Actually, the best advice, as usual, is to contact a qualified professional. A number of posters have given perfectly reasonable advice and it's always useful to be as knowledgeable as possible before talking to expensive types of people, but this is one of those things that does require competent evaluation of each particular situation.
Depends on where you live. The Front Range in Colorado (Colorado Springs-Fort Collins metro area) has some of the highest lightening frequency in the country. After two of my neighbors had direct or near direct strikes to their houses - with concomitant significant costs, I put up air terminals, ground lines and multiple levels of surge protection. After another guy down the block fried his home theatre system, a couple other neighbors also joined in.
Not necessarily typical, but it does happen. Once you spent the money to set up the system, all you are looking at is some minimal mechanical maintenance and checking the MOVs every couple of years. Given the number of electronic gizmos we tend to collect, it may make excellent sense amortized over the lifetime of a house.
I have a whole home surge protector. Fits above the mains panel. 30 minute installation by an electrician and works nicely. http://www.purgethesurge.ca/docs/SPD4home.pdf has two nice lights to show its functioning normally and works great.
All you know is that it passes your mains voltage and lights up your little blinkies. You need to conjure the ghost of Nicoli Tesla and create a giant electromagnetic storm over your house and see if your system survives that.
Whole house surge protectors belong on the outside panel. I had one on my house in Colorado (which was also equipped with professionally installed lightening protectors). Tripped once after a near strike. A little flag popped up indicating that it had blown (the other tip off was the lack of power inside the home). Had to replace the MOV in it - cost $25.
Now perhaps the separate smaller surge protectors all over the house would have safed the various gizmos, but perhaps not. I don't trust most of the household level surge protectors - who knows what gutter the company picked up the MOV from so I liked the idea of a single, expensive but presumably more reliable answer.
Could be worse. If McCain / Palin had prevailed, drones armed with high powered rifles and a six pack of Bud lite would be flying all over the country shooting rabid 'wolves'.
I dunno. Formalin that has sat in a jar for 60 years isn't my idea of a good time. It will be interesting to see if they can get useful info out of the specimens. Remember that most of the new, fancy diagnostic techniques require different handling than what was typical for light microscopy in the Soviet Union back then (who the hell knows what they fixed those samples in?).
But it's certainly worth trying. The samples aren't getting in any better condition just sitting there.
If you haven't read Taleb's book, The Black Swan, you might consider doing so. Aside from the much hyped theory of improbable events he talks about how he has dealt with the insane diarrheal flow of information that this world tends to create. Mostly by ignoring the little things (ie. what passes for news these days).
Don't read the blogs (oops), the news sites, the advertisements. Don't watch TV. Mostly read real stuff / think and just glance at headlines now and again.
Looking at the CBS article, I'm not terribly convinced. Yes, they have looked at complaints but they never established a baseline 'frisk' rate. It would be trivial for an 'journalistic' organization such as CBS to station a half dozen monitors at some checkpoints for a day and ascertain the male:female and age distribution of people screened and rescreened with the machines.
That would be useful and an interesting journalistic exercise.
I'm rather surprised that the TSA doesn't (appear) to have a manual to deal with known issues like insulin pumps, joint prostheses, etc. I wouldn't expect rank and file workers to know the answer to everything but there should be a way to look stuff up.
Being rude, however, is absolutely never appropriate. Even if you think the person is the next 'medical device bomber' being professional and polite should always be required.
No, don't do it yourself unless you're really into it. It's a complicated pain in the ass.
Do it if you want to or have other reasons (specialty paper, look, etc).
Costco / Walmart / Snapfish whatever are fine for the vast majority of things. They mostly use Fuji Frontiers or similar and are much more sophisticated devices that you'll ever find at home.
If you have higher aspirations, want a professional job or just more input on what you're doing, I've found this list useful (at least in Colorado)
This website is mostly interested in printer profiles (metadata on how the printer should print a particular color) and so is geared to more critical photographers but if you want the best results, that's the way to go.
