This is the kind of thing that would make people in the U.S. very paranoid. A few years ago Americans were really worried about having their medical records stored electronically. It took a lot of convincing to make people understand that it was much better for them if doctors could easily access their medical history. People still aren't convinced, and so the whole online medical history access idea didn't really catch on.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the situation in the article would have produced outrage if it happened in the U.S.?
This sounds a lot like a phenomenon that can occur with migraines, called a scintillating scotoma (even in the absence of the classic headache). Ever been diagnosed with migraines or have a history of headaches?
Even if this is a real finding (the data given on the linked article were a little vague), it's very far from being meaningful in a medical sense.
The bovine lenses were taken out of the animals, then given almost constant radiation for 2 weeks. And they showed more damage than the control lenses that got no irradiation. So what? What are the odds that this compares in any way to a few minutes of cell phone use a day over many years, in a living animal? We don't know, and this study doesn't really help us in answering that.
This article from the BBC is misleading. I tracked down the original article in Nature.
The researchers didn't actually unlock any major secrets. It is no secret that two species who would not produce viable offspring together will try to avoid mating with each other. There are various mechanisms for doing that - having different wing colors so that species can distinguish their optimal mating partners is one method. If the two species are geographically separated, there is no need to develop other methods of separation, and thus their wing colors can look similar. There is nothing new about this.
Also, the BBC article never explains that the speciation of these butterflies occurred while they were geographically separated (this is called allopatric speciation, and the Nature article specifically states that the butterflies evolved this way). The species only developed different wing markings when they came back into contact with each other. This makes a lot of sense - they were now genetically very different, and offspring between members of different species would not be successful, so they needed ways of telling each other apart.
It's a nice finding, but certainly not the unlocking of a major secret.
Who is going to be paying to replace all of these taxis? The companies who own the taxis and medallions? I've heard that taxi cars are actually replaced pretty often (about every 3 years I think) but will companies risk it?
Also, the fact that the 10 inch loss in leg room is such a big deal just shows that we need to lose weight.
They are not contradicting it. The earlier ruling regarding VCRs stated that VCRs were ok because there was significant LEGAL use for the VCR. The Court ruled today that the legal uses of file-sharing are less significant than the illegal uses. So they used the same standard for both cases.
The more people they sue, the less meaning the lawsuits have. Realistically, how are they going to go after thousands of people? So their lawsuits will just become small news items that fail to scare anyone. What is the point?
If you want doctors to perform high-risk procedures (like delivering babies, certain surgeries, etc), you have to protect them from lawsuits. Many obstetricians have decided to stop delivering babies in certain states because getting malpractice insurance is too expensive - over $200,000 a year in some cases. This is largely due to the fact that if *anything* goes wrong in the delivery room, even things that no one could prevent, the parents often sue.
It is nice to say that a doctor should treat everyone and not discriminate against lawsuit-happy patients, but that is just not possible. A physician will not be able to stay in business if he or she picks up too many patients like that.
Another thing - If doctors can't pay for malpractice insurance, they can simply stop performing risky procedures or treating patients who have uncertain prognoses. But then who will care for the patients who only have a small chance of recovery? Will a doctor want to risk having the patient die and then having the family sue?
1. Ghosts are mostly invisible or only vaguely visually manifested
2. Ghosts are often bound to a specific location which often has a very special relation
to the ghost
3. Ghost owe their twilight status to some unfinished business and they are therefore
active and striving
4. Ghosts only appear when called upon or if they feel an urge to manifest themselves
These ghosts sound a lot like the microsoft word paperclip. Is that damn thing going to start talking now?
I think the article writer was just trying to be creative (or something like that). In the pictures I've seen, the astronauts don't look particularly made up. I really doubt they bring mascara.
Wouldn't the worst smells be from astronauts?
on
Meet the Nasalnaut
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
With sweat, flatulance, possible vomit and diarrhea, you would think that the worst smells would be from the astronauts themselves. Do they also test the odors coming off people? Do they have to carefully monitor astronauts' diets so that they won't produce foul sweat or gases?
The two games can't really be compared when you are talking about exposure to violence. Sure, Zelda had fighting, but you were fighting strange pixelated monsters in a fantasy world. In GTA, you are watching violent scenes that look pretty damn real. The cities look real, the people look real, the blood looks real, and hey, that is kind of what I would expect it to look like if I took a flame-thrower to a crowd of people.
GTA is different. Please don't let kids watch it.
What else were they going to do? Of course artists and graphic designers are going to try to make the site pretty. They all missed the point of Google, but so did the people who asked for their opinions.
