The MSDN article I cited above mentions "Police in Malaysia are hunting for the members of a violent gang who chopped off a car owner’s finger to get round the vehicle’s hi-tech security system"...
"resulted in Peter Jackson not directing The Hobbit"
Hmm. Are you aware he IS directing it? See the Hobbit Blog for proof, or at least an elaborate ruse.
Or is the word 'resulted' evolving into some new meaning of which I was not previously aware?
Ethanol-fueled:
I'm a doctor.
I guess I need to talk to pharma about getting my cut, 'cause I haven't seen anything.
Maybe you can point me in the right direction with some data supporting your claim?
Sometimes I wonder how people develop their hypotheses.
In this case, I'm wonder whether one of the researchers may have been struck by Morrison's Joker in the Batman Comic Arkham Asylum - in which a researcher describes the joker as hyper-sane, unable to filter out stimulus from the world around.
Hmm.
Thanks. I was unaware of the Provenge issue, and it is certainly uncomfortable. This is exactly the kind of issue the FDA struggles with - attempting to provide clear, specific evidence that a drug is safe and effective. In the face of public pressure. Their standards for approval are fairly high.
Since this IS Slashdot, I'll ask a couple of questions: Your language is fairly judgmental - you seem convinced "the FDA" was out to hurt people. On purpose. Since that's quite a claim, can you help me out a bit here: the FDA advisory panel voted 13-4 in favor of approval. When you say "contrary to any and all expert opinion", are you excluding the 4 that voted no when using the word "all"? Or was that a bit of exaggeration?
Also, I've read several pages from the Google results and am still unclear. What is the evidence that it "maliciously held back" the drug?
Typically, as long as you have 85% or so vaccinated
Uhm, you're numbers are off a bit. At least for measles, it takes more like 95% (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20392713). Unless you have better, peer-reviewed data?
As long as most people are vaccinated you aren't likely to contract the disease, but if you are vaccinated it puts you at risk for side effects.
Also, CDC reported several hundred vaccine reported deaths in the last 10 years. I personally would rather my child have a small risk of allergic reaction or a mild illness than die. Particularly if the mild illness is part of keeping the group as a whole well, but the death my own fault.
If you think that the FDA is looking out for the interests of the American people, then you obviously believe the EPA does the same.
I'm calling B.S. here. I know several people who work for the FDA and they ARE looking out for the interests of the American people. They are in the difficult position of assessing efficacy of drugs and other therapies while identifying and monitoring for unexpected side effects.
You want to impugn the FDA? Show data.
The point of test like this is that it is a quick screen. If you think of DNA and RNA together as being the source code for an organism, these probes are basically regular expressions looking for stretches of DNA that match DNA/RNA sequences of pathogens - quick and easy.
In order to find "not the patient", we would need to know "the patient" DNA, which, aside from issues of definition, would have to start with PCR and sequencing of the person - not at all quick, and would have to be on file before the infection in order to be able to identify the "not the person" parts.
I'm more worried about false positives - no test is 100% perfect; this amounts to running several thousand imperfect tests against the patient's sample. So there are many opportunities for false positives to occur. I'm guessing there's either build-in redundancy for internal controls.
Anyone remember the Intel web-based graphics editor? There was a Slashdot story, I think around 2002, about their license agreement giving them rights to everything produced with it.
Wait, 6 years ago? Who am I kidding... nobody remembers anything that old anymore. I must be making it up.
"Eventually I got through by explaining to a project manager, who essentially said that the day someone asks for the source, we'll give it, and that will be that. I still don't think they realised what it meant considering the amount of trade secrets that were in the code, but..."
In the US, the FDA establishes minimal eligibility criterea. Most health adults who are in reasonably good health (e.g. within 20% of their ideal body weight) are eligible to donate. Deferrals exist for viral hepatits, HIV, behaviour which places one at risk for HIV (e.g. exchanging money or drugs for sex), and some travel (e.g. an extended trip to rural South America gets a one year delay for possible risk of malaria).