Fact is these are serious chronic conditions that need some monitoring by doctors.
Yeah, but how much? That's the big question. For simple things like hypertension that's easily controlled with a medication or two, a script could handle it - input age, sex, weight, allergies, co morbid conditions and a couple of other things and out pops some pills. The next problem is getting the patient to take them and seeing if they work.
Carefully checking the efficacy of a blood pressure medication is probably something that needs a human, a physical exam of some limited sort and some lab work (at some point). A bit more than you could typically do in a pharmacy, but you certainly don't need a full scale medical clinic. The problem comes when the person smokes, is trying to get diabetes, has hypertension and, oh, their back hurts and 'what's this rash'. Then you need the full monty. Your typical doctor's office is designed to handle pretty much every ambulatory complaint and maybe a minor emergency or two. Pharmacists, not so much.
So, as a patient, you have a problem (actually several). Exactly who are you supposed to be seeing? Do you need to see the goofball wearing the white lab coats (why lab coats? I hate lab coats. I didn't even wear them when I did wet lab things.) Maybe. How about the nice nurse practitioner? Maybe. Nobody really knows. All of the data is horribly skewed. The nurse practitioner centric data tends to include mostly 'simple' patients with only one or two problems. The doctor centric literature has stories of edge cases that the NP missed (and likely 5/10 physicians would do exactly the same). Like much data in what essentially amounts to the social sciences, it can be read however you want to read it.
You look at big HMO type thingys like Kaiser and Group Health (Pacific NW), they use a fairly complex tiered method of treating people - some Nurse Practitioners / Physician Assistants, some docs, some pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, etc. You talk to people enrolled in such plans and you find two broad groups of people. Those that are satisfied with the system and those that aren't. Looking at who those people are, the generally healthy group (most people), like the system, like the easy access, the ability to escalate care if needed but mostly get the care they think they need when the need it. The sicker, more complex group of people hate the sometimes rigid guidelines, really want to see a single (or small number of) providers and don't like the HMOs.
Both groups spend a lot of money in the system. The former because there are many more of them (most people AREN'T really sick), the latter because their health needs are so complex and difficult.
The physician centric fee for service model is squarely designed for the latter group of people (hey, it makes sense, we make more money off them....). But a lot of docs have found that a good life can be had by seeing 30+ people a day and not doing much for them. That's the typical primary care model in the US and it's batshit insane.
The whining by the AMA and various other groups is short term self centered and long term pretty bizarre. Especially the American Academy of Family Physicians. It's pretty clear that the system isn't going to produce anywhere near the number of FPs needed and I, for one, am perfectly happy not seeing something so breathlessly simple that a script can do it. But hey, if it works for you...
But until you drastically change how medical providers are reimbursed, you're going to have these huge problems. Everybody is trying to get their 'fair' share of a shrinking pie. And, at least in the US, reimbursement is so drastically screwed up that nobody has a chance in hell of figuring out how to fix it.
tl;dr - letting pharmacists treat hypertension and diabetes probably doesn't make much sense, but then nothing else does, so why start now?
Slashdot Mirror
I've been watching TV on and off for 5 decades, there was a sweet spot in the late 70's - early 80's where TV's came on instantly.
And nothing of value was gained.....
More of a parasite kills host sort of thing....
I think the reason for this is quite clear. It's quite clearly anthropomorphic as well (if you make the assumption that politicians are human).
The hot air from Washington, DC, the various European capitals, Moscow, Bejing and countless other warrens is overwhelming the planet's defenses.
Actually, the best advice, as usual, is to contact a qualified professional. A number of posters have given perfectly reasonable advice and it's always useful to be as knowledgeable as possible before talking to expensive types of people, but this is one of those things that does require competent evaluation of each particular situation.
