Apple has a long history of operating for the end user's benefit. Microsoft has a mixed history. Apple is trusted more because it deserves to be trusted more.
The big difference is that you only have to go through the 'will it blend?' once every other year with Microsoft. With Apple running around trying to find yet another feline-related name every friggin year, you have to go through your apps yet again to see just what they've deprecated.
Personally, I'm getting more than a little annoyed at this. It's NOT the $30 (or $110). It's the time and energy needed to get a perfectly useful computer to remain just that.
Now, I'm perfectly happy cuddling with my Snow Leopard. We're on pretty good terms now. No more new kitties for a while, please. Just leave 'em at the pound.
Here's the rub. Part B) isn't likely to be correct. I'm hedging because the science behind that statement is rather iffy but:
If you attempt to isolate bacteria from either the nasal turbinates (the boggy things in your nose) or the sinuses themselves in the first week or so of an infection, you very rarely grow anything. Note that the study started antibiotics early, typically around day 3. If you wait longer, you pick up more bacteria but still you don't pick it up all of the time, even in chronic sinus infections.
The lack of bacterial cultures in early sinusitis can be due to a couple of things: 1) There are no bacteria - it's viral 2) You aren't culturing the right bacteria - clinical studies typically only attempt to grow the usual suspects. Finding a 'new' bacterium is rather difficult. 3) You're doing it wrong (not obtaining or growing the culture correctly, basically lab error) 4) The bacteria are causing a problem but aren't found where you were looking (say in a biofilm or in the bone as is found in chronic sinusitis).
Unfortunately, I don't have electronic access to JAMA and I think I tossed that issue. My hissy fit morning mental states makes we want to state that it's a pretty weak article and certainly getting more press than is due. It's really clear that the media is hyping this way too much.
Antibiotics are fast going the way of the dodo. Phage is the future.
Since you were so kind as to provide a decent link to your biofilm assertion, do you happen to have one about the clinical utility of bacteriophages? Various, mostly Russian, researchers have been talking about this for decades, yet I've not seen much in the way of clinically useful applications. Even in Russian journals.
So, my question is, has this made it out of the 'good idea' stage?
Interesting, but alas, for $31.50 I'm not going to buy the article. Now, the fact that bacteria in biofilms are resistant to clinical use of antibiotics is reasonably well established but the classic model for a sinusitis has been that of an abscess. That's one of the reasons that sinus infections are tough to treat - when the little drainage passages in the sinuses get clogged up by boogers it's hard for antibiotics to work with immune system to clear the infection.
I would imagine that, in terms of antibiotic treatments, abscesses and biofilms might have similar properties, but you imply that an acute sinusitis is really a biofilm issue rather than a classic abscess. Is that correct?
As an allergy sufferer, there is a homeopathic spray of Capsicum and menthol called Sinus Buster! that works wonders--if you can get over the shock of spraying weak pepper spray up your nose.
Why don't you just pump Bear spray up your nose? It comes in giant 8 oz cannisters - it will likely be much cheaper than the little bottles you get at the pharmacy. And as a bonus, you can use it for self defense.
You missed one of the finer point in the article. Despite the title in thread, the only thing this particular paper researched was the efficacy of amoxicillin on uncomplicated sinusitis. From your description, you have a more complex issue. And even for uncomplicated sinusitis, it doesn't discuss the efficacy or lack thereof for other antibiotics.
Reading comprehension failure on the part of the media (it's getting wide press).
The interesting and annoying bit here is that the title of the thread is "Antibiotics are Useless In Treating Most Sinus Infections" - and for once, this isn't just bad editing on Slashdot's part. It's how the article is being hyped in the media.
The actual take home lesson is that "Amoxicillin doesn't help significantly in most cases of uncomplicated acute sinusitis". Rather a different take home lesson. There were good reasons to use amoxicillin but Jesus Christ on a Popsicle, can't the media get anything half right?
One step closer to all apps needing to come from the app store.
OK, paranoid poodle, just how would you balance the attempt to limit damage by stupid endusers who will click on anything remotely interesting? It's basically sudo - 'you sure you want to do this?',yes?, 'OK, it's on your head'.
Although I'm not terribly impressed with Apple's attempt to transmogrify a perfectly good interface for users who typically need prompts to breath, this struck me as pretty reasonable.