It sorted 53% into categories of spam or not-spam. The rest of the email was uncategorized. The important thing is that the emails that were categorized were ALWAYS categorized correctly - no legitimate emails in the spam group. You could perform a separate anti-spam technique on the rest, although that separate method probably would make some errors.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the kind of thing that would make people in the U.S. very paranoid. A few years ago Americans were really worried about having their medical records stored electronically. It took a lot of convincing to make people understand that it was much better for them if doctors could easily access their medical history. People still aren't convinced, and so the whole online medical history access idea didn't really catch on.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the situation in the article would have produced outrage if it happened in the U.S.?
This sounds a lot like a phenomenon that can occur with migraines, called a scintillating scotoma (even in the absence of the classic headache). Ever been diagnosed with migraines or have a history of headaches?
Even if this is a real finding (the data given on the linked article were a little vague), it's very far from being meaningful in a medical sense.
The bovine lenses were taken out of the animals, then given almost constant radiation for 2 weeks. And they showed more damage than the control lenses that got no irradiation. So what? What are the odds that this compares in any way to a few minutes of cell phone use a day over many years, in a living animal? We don't know, and this study doesn't really help us in answering that.
This article from the BBC is misleading. I tracked down the original article in Nature.
The researchers didn't actually unlock any major secrets. It is no secret that two species who would not produce viable offspring together will try to avoid mating with each other. There are various mechanisms for doing that - having different wing colors so that species can distinguish their optimal mating partners is one method. If the two species are geographically separated, there is no need to develop other methods of separation, and thus their wing colors can look similar. There is nothing new about this.
Also, the BBC article never explains that the speciation of these butterflies occurred while they were geographically separated (this is called allopatric speciation, and the Nature article specifically states that the butterflies evolved this way). The species only developed different wing markings when they came back into contact with each other. This makes a lot of sense - they were now genetically very different, and offspring between members of different species would not be successful, so they needed ways of telling each other apart.
It's a nice finding, but certainly not the unlocking of a major secret.
Who is going to be paying to replace all of these taxis? The companies who own the taxis and medallions? I've heard that taxi cars are actually replaced pretty often (about every 3 years I think) but will companies risk it? Also, the fact that the 10 inch loss in leg room is such a big deal just shows that we need to lose weight.
They are not contradicting it. The earlier ruling regarding VCRs stated that VCRs were ok because there was significant LEGAL use for the VCR. The Court ruled today that the legal uses of file-sharing are less significant than the illegal uses. So they used the same standard for both cases.
The more people they sue, the less meaning the lawsuits have. Realistically, how are they going to go after thousands of people? So their lawsuits will just become small news items that fail to scare anyone. What is the point?
If you want doctors to perform high-risk procedures (like delivering babies, certain surgeries, etc), you have to protect them from lawsuits. Many obstetricians have decided to stop delivering babies in certain states because getting malpractice insurance is too expensive - over $200,000 a year in some cases. This is largely due to the fact that if *anything* goes wrong in the delivery room, even things that no one could prevent, the parents often sue.
It is nice to say that a doctor should treat everyone and not discriminate against lawsuit-happy patients, but that is just not possible. A physician will not be able to stay in business if he or she picks up too many patients like that.
Another thing - If doctors can't pay for malpractice insurance, they can simply stop performing risky procedures or treating patients who have uncertain prognoses. But then who will care for the patients who only have a small chance of recovery? Will a doctor want to risk having the patient die and then having the family sue?
1. Ghosts are mostly invisible or only vaguely visually manifested 2. Ghosts are often bound to a specific location which often has a very special relation to the ghost 3. Ghost owe their twilight status to some unfinished business and they are therefore active and striving 4. Ghosts only appear when called upon or if they feel an urge to manifest themselves
These ghosts sound a lot like the microsoft word paperclip. Is that damn thing going to start talking now?
I think the article writer was just trying to be creative (or something like that). In the pictures I've seen, the astronauts don't look particularly made up. I really doubt they bring mascara.
With sweat, flatulance, possible vomit and diarrhea, you would think that the worst smells would be from the astronauts themselves. Do they also test the odors coming off people? Do they have to carefully monitor astronauts' diets so that they won't produce foul sweat or gases?
The two games can't really be compared when you are talking about exposure to violence. Sure, Zelda had fighting, but you were fighting strange pixelated monsters in a fantasy world. In GTA, you are watching violent scenes that look pretty damn real. The cities look real, the people look real, the blood looks real, and hey, that is kind of what I would expect it to look like if I took a flame-thrower to a crowd of people. GTA is different. Please don't let kids watch it.
What else were they going to do? Of course artists and graphic designers are going to try to make the site pretty. They all missed the point of Google, but so did the people who asked for their opinions.
It sorted 53% into categories of spam or not-spam. The rest of the email was uncategorized. The important thing is that the emails that were categorized were ALWAYS categorized correctly - no legitimate emails in the spam group. You could perform a separate anti-spam technique on the rest, although that separate method probably would make some errors.