Given that a Rational Number is a fraction of a Natural Int and Non Zero Int, isn't there basically an infinite set of Rational numbers between each Natural?
The word you want to look up is "denumerable" = "can be placed in one to one correspondence with the natural numbers,"
In any finite interval there are a finite number of integers and a denumerable infinity of rationals. Taken as a whole the infinite sets of integers and rationals are both denumerable, so in this sense they are equal.
The idea that the Sweet 16 could infringe because it contains "orienation" and "memory recall" items similar to the MMSE is absurd; questions about orientation and immediate/delayed recall are standard with or without the MMSE.
You are correct. It's absurd and therefore likely not the real problem.
Recall that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not a concept or process. The claim seems to be that the Sweet 16 infringes, not the original 30 point MMSE, but the MMSE-2 BV (Brief Version) which appears to be a 16 point scale. I have not been able to locate the text of the MMSE-2 BV without paying, which I am not inclined to do, and I have no idea whether it appeared before or after the Sweet 16.
The general outlines of the Sweet 16 are in a journal article and the actual protocol is floating around the net. Like the original MMSE (and therefore probably the MMSE-2 BV) it asks the patient to remember the words "apple", "table" and "penny". It is possible that the text of the Sweet 16 is close enough to the text of the MMSE-2 BV to raise copyright issues.
I have no idea why the Sweet 16 people chose to mimic the MMSE so closely. It may have been to make an academic point, which is that a subset of the MMSE is as valid as the full scale. Dr. Newman has pointed out that academics are interested in the MMSE because there are many years of academic work using it. This should be a lesson for academics about using copyrighted scales.
None of this should bother clinicians. You can still examine patients without using a printed form. It's the text that's subject to copyright, not the process.
However, regardless of the status of the whole collection of the test, as I understand it, it seems the complaint is arising over a claim of copyright on those few key items and their specific content.
Yes. Was it really necessary for the Sweet 16 to use the same 3 words to remember (apple/table/penny) as the MMSE?
But this is a general issue. The Sweet 16 was an attempt to move on, halted by PAR. I'm surprised that PAR hasn't already sued the MOCA authors given that the MOCA includes recall and orientation, like the Sweet 16. Even if it survives, the MOCA is not perfect- it has laudably generous licensing terms for copying, but no provision for derivative works. In 80 years, the heirs of the MOCA authors might well start suing researchers who use a trails test, clock draw and animal recognition in a new test.
I am a neurologist. We were having people draw clocks (and publishing the results) long before the MOCA was thought of.
And how can you possibly copyright "What day is today?"
MoCA test seems to better in that regard. [mocatest.org]
Yes. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is starting to replace the MMSE, both because it is not encumbered and because it does a better job of assessing executive function.
Err....color me ignorant, but I had no idea that anyone was compelled to REPORT crimes to the police.
Some of us (teachers, health care workers) are "mandated reporters." By law we must report even the suspicion of child abuse. Ordinary citizens do not have the same duty. The details of who has to report what and to whom will vary from state to state.
its unfortunate that cops think that judges are too stupid to follow a logical line of reasoning without dressing it up. But what do you expect when judges are elected and only people with strictly average IQ's can get hired as police.
Judges in Massachusetts are appointed. I don't know if that makes them smarter.
Unless you believe there is something going on in the brain that is not subject to the laws of physics, it is hard to make sense of that distinction.
Physicians make this distinction all the time. If you abstract only to the useful limit, as opposed to ad infinitum, as you have done, then the concept is easy to grasp.
I thought I had grasped it 30 years ago in medical school. Then I learned more about the nervous system.
This is not infinitely abstract at all. In the useful limit, you don't send a fibromyalgia patient to an orthopedist, but you don't send her to a psychiatrist either.
I.e., the following question is still open: is there a physical cause, or is the cause psychosomatic?
Unless you believe there is something going on in the brain that is not subject to the laws of physics, it is hard to make sense of that distinction.
It is more useful to ask whether the pain is triggered in the peripheral or the central nervous system. IAAMD, and most people I know think there is a significant central component. Bear in mind that pain is not a one way street, like a wire from your thumb to your brain. It's a circuit with amplifiers in it and some people seem to have the volume turned up too high.
Fibromyalgia is a vague concept with blurry edges but useful for classifying a bunch of people who present with similar symptoms. The medications given for it are not placebos; two (Lyrica and Cymbalta) have received FDA approval as superior to placebo. There are others that also work but do not have the financial backing to go through the FDA process because the patent has expired.
They probably work by modulating pain transmission / perception in the spinal cord / brain.
First you watch the big guy do it. Then he watches you do the easy stuff. Then he talks you through the harder stuff step by step. Over a period of time you get able to do it yourself and eventually to teach others. It's a hands on process and it takes years.
all surgeons have a first time they perform any surgery.
IAAMD. When you start doing surgery there is a more senior surgeon standing right there, watching your every move, and ready to take over if necessary.
