I can't tell if the error belongs to CBS News, to the local CBS affiliate in Vermont, or to the PR flack at the university. The article body itself doesn't mention MRI, except to note that Nottingham University "invented" MRI in the early 1970s. I conclude that whoever added the headline failed.
However, the University and CBS News also failed (or failed twice if either of them were the origin of the headline), because both of them had a responsibility to effectively communicate, which they did not do.
NMR was a technique of analytical chemistry by the 1950s. By 1952, machines were capable of providing one dimensional data (as opposed to scalar data about a single sample). It appears that the first two dimensional NMR data was showing up by the 1960s. What happened in the early 1970s was tissue differentiation, mostly from Lauterbur in New York. In the late 1970s, Mansfield in Nottingham developed a planar approach, making the first machines comparable to the machines we use today.
As a "News for Nerds" site, I expect better from slashdot. I expect the editors to be nerds, and I expect nerds to have at least a passing knowledge of what MRI is and the technology inside it. When they see an article like this, I expect a nerd to look at the picture and ask "How did they fit a 1.5 Tesla magnet into that skullcap?" - and then, critically, to look around a bit to see if maybe the moron journalist* who wrote the article got something wrong.
As you say, an improved wearable real-time encephalogram is a big deal. It is just a very different big deal than the one promised in the headline.
(By the way, I use "moron journalist" in the technical sense. On average, journalism majors are right down near the bottom of all standardized test takers who earn degrees. No offense intended - not by me, and not by objective reality.)
Cite an example, please. Name a deflationary episode that ended in civic unrest.
Deflation is the state of progress. We expect what we buy tomorrow to be cheaper than today because we expect the producer to be learning. An innovator finds a way to make the same thing with less effort, or a better thing to make for the same effort.
Inflation is the state of theft. The people who get first access to the newly created money get to buy things at the old (lower) prices, bidding the prices up for the rest of us, who have to spend more and more of our savings to buy less and less.
If inflation were uniformly distributed - if all prices and accounts changed in the same way in an atomic transaction - it would be harmless. It would also be pointless.
100 years of artificial inflation has turned nature upside down, so much that people now argue that inflation is necessary and good.
Nothing quite like a bitcoin story to bring the middle school economists out of the woodwork.
Consumption loans would be rare, nearly impossible to get on an unsecured signature in a deflationary scheme. Are you sure this is a bad thing? And if a 20% interest loan is barely breaking even in real terms in today's inflationary scheme, who would borrow at a similar nominal interest rate under deflation knowing that it was an effective 50% real rate?
I'll give you a tip for thinking about future possibilities. If you change something in your hypothetical universe, it is wise to figure out the consequences of that change by not changing anything else - except for things that are already consequences of the thing you are changing.
Interest rates are neither the word of God, nor physical law. They are the consequence of a richly dynamic interaction of many forces operating over many years. It is highly implausible to imagine that they would be exactly the same in an environment that is even slightly different, much less one where the very heart of the system has been inverted.
Inflation always ends badly. And by "always", I mean from literally the dawn of history. The only potential counterexamples are still current, just like the only potential counterexamples of human mortality are still current. I'm pretty confident that every human alive today will die eventually, just as all that came before have, and I'm equally confident that every inflationary currency will die the way inflationary currencies always die.
Speaking as someone who is highly skeptical about Lightning's hype, I have to ask - did it ever occur to you that it might be a good idea to find out what the Lightning Network is before opening your yap?
Also, you don't need to worry about the religious right any more. They did not support Trump in 2016, and Trump won anyway. Your problem now is the post-religious right. Enjoy.
Horde has a web client and can sync to phones. Does lots of stuff that you probably need done on your phone anyway - email, calendar, contacts, tasks, notes, etc.
Whenever I see 328 feet, I know that someone said "about 100 meters" and the reporter multiplied it under the assumption that us yokels can't figure out what it means without their help. It really pisses me off when reading an article about something slashdot-worthy, like a rocket. We never went metric in the US, but you'd have a hard time finding one of us today who isn't bilingual enough to grasp 100 meters as easily as 100 yards or 300 feet.