Don't know about you, but I would like to see a mid twenties Sigourney Weaver battle alien monsters. Not grandma. What's she going to do anyway? Stab it with her knitting needles? Make it tea? Relive stories of her neighbors dog 70 years ago?
It looks like summary is trying to pull in clicks by challenging and making sweeping statements. When it is trivial to prove it wrong. Also the article ends with "Just my two cents for what they’re worth". So this is an opinion piece.
The 99.999% percentile though will probably not make it past 100. Supercenturions are fairly rare...
Go ahead and look at the Wikipedia article. Unsurprisingly, a number of the > 114 yo crowd have their birth dates as 'disputed'. So, no you didn't 'prove it wrong'.
What if the customer service positions were filled with sales oriented people? It would be an oppurtunity to have conversations about other products. Cross selling extended warranties, insurance packages, games or pc peripherals...
CUSTOMER: My PC isn't working well. SALES/SUPPORT DRONE: Great! Would you like to buy a new one!
Somehow, I just don't think support calls are great 'sales moments'.
That's an incredibly bad 'study'. It takes a linear regression out of a bunch of dubious statistics and then purports to define a causal relationship.
Then it gets amped up in a rather histrionic blog who spends most of the time arguing a 'appeal to authority' rather than looking at the weak statistical inference.
Further, the reason that the US infant mortality stats suck has been well known - first, we have many more premature births than other countries (with better prenatal care) and second, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The published lists of 'whose better' are typically done by the United Nations, whose members often have axes to grind and whose the data is supplied by the countries and is of course, subject to bias.
Your lottery payouts don't require you to scorch the earth beneath your feet.
But that's what typically happens to a natural resource lottery. The other states need to look at something the the Alaska Permanent Fund whereby a portion of the 'proceeds' get invested so hopefully there is money left in the bank when the resource runs out.
And the resource always runs out. Faster than you expect.
If you don't do that, you find that politicians' eyes glitter with all that cash - money that has to be spent on something. Fast. Boom / Bust - it's the way of resource extraction everywhere.
Cogeneration. Use the 'waste' heat to feed a greenhouse or local buildings. Again, it's a matter of cost. Relatively low thermal density energy sources (which is what waste heat really is) is expensive to ship around. You can pipe it, but pipes are expensive. You can't bottle it, you can't ship it over a wire so uses are limited.
It's all a matter of how much money you want to toss at the project and what your financial returns are.
Could you not stick stirling engine after the steam part, when the cooled down steam returns to pretty warm water. As you said, the stirling engines require less heat difference to run. This would be a way to recover some of the heat in the water as energy. Thus helping to cool the water a bit more.
You COULD. It would be prohibitively expensive due to the poor Carnot efficiency at that point. But you could do it. You could also make a radiative system that was 600 stories high - it will work but make the plant cost prohibitive. Just like any engineering project, you have to balance a whole bunch of things.
Oh stop. They 'don't want to appear to be redundant'? If the industry was interested in Gen IV/V technology then the NRC would have decades of hard, interesting work to figure out how to license them. There are a number of problems in the nuclear industry but it's very much similar to any other technology that is extremely expensive and drawn out - it's a poor fit for a commercial entity. The lead times, the capital costs, the regulatory uncertainties just don't make it attractive if you're trying to make a buck.
So, as a society, what do you do? You do develop less technologically difficult power generation methods - wind, solar, etc. You do have the government fund nuclear in a reasonable fashion over decades to bring up the technology to a point where commercial use is possible, or if that doesn't work, just make it a government function.
Not everything important or useful needs to have an IPO.
(I tend to make the same argument for NASA - there are real uses for a large, organized government aside from beating the crap out of it's citizens.)
One problem I have with breeders isn't that they contribute to proliferation - Dr. Kahn basically tossed that argument into the winds - it's that they don't seem to work well. There are a number of breeder installation wordwide - most have had major accidents / problems. It isn't a technology that has shown it can be geared up. Perhaps it can but the British and Japanese aren't doing an especially good job of convincing anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
When you view the release notes on a different application do you immediately update the word "new" to such levels of importance? Probably not.
No, I typically parse those statements as a bug fix.
Hello Kitty!
Apple has a long history of operating for the end user's benefit. Microsoft has a mixed history. Apple is trusted more because it deserves to be trusted more.
Which end?
