFLD doesn't lead to diabetes, it's the other way around. In the full article, they back away from saying NAFLD causes diabetes and merely says they are related. The biggest problem, is that they used rats, and rats just don't get diabetes, NASH, or NAFLD (or heart disease either, for that fact), so they have to heavily heavily manipulate the rats' genetic background, as well as a ludicrous diet. I'm not saying their study is bad, but just that in a heavily modified animal model system, well... let's not break out the champagne and Noble prizes just yet. What might be more interesting is the chemistry involved to make a "safe" form of DNP. Don't tell the high school girls, they'll all want it!
The title of the Slashdot summary should really be edited to end with "... in rats."
More like misuse.
Ha! I'm already training to be a robotics repairmen repairman!
The error range for the strenuous jogging group is absolutely huge and only represents 2 deaths out 36 (or 40, depending on which plot you're looking at). Yeah, the differences between strenuous jogging and sitting on your ass might be technically statistically significant, but are the numbers in these groups sufficient to tell if there's a difference, ie is the study sufficiently powered?
You'd be surprised, actually...
Linky with higher res PDF than website...
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
Yes, the National Institutes of Health already has an anonymized database of the health records from patients in their clinical trials and a company called Explorys (no, I don't work for them, either), is doing something similar on a larger scale across multiple hospital systems. Having CMS and HHS involved to add more data is definitely a good thing, if done correctly. Links below.
http://btris.nih.gov/
https://www.explorys.com/
https://www.explorys.com/about...
Completely agree. However, if the bandwidth is so dramatically improved, can't the caps be also dramatically increased? Kind of like how when 4G first came out, that was unlimited, while 3G was capped or something like that? I might have that situation reversed but still, you get the idea.
Aren't carrieres already calling LTE and 4G+, etc 5G? Since it seems like 5G is such a dramatic improvement, should it have an entirely new name? A la Intel's move away from the x86 lines of processors?
"The only winning move is not to play"
You obviously aren't aware of a tool called rhetoric. Using facts, logic, and argument are useful for rhetoric but not necessary. These people are using rhetoric (shockingly well, in some cases) and not interested in using facts, logic, and argument at all.
Yes, sooner would have been better but at least they got around to fixing it, right?
Correct, you aren't a feminist. News flash: women have brains and they do what they want. They don't want to code, because they are passively (mostly) discouraged from pursuing that hobby/career. Deal with it.
There, FTFY.