Even worse than that, it costs them MORE bandwidth this way.
Keep in mind, most ISPs only pay the big bucks for their internet connectivity. The network between them and you (and all their customers) is MUCH cheaper, measured only in maintenance costs. The internet lines have the same maintenance cost, plus bandwidth costs, on top of base charges.
Before, they transfered all of the news articles Once, using internet bandwidth once, from their upstream new servers to their own.
Customers could get these all from their news server, which can happen by any number of customers any number of times and there is no extra bandwidth fees to the ISP.
Now, all of their users will be transferring news articles from the internet to them, each one taking their share of bandwidth from the internet pipes.
All true. It's not about bandwidth. It's about politics.
What Verizon has accomplished here is getting this stuff off it's servers, thereby reducing the heat from a local New York politician, who still has no handle on third-party usenet services not located in New York.
I wonder what would happen if a subscriber didn't update their credit card info once their card expires to let the account lapse.
I actually cancelled the card. They kept sending me bills for AOL anyway. When I called the credit card company to complain, they said "We can't cancel that. They're providing you with a service." I said, "No they're not. That's the point."
They finally turned it into a conference call with a guy from AOL on the phone. After insisting with a slightly raised voice that I really wanted both the credit card and the AOL account cancelled, they did it.
I would have kept the card except that their "customer service" people made it clear that they had made some deal with AOL at my expense.
When I fly, I hand my drivers license to the guy who checks my baggage. He checks it against a computerized passenger list. At security the boarding pass is manually checked against the ID. At the gate the boarding pass goes into a gizmo that flashes "OK TO BOARD", presumably after checking against the passenger list again. There are several levels of crosschecking here.
No publication, no slander. Harvard doesn't publish the list and sends a standard non-acceptance letter. Nobody knows who these people are unless they step forward and accuse themselves.
Most likely, Harvard won't tell them they were rejected for peeking. They will just say you weren't accepted. If the applicant says he peeked and thought he was, Harvard says it was just preliminary, and we never made you a commitment
There is no due process issue here. Nobody has a right to be admitted to a private university.
Many people don't realize how long it can take for a check to bounce. The standard method of clearing checks is still physically shipping little pieces of paper around the country. So for a California check to bounce in New York requires the physical check to travel across the country, sit on a manager's desk until he gets around to dealing with it, and physically travel back before you find out it's no good. This can take weeks. Overseas, longer.
If reconstructive plastic surgery is not health care, then some would claim that mental health care isn't health care either, is it?
Some do. Many plans pay less for mental health than for strictly medical care.
If I were king, I would be inclined to allow reconstructive but not cosmetic plastic surgery. But there is not necessarily a sharp dividing line between the two. And I think mental health services should be widely available. That's my personal opinion.
The real issue is: what am I entitled to ask you to give me for free? Some entitlement programs are necessary in a humane society, but we can't give everything to everybody.
Then why don't health insurers offer to fund adoption for people who are diagnosed as needing technology in order to conceive?
Because it has nothing to do with health care. And neither does IVF, plastic surgery, etc.
One of the reasons for the increase in "healthcare" expenditures is expansion of our notion of what healthcare is. And that is being driven by the "free lunch" mentality that our present system encourages.
Slashdot Mirror
So because you're not logged in you're not traceable?
The word you want to look up is "denumerable" = "can be placed in one to one correspondence with the natural numbers,"
In any finite interval there are a finite number of integers and a denumerable infinity of rationals. Taken as a whole the infinite sets of integers and rationals are both denumerable, so in this sense they are equal.
You are correct. It's absurd and therefore likely not the real problem.
Recall that copyright protects the expression of an idea, not a concept or process. The claim seems to be that the Sweet 16 infringes, not the original 30 point MMSE, but the MMSE-2 BV (Brief Version) which appears to be a 16 point scale. I have not been able to locate the text of the MMSE-2 BV without paying, which I am not inclined to do, and I have no idea whether it appeared before or after the Sweet 16.
The general outlines of the Sweet 16 are in a journal article and the actual protocol is floating around the net. Like the original MMSE (and therefore probably the MMSE-2 BV) it asks the patient to remember the words "apple", "table" and "penny". It is possible that the text of the Sweet 16 is close enough to the text of the MMSE-2 BV to raise copyright issues.
I have no idea why the Sweet 16 people chose to mimic the MMSE so closely. It may have been to make an academic point, which is that a subset of the MMSE is as valid as the full scale. Dr. Newman has pointed out that academics are interested in the MMSE because there are many years of academic work using it. This should be a lesson for academics about using copyrighted scales.
None of this should bother clinicians. You can still examine patients without using a printed form. It's the text that's subject to copyright, not the process.
Yes. Was it really necessary for the Sweet 16 to use the same 3 words to remember (apple/table/penny) as the MMSE?
I am a neurologist. We were having people draw clocks (and publishing the results) long before the MOCA was thought of.
And how can you possibly copyright "What day is today?"