The big difference is that you only have to go through the 'will it blend?' once every other year with Microsoft. With Apple running around trying to find yet another feline-related name every friggin year, you have to go through your apps yet again to see just what they've deprecated.
Personally, I'm getting more than a little annoyed at this. It's NOT the $30 (or $110). It's the time and energy needed to get a perfectly useful computer to remain just that.
Now, I'm perfectly happy cuddling with my Snow Leopard. We're on pretty good terms now. No more new kitties for a while, please. Just leave 'em at the pound.
You're flushing it wrong!
You are correct that the Slashdot summary is alarmist, but I would point out that the lay press is pulling the same stunt.
Here's the rub. Part B) isn't likely to be correct. I'm hedging because the science behind that statement is rather iffy but:
If you attempt to isolate bacteria from either the nasal turbinates (the boggy things in your nose) or the sinuses themselves in the first week or so of an infection, you very rarely grow anything. Note that the study started antibiotics early, typically around day 3. If you wait longer, you pick up more bacteria but still you don't pick it up all of the time, even in chronic sinus infections.
The lack of bacterial cultures in early sinusitis can be due to a couple of things: 1) There are no bacteria - it's viral 2) You aren't culturing the right bacteria - clinical studies typically only attempt to grow the usual suspects. Finding a 'new' bacterium is rather difficult. 3) You're doing it wrong (not obtaining or growing the culture correctly, basically lab error) 4) The bacteria are causing a problem but aren't found where you were looking (say in a biofilm or in the bone as is found in chronic sinusitis).
Unfortunately, I don't have electronic access to JAMA and I think I tossed that issue. My hissy fit morning mental states makes we want to state that it's a pretty weak article and certainly getting more press than is due. It's really clear that the media is hyping this way too much.
I think I'll go for a walk now. I feel happy....
Antibiotics are fast going the way of the dodo. Phage is the future.
Since you were so kind as to provide a decent link to your biofilm assertion, do you happen to have one about the clinical utility of bacteriophages? Various, mostly Russian, researchers have been talking about this for decades, yet I've not seen much in the way of clinically useful applications. Even in Russian journals.
So, my question is, has this made it out of the 'good idea' stage?
Ah, thank you.
May your day be harmonious and your browser speedy.
Interesting, but alas, for $31.50 I'm not going to buy the article. Now, the fact that bacteria in biofilms are resistant to clinical use of antibiotics is reasonably well established but the classic model for a sinusitis has been that of an abscess. That's one of the reasons that sinus infections are tough to treat - when the little drainage passages in the sinuses get clogged up by boogers it's hard for antibiotics to work with immune system to clear the infection.
I would imagine that, in terms of antibiotic treatments, abscesses and biofilms might have similar properties, but you imply that an acute sinusitis is really a biofilm issue rather than a classic abscess. Is that correct?
As an allergy sufferer, there is a homeopathic spray of Capsicum and menthol called Sinus Buster! that works wonders--if you can get over the shock of spraying weak pepper spray up your nose.
Why don't you just pump Bear spray up your nose? It comes in giant 8 oz cannisters - it will likely be much cheaper than the little bottles you get at the pharmacy. And as a bonus, you can use it for self defense.
You missed one of the finer point in the article. Despite the title in thread, the only thing this particular paper researched was the efficacy of amoxicillin on uncomplicated sinusitis. From your description, you have a more complex issue. And even for uncomplicated sinusitis, it doesn't discuss the efficacy or lack thereof for other antibiotics.
Reading comprehension failure on the part of the media (it's getting wide press).
The interesting and annoying bit here is that the title of the thread is "Antibiotics are Useless In Treating Most Sinus Infections" - and for once, this isn't just bad editing on Slashdot's part. It's how the article is being hyped in the media.
The actual take home lesson is that "Amoxicillin doesn't help significantly in most cases of uncomplicated acute sinusitis". Rather a different take home lesson. There were good reasons to use amoxicillin but Jesus Christ on a Popsicle, can't the media get anything half right?
Grrrr. HIssssss.
Now I need to go take some more medication.
One step closer to all apps needing to come from the app store.
OK, paranoid poodle, just how would you balance the attempt to limit damage by stupid endusers who will click on anything remotely interesting? It's basically sudo - 'you sure you want to do this?',yes?, 'OK, it's on your head'.
Although I'm not terribly impressed with Apple's attempt to transmogrify a perfectly good interface for users who typically need prompts to breath, this struck me as pretty reasonable.