On the other hand, if the SpaceX guy did the conversion because he knew that the moronic reporters would otherwise report it as "328 feet, 1.00788 inches", I withdraw my objection with a chuckle.
according to the respected Volkskrant daily, and a Dutch TV news programme Nieuwsuur.
citing anonymous US and Dutch sources.
A spokeswoman for the AIVD refused to confirm the Dutch media reports, telling AFP "we never comment on operations."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov however dismissed the reports Friday, saying Moscow had "never heard or seen anything about such allegations from the Dutch secret services".
I used to live near the Mayo Clinic. I know full well how often people with money come to the US for their health care - even from those 29 or 39 countries ahead of us on that list.
And no, average or median life expectancy is not a medical outcome. Years survived after a cancer diagnosis, for example, is a medical outcome. And for many forms of cancer, the US is #1 - sometimes by a decade or two. Which is why rich Canadians and rich Europeans come here for their treatments, and approximately zero rich Americans leave the country for major medical treatments.
And yes, I'm aware that a lot of minor medical procedures can be done for a tiny fraction of the cost in Mexico or India, and that a lot of upper middle class people go there to get their boob jobs and root canals.
Not that we are perfect. After 70 years of Democrat meddling, I feel pretty confident in saying that we have the worst medical billing system in the world.
I had most of the same problems early on - pretty much everyone did in those days. Even today, using an electronic cigarette is a huge hassle compared to smoking. But totally worth it.
For many years, I just dripped into 510 atomizers on a hand-built regulated 5v battery box. But modern tanks are very good. I use Kanger Protank 2 and clones. There are newer tanks that are just as good or maybe better.
For the claim quoted above, I am my own source. I took a high school health class in the 1990s, and the addiction aspects of tobacco use were described entirely in terms of nicotine.
I'm shocked. Yet another SJW ranking that doesn't even attempt to measure the headline. Kinda like the list that puts the US dead last in healthcare by measuring everything they can think of other than medical outcomes.
Tobacco contains a variety of psychoactive chemicals, mostly alkaloids and nitrosamines. Nicotine is the most well known, and tobacco plants produce a large amount of it. Several of the alkaloids would be called "antidepressants", if they were being sold by a pharmaceutical company.
Traditional electronic cigarette juice contains none of these other chemicals. They contain nicotine has has been extracted from tobacco leaves, and then purified. Which is important, because...
Different people react to the different chemicals in different ways. Some people develop an addiction to nicotine only, while other people also develop addiction to the other alkaloids. The people who do not get addicted to the lesser chemicals generally stop smoking permanently within a day or two after getting an electronic cigarette. It really is almost like flipping a switch in them.
I know at least a dozen people in real life like that, and I've read hundreds of their stories online since like 2009 or 2010 (whenever I first started looking into electronic cigarettes). I've never heard of anyone in this group ever having gone back to smoking, ever, for any reason. Quite a few of them have reduced their nicotine intake to zero and a several have stopped using their electronic cigarettes entirely, but most don't see any point because nicotine isn't very harmful by itself.
Other people, if their brains get more involved with the other alkaloids, fit on a spectrum. Some of them took months to quit smoking, others haven't quit entirely and maybe never will. For those people, things like snus can be used to fill in the missing chemicals, and work is underway to develop liquids that contain the full spectrum of tobacco-derived alkaloids.
These other chemicals were poorly understood 10 years ago, at least by laymen. Possibly researchers in some specific fields were well aware of them, but pretty much no one else was. Today, they are fairly well understood by (at least) the enthusiast portion of the electronic cigarette community. But I haven't seen any reason to think that they've entered the general consciousness.
No offense intended towards you, but your knowledge of the subject appears to be about on the level that a high school student would learn in health class in the 1990s. Thinking in terms of "nicotine addiction" is a dead giveaway! I encourage you to educate yourself on the subject matter if you find it likely that you will be offering your opinion to others in the future.
The people moderating my comment down apparently think the Democrats are the pro-science party.