Depends on where you live. The Front Range in Colorado (Colorado Springs-Fort Collins metro area) has some of the highest lightening frequency in the country. After two of my neighbors had direct or near direct strikes to their houses - with concomitant significant costs, I put up air terminals, ground lines and multiple levels of surge protection. After another guy down the block fried his home theatre system, a couple other neighbors also joined in.
Not necessarily typical, but it does happen. Once you spent the money to set up the system, all you are looking at is some minimal mechanical maintenance and checking the MOVs every couple of years. Given the number of electronic gizmos we tend to collect, it may make excellent sense amortized over the lifetime of a house.
I have a whole home surge protector. Fits above the mains panel.
30 minute installation by an electrician and works nicely.
http://www.purgethesurge.ca/docs/SPD4home.pdf
has two nice lights to show its functioning normally and works great.
All you know is that it passes your mains voltage and lights up your little blinkies. You need to conjure the ghost of Nicoli Tesla and create a giant electromagnetic storm over your house and see if your system survives that.
Only then can you be sure.
Whole house surge protectors belong on the outside panel. I had one on my house in Colorado (which was also equipped with professionally installed lightening protectors). Tripped once after a near strike. A little flag popped up indicating that it had blown (the other tip off was the lack of power inside the home). Had to replace the MOV in it - cost $25.
Now perhaps the separate smaller surge protectors all over the house would have safed the various gizmos, but perhaps not. I don't trust most of the household level surge protectors - who knows what gutter the company picked up the MOV from so I liked the idea of a single, expensive but presumably more reliable answer.
Americans do not use wallpaper much.
But if they would just use tin foil instead of silver (really, how bourgeois) it would be a major hit.
At least here on Slashdot. Maybe ThinkGeek could sell it.
You're looking for a nice .410 shotgun with #8 skeet shot.
(Not appropriate for airports and certain other venues).
Edge case, not worth worrying about ...
Could be worse. If McCain / Palin had prevailed, drones armed with high powered rifles and a six pack of Bud lite would be flying all over the country shooting rabid 'wolves'.
Would be a bad time to be a furry.
I can easily see a few portly Soviet generals overseeing labs of svelte Soviet women systematically irradiating squirrels for the Motherland.
That has got to be the most perverted sentence I've seen on Slashdot all month. Back to 4Chan with you!
I dunno. Formalin that has sat in a jar for 60 years isn't my idea of a good time. It will be interesting to see if they can get useful info out of the specimens. Remember that most of the new, fancy diagnostic techniques require different handling than what was typical for light microscopy in the Soviet Union back then (who the hell knows what they fixed those samples in?).
But it's certainly worth trying. The samples aren't getting in any better condition just sitting there.
I'm not sure that you're winning your argument here. For most people, random insertions and deletions would likely improve their grammar.
What do dogs want with mushrooms?
Why do you think that picture is anybody but some random taxi driver in NYC that's been moderately Photoshopped?
(Assuming this whole silly story has any basis in fact.)
If you haven't read Taleb's book, The Black Swan, you might consider doing so. Aside from the much hyped theory of improbable events he talks about how he has dealt with the insane diarrheal flow of information that this world tends to create. Mostly by ignoring the little things (ie. what passes for news these days).
Don't read the blogs (oops), the news sites, the advertisements. Don't watch TV. Mostly read real stuff / think and just glance at headlines now and again.
The headlines will of course indicate the international situation was desperate, as usual. Take a walk outside.
OMG Furries!
NOOOOO!
Looking at the CBS article, I'm not terribly convinced. Yes, they have looked at complaints but they never established a baseline 'frisk' rate. It would be trivial for an 'journalistic' organization such as CBS to station a half dozen monitors at some checkpoints for a day and ascertain the male:female and age distribution of people screened and rescreened with the machines.
That would be useful and an interesting journalistic exercise.
The referred news 'story' is just noise.
Excellent. A secret instruction manual.
How exactly does that work?
I'm rather surprised that the TSA doesn't (appear) to have a manual to deal with known issues like insulin pumps, joint prostheses, etc. I wouldn't expect rank and file workers to know the answer to everything but there should be a way to look stuff up.