Don't know about you, but I would like to see a mid twenties Sigourney Weaver battle alien monsters. Not grandma. What's she going to do anyway? Stab it with her knitting needles? Make it tea? Relive stories of her neighbors dog 70 years ago?
Exactly you would see a LOT of 113's in this list. Instead you see many almost making 115 and a few as high as 120.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955
It looks like summary is trying to pull in clicks by challenging and making sweeping statements. When it is trivial to prove it wrong. Also the article ends with "Just my two cents for what they’re worth". So this is an opinion piece.
The 99.999% percentile though will probably not make it past 100. Supercenturions are fairly rare...
Go ahead and look at the Wikipedia article. Unsurprisingly, a number of the > 114 yo crowd have their birth dates as 'disputed'. So, no you didn't 'prove it wrong'.
Who cares if it is a hot/cute Chinese gal. ;)
Your wife.... The computer wouldn't be the only thing rebooted.
What if the customer service positions were filled with sales oriented people? It would be an oppurtunity to have conversations about other products. Cross selling extended warranties, insurance packages, games or pc peripherals...
CUSTOMER: My PC isn't working well.
SALES/SUPPORT DRONE: Great! Would you like to buy a new one!
Somehow, I just don't think support calls are great 'sales moments'.
No, he's a dentist. Big difference.
That's an incredibly bad 'study'. It takes a linear regression out of a bunch of dubious statistics and then purports to define a causal relationship.
Then it gets amped up in a rather histrionic blog who spends most of the time arguing a 'appeal to authority' rather than looking at the weak statistical inference.
Further, the reason that the US infant mortality stats suck has been well known - first, we have many more premature births than other countries (with better prenatal care) and second, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. The published lists of 'whose better' are typically done by the United Nations, whose members often have axes to grind and whose the data is supplied by the countries and is of course, subject to bias.
Your lottery payouts don't require you to scorch the earth beneath your feet.
But that's what typically happens to a natural resource lottery. The other states need to look at something the the Alaska Permanent Fund whereby a portion of the 'proceeds' get invested so hopefully there is money left in the bank when the resource runs out.
And the resource always runs out. Faster than you expect.
If you don't do that, you find that politicians' eyes glitter with all that cash - money that has to be spent on something. Fast. Boom / Bust - it's the way of resource extraction everywhere.
Cogeneration. Use the 'waste' heat to feed a greenhouse or local buildings. Again, it's a matter of cost. Relatively low thermal density energy sources (which is what waste heat really is) is expensive to ship around. You can pipe it, but pipes are expensive. You can't bottle it, you can't ship it over a wire so uses are limited.
It's all a matter of how much money you want to toss at the project and what your financial returns are.
Could you not stick stirling engine after the steam part, when the cooled down steam returns to pretty warm water. As you said, the stirling engines require less heat difference to run. This would be a way to recover some of the heat in the water as energy. Thus helping to cool the water a bit more.
You COULD. It would be prohibitively expensive due to the poor Carnot efficiency at that point. But you could do it. You could also make a radiative system that was 600 stories high - it will work but make the plant cost prohibitive. Just like any engineering project, you have to balance a whole bunch of things.
Oh stop. They 'don't want to appear to be redundant'? If the industry was interested in Gen IV/V technology then the NRC would have decades of hard, interesting work to figure out how to license them. There are a number of problems in the nuclear industry but it's very much similar to any other technology that is extremely expensive and drawn out - it's a poor fit for a commercial entity. The lead times, the capital costs, the regulatory uncertainties just don't make it attractive if you're trying to make a buck.
So, as a society, what do you do? You do develop less technologically difficult power generation methods - wind, solar, etc. You do have the government fund nuclear in a reasonable fashion over decades to bring up the technology to a point where commercial use is possible, or if that doesn't work, just make it a government function.
Not everything important or useful needs to have an IPO.
(I tend to make the same argument for NASA - there are real uses for a large, organized government aside from beating the crap out of it's citizens.)
One problem I have with breeders isn't that they contribute to proliferation - Dr. Kahn basically tossed that argument into the winds - it's that they don't seem to work well. There are a number of breeder installation wordwide - most have had major accidents / problems. It isn't a technology that has shown it can be geared up. Perhaps it can but the British and Japanese aren't doing an especially good job of convincing anyone.