Only a few medications defer one from donating; unfortunately, any active infection or medication for infection is a reason to delay donation as there is a chance that the infection could be transmitted by blood transfusion.
Your local blood center should be willing to help you with specific eligibility questions.
The enzymes discussed in the article are the next step in 25+ years working toward the goal of making blood universally compatible. The enzymes are years and years away from routine use, if they ever do make it to market. Offhand, major questions that need to be addressed include: Does it *really* work? Is the process cost-effective at manufacturing scales? Is it safe? Does the enzyme affect other proteins so people make antibodies?
Conversion of non-O RBCs to group O RBCs will make them more widely compatible, and may alleviate the shortage of group O RBCs, but does not affect Rh compatibility or the compatibility of platelets or of FFP. We would still have shortages of these products even when the process is up and running, and, so, we still need people to donate.
There are a number of guesses, comments, and half-truths posted above. I'll do my best to answer specific (on-topic!) questions posted as replies to this comment.
So the problem is that if I fail to see sarcasm, it's because I don't have reason to respect the speaker's intelligence.
Good point - this may be why sarcasm that can work so well in personal conversations fails when addressing larger groups.
But your assessment seems to imply that sarcasm is an indirect way of fishing for compliments.
I think there's another important component: my decisions to use sarcasm in conversation frequently follow an assessment of the recipient's ability to appreciate it.
In that context, sarcasm may be percieved as a validation of the recipient's intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
The MSDN article I cited above mentions "Police in Malaysia are hunting for the members of a violent gang who chopped off a car owner’s finger to get round the vehicle’s hi-tech security system"...
Yep, that's a serious issue.
There is a difference between identity and authentication, and that difference is lost when one uses biometric identity measures for authentication.
Great writeup on this from 2006 over at MSDN
Short version: identify and authentication must remain distinct if you want to have a system where users are held responsible for their actions.
Good man!
Eh. Offer was also made from Joyent.
They are now offering a refund or 5 years of hosting. I'll probably take it and move on.
"resulted in Peter Jackson not directing The Hobbit" Hmm. Are you aware he IS directing it? See the Hobbit Blog for proof, or at least an elaborate ruse. Or is the word 'resulted' evolving into some new meaning of which I was not previously aware?
Ethanol-fueled: I'm a doctor. I guess I need to talk to pharma about getting my cut, 'cause I haven't seen anything. Maybe you can point me in the right direction with some data supporting your claim?
Yep, a MINIMUM of 3 years, and up to 7. Then, many do an additional year or two of fellowship.
Will purely physical objects be of potential interest?
I'll be submitting!
Thanks man. That was really nice. I wish I had been there too. Best wishes with the 3 year old...
Sometimes I wonder how people develop their hypotheses. In this case, I'm wonder whether one of the researchers may have been struck by Morrison's Joker in the Batman Comic Arkham Asylum - in which a researcher describes the joker as hyper-sane, unable to filter out stimulus from the world around. Hmm.
Thanks. I was unaware of the Provenge issue, and it is certainly uncomfortable. This is exactly the kind of issue the FDA struggles with - attempting to provide clear, specific evidence that a drug is safe and effective. In the face of public pressure. Their standards for approval are fairly high.
Since this IS Slashdot, I'll ask a couple of questions: Your language is fairly judgmental - you seem convinced "the FDA" was out to hurt people. On purpose. Since that's quite a claim, can you help me out a bit here: the FDA advisory panel voted 13-4 in favor of approval. When you say "contrary to any and all expert opinion", are you excluding the 4 that voted no when using the word "all"? Or was that a bit of exaggeration?
Also, I've read several pages from the Google results and am still unclear. What is the evidence that it "maliciously held back" the drug?
Typically, as long as you have 85% or so vaccinated
Uhm, you're numbers are off a bit. At least for measles, it takes more like 95% (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20392713). Unless you have better, peer-reviewed data?
As long as most people are vaccinated you aren't likely to contract the disease, but if you are vaccinated it puts you at risk for side effects.