I don't think they know what science is.
Science is a process for testing ideas so that faulty ones can be discarded. When you cling to an idea after it has been tested and found faulty, you are anti-science. When you count male and female and claim that there are 57 genders, you are anti-science. When you cling to global warming hysteria long after the failure of all projections, you are anti-science. When you pretend that the thing an abortion kills is not a helpless unique human being, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is, you are anti-science.
I'm not too worried. The anti-science party is already working overtime to lose the next elections. Even before the "shutdown", something like 70% of Democrats were opposed to shutting down over DACA, and I can't imagine that number has gone up now that footage has surfaced of Chucky saying, just a few years ago, that it would be crazy to hold the government hostage for immigration.
Actually what it reminds me of is the US announcement of 'Star Wars' aka SDI. It wasn't technically practical then but the Russians didn't know that. If you read Gorbachev's autobiography him and Shevardnadze used SDI to make the case that the USSR had lost the Cold War and it was time to surrender. Rumours of this device are presumably intended to cause the same sentiment in the US.
SDI was part of the Strategy of Technology. It was an economic strategy, not a military one. The wikipedia page is awful, by the way. I only link to it to show that it was a real thing that people took seriously. To learn about it, it is better to go straight to the source.
The goal here isn't to demoralize us, it is to force us to spend money to develop underwater anti-drone technology.
Unfortunately for them, I think it will backfire. We can afford it. We'll end up with underwater drones and underwater anti-drones and our economic growth will still outpace Russia.
Yawn. Same shit I've been reading every day since 2011. Any day now it is going to crash and die. Any day now... Since before there were exchanges - any day now.
In his opinion, the "correct" price of bitcoins etc is zero.
An investor may believe from time to time that the market is mispricing something, and occasionally he can be right. But if he believes, for example, that stocks (in general) or bitcoins are worthless, then no amount of analysis or strong opinion will help him - he is wrong. No matter how sure he thinks he is, his opinion does not outweigh the opinions of thousands (or millions) of people and billions (or trillions) of dollars involved.
I'm saying that he is already wrong today, and will continue to be wrong until or unless he changes his opinion.
Bitcoin Cash is more like Bitcoin than Bitcoin is. It is way too early to tell, but we could be looking at the first stages of a switch from Bitcoin (which isn't really Bitcoin any more) to Bitcoin Cash (which still IS Bitcoin).
Or (in my opinion far more likely) the market price was way too high compared to the long term trend, and is now correcting. We could fall all the way back to ~5 times the previous peak high (or lower if it overcorrects) and not make it back to 10-20k for 2 or three years.
Only if you assume that your two cents is worth more than the billions of dollars involved in bitcoin.
In the long run, the market is the mechanism we use to determine the "correct" price of something. You may be right now and then in the short term, but over longer terms, if your opinion and the market are in disagreement, it is you who is wrong, not the market.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't tell if the error belongs to CBS News, to the local CBS affiliate in Vermont, or to the PR flack at the university. The article body itself doesn't mention MRI, except to note that Nottingham University "invented" MRI in the early 1970s. I conclude that whoever added the headline failed.
However, the University and CBS News also failed (or failed twice if either of them were the origin of the headline), because both of them had a responsibility to effectively communicate, which they did not do.
NMR was a technique of analytical chemistry by the 1950s. By 1952, machines were capable of providing one dimensional data (as opposed to scalar data about a single sample). It appears that the first two dimensional NMR data was showing up by the 1960s. What happened in the early 1970s was tissue differentiation, mostly from Lauterbur in New York. In the late 1970s, Mansfield in Nottingham developed a planar approach, making the first machines comparable to the machines we use today.
As a "News for Nerds" site, I expect better from slashdot. I expect the editors to be nerds, and I expect nerds to have at least a passing knowledge of what MRI is and the technology inside it. When they see an article like this, I expect a nerd to look at the picture and ask "How did they fit a 1.5 Tesla magnet into that skullcap?" - and then, critically, to look around a bit to see if maybe the moron journalist* who wrote the article got something wrong.
