if the technique was first described and shown in 2001, then reaffirmed in 2003, why haven't they moved forward with trying to treat humans with severe/end-stage diabetes?
This is only a small nit-pick, but the initial human testing is much more likely to be done on the "good" Type 1 diabetics than on the severe/end-stage groups. Their reaction to the treatment will be clearer and the treatment can be evaluated within tamer limits.
For example, if you were inventing a parachute, you wouldn't do the first test on a fat greasy guy with no legs, even if the whole point of the parachute was to save fat greasy paraplegics.
I've had Type 1 since I was eleven and my endocrinologist says that the level of control I've developed and maintained makes me an excellent candidate for these experimental treatments once they are approved.
Why, in the subject line, are you assigning "Standard installers" the value of "Bullshit!" (using the assignment operator ==)? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the equality test (=)? That way you can let the facts speak for themself in a boolean test for equality. This way it seems like you're forcing the truth you want.
There have been a few publicly available (read: free) APIs written for the AIM protocol. As far as I know, they use the AIM TOC ("Talk to OsCar"?) protocol.
Protocol definition on Jeff Heaton's site: http://www.jeffheaton.com/im/toc.txt
Jeff has also written an LPGL Java Chat client (which can be pared down to more of a Java API) that is available here along with a few other interesting reads on the topic.
As of this posting, Mr. T comes in 5th, with 7.99% of votes. Homer Simpson, a shoo-in for the Greatest American, has a commanding lead with 20.57% of votes. I pity myself for caring enough to post this.
Slashdot Mirror
But no one said anything about nailing her...
*crickets*...
Okay, sorry.
This is only a small nit-pick, but the initial human testing is much more likely to be done on the "good" Type 1 diabetics than on the severe/end-stage groups. Their reaction to the treatment will be clearer and the treatment can be evaluated within tamer limits.
For example, if you were inventing a parachute, you wouldn't do the first test on a fat greasy guy with no legs, even if the whole point of the parachute was to save fat greasy paraplegics.
I've had Type 1 since I was eleven and my endocrinologist says that the level of control I've developed and maintained makes me an excellent candidate for these experimental treatments once they are approved.
- Jon
Or, if you prefer to defend Firefox exclusively (instead of opposing IE explicitly), it'd be 12.46% full.
Well, at least it made me laugh.
Um, I may be dense, but doesn't playing football (i.e. full-contact sport) sound like a bad idea for a hemophiliac? Think: severe bruising.
Sure, retinal scanners are more popular and well-known, but iris scanning is possible too.
http://ctl.ncsc.dni.us/biomet%20web/BMIris.html
Why, in the subject line, are you assigning "Standard installers" the value of "Bullshit!" (using the assignment operator ==)? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the equality test (=)? That way you can let the facts speak for themself in a boolean test for equality. This way it seems like you're forcing the truth you want.
Just an observation. =)
Incidentally, I do agree with your main point.
And by "here", I meant "here".
There have been a few publicly available (read: free) APIs written for the AIM protocol. As far as I know, they use the AIM TOC ("Talk to OsCar"?) protocol. Protocol definition on Jeff Heaton's site: http://www.jeffheaton.com/im/toc.txt Jeff has also written an LPGL Java Chat client (which can be pared down to more of a Java API) that is available here along with a few other interesting reads on the topic.
most of my friends and family live on the easy coast.
don't kid yourself... it's not that easy.
As of this posting, Mr. T comes in 5th, with 7.99% of votes. Homer Simpson, a shoo-in for the Greatest American, has a commanding lead with 20.57% of votes. I pity myself for caring enough to post this.
Actually, it's only an acronym if it's an Annoyingly Cryptic Reference Or Name You Make.