Yes. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is starting to replace the MMSE, both because it is not encumbered and because it does a better job of assessing executive function.
Some of us (teachers, health care workers) are "mandated reporters." By law we must report even the suspicion of child abuse. Ordinary citizens do not have the same duty. The details of who has to report what and to whom will vary from state to state.
Depending on your state, your medical board may not approve.
Per TFA, the Texas board seems to have a problem with it if doctor and patient have never met in person.
Judges in Massachusetts are appointed. I don't know if that makes them smarter.
It was once well known that IBM stands for "I've Been Moved."
I thought I had grasped it 30 years ago in medical school. Then I learned more about the nervous system.
This is not infinitely abstract at all. In the useful limit, you don't send a fibromyalgia patient to an orthopedist, but you don't send her to a psychiatrist either.
Unless you believe there is something going on in the brain that is not subject to the laws of physics, it is hard to make sense of that distinction.
It is more useful to ask whether the pain is triggered in the peripheral or the central nervous system. IAAMD, and most people I know think there is a significant central component. Bear in mind that pain is not a one way street, like a wire from your thumb to your brain. It's a circuit with amplifiers in it and some people seem to have the volume turned up too high.
Fibromyalgia is a vague concept with blurry edges but useful for classifying a bunch of people who present with similar symptoms. The medications given for it are not placebos; two (Lyrica and Cymbalta) have received FDA approval as superior to placebo. There are others that also work but do not have the financial backing to go through the FDA process because the patent has expired.
They probably work by modulating pain transmission / perception in the spinal cord / brain.
First you watch the big guy do it. Then he watches you do the easy stuff. Then he talks you through the harder stuff step by step. Over a period of time you get able to do it yourself and eventually to teach others. It's a hands on process and it takes years.
all surgeons have a first time they perform any surgery.
IAAMD. When you start doing surgery there is a more senior surgeon standing right there, watching your every move, and ready to take over if necessary.
I know our founding fathers, though, read Locke and Mills
Well, they read Locke. I don't know who Mills is, and I doubt they read John Stuart Mill (1806-1873).
All true. It's not about bandwidth. It's about politics.
What Verizon has accomplished here is getting this stuff off it's servers, thereby reducing the heat from a local New York politician, who still has no handle on third-party usenet services not located in New York.
I wonder what would happen if a subscriber didn't update their credit card info once their card expires to let the account lapse.
I actually cancelled the card. They kept sending me bills for AOL anyway. When I called the credit card company to complain, they said "We can't cancel that. They're providing you with a service." I said, "No they're not. That's the point."
They finally turned it into a conference call with a guy from AOL on the phone. After insisting with a slightly raised voice that I really wanted both the credit card and the AOL account cancelled, they did it.
I would have kept the card except that their "customer service" people made it clear that they had made some deal with AOL at my expense.
Well, first, a boarding pass can get you to the gate. From there, you can force your way onto a plane.
And from there you can go directly to jail.
The last time I flew, a woman jumped ahead of us in the security line. A few minutes later she was being led away by TSA agents.
When I fly, I hand my drivers license to the guy who checks my baggage. He checks it against a computerized passenger list. At security the boarding pass is manually checked against the ID. At the gate the boarding pass goes into a gizmo that flashes "OK TO BOARD", presumably after checking against the passenger list again. There are several levels of crosschecking here.
No publication, no slander. Harvard doesn't publish the list and sends a standard non-acceptance letter. Nobody knows who these people are unless they step forward and accuse themselves.
Most likely, Harvard won't tell them they were rejected for peeking. They will just say you weren't accepted. If the applicant says he peeked and thought he was, Harvard says it was just preliminary, and we never made you a commitment
There is no due process issue here. Nobody has a right to be admitted to a private university.
I routinely order my checks from third party printers. They're cheaper than the bank. Never had a problem. Of course they are in the normal format.
Many people don't realize how long it can take for a check to bounce. The standard method of clearing checks is still physically shipping little pieces of paper around the country. So for a California check to bounce in New York requires the physical check to travel across the country, sit on a manager's desk until he gets around to dealing with it, and physically travel back before you find out it's no good. This can take weeks. Overseas, longer.
If reconstructive plastic surgery is not health care, then some would claim that mental health care isn't health care either, is it?
Some do. Many plans pay less for mental health than for strictly medical care.
If I were king, I would be inclined to allow reconstructive but not cosmetic plastic surgery. But there is not necessarily a sharp dividing line between the two. And I think mental health services should be widely available. That's my personal opinion.
The real issue is: what am I entitled to ask you to give me for free? Some entitlement programs are necessary in a humane society, but we can't give everything to everybody.
Then why don't health insurers offer to fund adoption for people who are diagnosed as needing technology in order to conceive?
Because it has nothing to do with health care. And neither does IVF, plastic surgery, etc.
One of the reasons for the increase in "healthcare" expenditures is expansion of our notion of what healthcare is. And that is being driven by the "free lunch" mentality that our present system encourages.