Being rude, however, is absolutely never appropriate. Even if you think the person is the next 'medical device bomber' being professional and polite should always be required.
Look, this is important to us.
We have to be first at something you know. Show a little love.
We ARE NOT talking about flying here.
No, don't do it yourself unless you're really into it. It's a complicated pain in the ass.
Do it if you want to or have other reasons (specialty paper, look, etc).
Costco / Walmart / Snapfish whatever are fine for the vast majority of things. They mostly use Fuji Frontiers or similar and are much more sophisticated devices that you'll ever find at home.
If you have higher aspirations, want a professional job or just more input on what you're doing, I've found this list useful (at least in Colorado)
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/
This website is mostly interested in printer profiles (metadata on how the printer should print a particular color) and so is geared to more critical photographers but if you want the best results, that's the way to go.
Fact is these are serious chronic conditions that need some monitoring by doctors.
Yeah, but how much? That's the big question. For simple things like hypertension that's easily controlled with a medication or two, a script could handle it - input age, sex, weight, allergies, co morbid conditions and a couple of other things and out pops some pills. The next problem is getting the patient to take them and seeing if they work.
Carefully checking the efficacy of a blood pressure medication is probably something that needs a human, a physical exam of some limited sort and some lab work (at some point). A bit more than you could typically do in a pharmacy, but you certainly don't need a full scale medical clinic. The problem comes when the person smokes, is trying to get diabetes, has hypertension and, oh, their back hurts and 'what's this rash'. Then you need the full monty. Your typical doctor's office is designed to handle pretty much every ambulatory complaint and maybe a minor emergency or two. Pharmacists, not so much.
So, as a patient, you have a problem (actually several). Exactly who are you supposed to be seeing? Do you need to see the goofball wearing the white lab coats (why lab coats? I hate lab coats. I didn't even wear them when I did wet lab things.) Maybe. How about the nice nurse practitioner? Maybe. Nobody really knows. All of the data is horribly skewed. The nurse practitioner centric data tends to include mostly 'simple' patients with only one or two problems. The doctor centric literature has stories of edge cases that the NP missed (and likely 5/10 physicians would do exactly the same). Like much data in what essentially amounts to the social sciences, it can be read however you want to read it.
You look at big HMO type thingys like Kaiser and Group Health (Pacific NW), they use a fairly complex tiered method of treating people - some Nurse Practitioners / Physician Assistants, some docs, some pharmacists, social workers, physical therapists, etc. You talk to people enrolled in such plans and you find two broad groups of people. Those that are satisfied with the system and those that aren't. Looking at who those people are, the generally healthy group (most people), like the system, like the easy access, the ability to escalate care if needed but mostly get the care they think they need when the need it. The sicker, more complex group of people hate the sometimes rigid guidelines, really want to see a single (or small number of) providers and don't like the HMOs.
Both groups spend a lot of money in the system. The former because there are many more of them (most people AREN'T really sick), the latter because their health needs are so complex and difficult.
The physician centric fee for service model is squarely designed for the latter group of people (hey, it makes sense, we make more money off them....). But a lot of docs have found that a good life can be had by seeing 30+ people a day and not doing much for them. That's the typical primary care model in the US and it's batshit insane.
The whining by the AMA and various other groups is short term self centered and long term pretty bizarre. Especially the American Academy of Family Physicians. It's pretty clear that the system isn't going to produce anywhere near the number of FPs needed and I, for one, am perfectly happy not seeing something so breathlessly simple that a script can do it. But hey, if it works for you...
But until you drastically change how medical providers are reimbursed, you're going to have these huge problems. Everybody is trying to get their 'fair' share of a shrinking pie. And, at least in the US, reimbursement is so drastically screwed up that nobody has a chance in hell of figuring out how to fix it.
tl;dr - letting pharmacists treat hypertension and diabetes probably doesn't make much sense, but then nothing else does, so why start now?