Also, CDC reported several hundred vaccine reported deaths in the last 10 years. I personally would rather my child have a small risk of allergic reaction or a mild illness than die. Particularly if the mild illness is part of keeping the group as a whole well, but the death my own fault.
If you think that the FDA is looking out for the interests of the American people, then you obviously believe the EPA does the same.
I'm calling B.S. here. I know several people who work for the FDA and they ARE looking out for the interests of the American people. They are in the difficult position of assessing efficacy of drugs and other therapies while identifying and monitoring for unexpected side effects. You want to impugn the FDA? Show data.
Uhm, I *have* been nailed by a pigeon when it flew over my cap...
The point of test like this is that it is a quick screen. If you think of DNA and RNA together as being the source code for an organism, these probes are basically regular expressions looking for stretches of DNA that match DNA/RNA sequences of pathogens - quick and easy. In order to find "not the patient", we would need to know "the patient" DNA, which, aside from issues of definition, would have to start with PCR and sequencing of the person - not at all quick, and would have to be on file before the infection in order to be able to identify the "not the person" parts. I'm more worried about false positives - no test is 100% perfect; this amounts to running several thousand imperfect tests against the patient's sample. So there are many opportunities for false positives to occur. I'm guessing there's either build-in redundancy for internal controls.
Anyone remember the Intel web-based graphics editor? There was a Slashdot story, I think around 2002, about their license agreement giving them rights to everything produced with it.
Wait, 6 years ago? Who am I kidding... nobody remembers anything that old anymore. I must be making it up.
I think it's kind of suspicious that they don't put the value in terms of number of Slashdot comments. I mean, you could get cut off right in the mid
"Eventually I got through by explaining to a project manager, who essentially said that the day someone asks for the source, we'll give it, and that will be that. I still don't think they realised what it meant considering the amount of trade secrets that were in the code, but..."
Hey Cool! What's the name of the app, then?
You're not far off!
In the US, the FDA establishes minimal eligibility criterea. Most health adults who are in reasonably good health (e.g. within 20% of their ideal body weight) are eligible to donate. Deferrals exist for viral hepatits, HIV, behaviour which places one at risk for HIV (e.g. exchanging money or drugs for sex), and some travel (e.g. an extended trip to rural South America gets a one year delay for possible risk of malaria).
Only a few medications defer one from donating; unfortunately, any active infection or medication for infection is a reason to delay donation as there is a chance that the infection could be transmitted by blood transfusion.
Your local blood center should be willing to help you with specific eligibility questions.
I hope that was clear, if not, do let me know!
Teidou
My day job is to run a blood bank.
The enzymes discussed in the article are the next step in 25+ years working toward the goal of making blood universally compatible. The enzymes are years and years away from routine use, if they ever do make it to market. Offhand, major questions that need to be addressed include: Does it *really* work? Is the process cost-effective at manufacturing scales? Is it safe? Does the enzyme affect other proteins so people make antibodies?
Conversion of non-O RBCs to group O RBCs will make them more widely compatible, and may alleviate the shortage of group O RBCs, but does not affect Rh compatibility or the compatibility of platelets or of FFP. We would still have shortages of these products even when the process is up and running, and, so, we still need people to donate.
There are a number of guesses, comments, and half-truths posted above. I'll do my best to answer specific (on-topic!) questions posted as replies to this comment.
Teidou.
$500,000? I'm in.
Aw man: I just deleted about $6,000,000 worth of opportunities, er, scams last week.
So the problem is that if I fail to see sarcasm, it's because I don't have reason to respect the speaker's intelligence.
Good point - this may be why sarcasm that can work so well in personal conversations fails when addressing larger groups.
But your assessment seems to imply that sarcasm is an indirect way of fishing for compliments.
I think there's another important component: my decisions to use sarcasm in conversation frequently follow an assessment of the recipient's ability to appreciate it.
In that context, sarcasm may be percieved as a validation of the recipient's intelligence.
teidou
No, this post isn't meant to be ironic.
it's definitely one of my standard tools to install after reformatting a machine.
So, uh, what OS are you using?