As you say, an improved wearable real-time encephalogram is a big deal. It is just a very different big deal than the one promised in the headline.
(By the way, I use "moron journalist" in the technical sense. On average, journalism majors are right down near the bottom of all standardized test takers who earn degrees. No offense intended - not by me, and not by objective reality.)
Cite an example, please. Name a deflationary episode that ended in civic unrest.
Deflation is the state of progress. We expect what we buy tomorrow to be cheaper than today because we expect the producer to be learning. An innovator finds a way to make the same thing with less effort, or a better thing to make for the same effort.
Inflation is the state of theft. The people who get first access to the newly created money get to buy things at the old (lower) prices, bidding the prices up for the rest of us, who have to spend more and more of our savings to buy less and less.
If inflation were uniformly distributed - if all prices and accounts changed in the same way in an atomic transaction - it would be harmless. It would also be pointless.
100 years of artificial inflation has turned nature upside down, so much that people now argue that inflation is necessary and good.
Nothing quite like a bitcoin story to bring the middle school economists out of the woodwork.
Consumption loans would be rare, nearly impossible to get on an unsecured signature in a deflationary scheme. Are you sure this is a bad thing? And if a 20% interest loan is barely breaking even in real terms in today's inflationary scheme, who would borrow at a similar nominal interest rate under deflation knowing that it was an effective 50% real rate?
I'll give you a tip for thinking about future possibilities. If you change something in your hypothetical universe, it is wise to figure out the consequences of that change by not changing anything else - except for things that are already consequences of the thing you are changing.
Interest rates are neither the word of God, nor physical law. They are the consequence of a richly dynamic interaction of many forces operating over many years. It is highly implausible to imagine that they would be exactly the same in an environment that is even slightly different, much less one where the very heart of the system has been inverted.
Inflation always ends badly. And by "always", I mean from literally the dawn of history. The only potential counterexamples are still current, just like the only potential counterexamples of human mortality are still current. I'm pretty confident that every human alive today will die eventually, just as all that came before have, and I'm equally confident that every inflationary currency will die the way inflationary currencies always die.
Speaking as someone who is highly skeptical about Lightning's hype, I have to ask - did it ever occur to you that it might be a good idea to find out what the Lightning Network is before opening your yap?
Your monomania is showing.
Also, you don't need to worry about the religious right any more. They did not support Trump in 2016, and Trump won anyway. Your problem now is the post-religious right. Enjoy.
Horde has a web client and can sync to phones. Does lots of stuff that you probably need done on your phone anyway - email, calendar, contacts, tasks, notes, etc.
Forget PO boxes, there are mail forwarding services that will scan your physical mail and email it to you.
The problem is that the President is a Republican. Some people find that situation utterly intolerable.
Whenever I see 328 feet, I know that someone said "about 100 meters" and the reporter multiplied it under the assumption that us yokels can't figure out what it means without their help. It really pisses me off when reading an article about something slashdot-worthy, like a rocket. We never went metric in the US, but you'd have a hard time finding one of us today who isn't bilingual enough to grasp 100 meters as easily as 100 yards or 300 feet.
On the other hand, if the SpaceX guy did the conversion because he knew that the moronic reporters would otherwise report it as "328 feet, 1.00788 inches", I withdraw my objection with a chuckle.
Fake news about fake news. We should be cynical about it by now.
My favorite quotes:
I used to live near the Mayo Clinic. I know full well how often people with money come to the US for their health care - even from those 29 or 39 countries ahead of us on that list.
And no, average or median life expectancy is not a medical outcome. Years survived after a cancer diagnosis, for example, is a medical outcome. And for many forms of cancer, the US is #1 - sometimes by a decade or two. Which is why rich Canadians and rich Europeans come here for their treatments, and approximately zero rich Americans leave the country for major medical treatments.
And yes, I'm aware that a lot of minor medical procedures can be done for a tiny fraction of the cost in Mexico or India, and that a lot of upper middle class people go there to get their boob jobs and root canals.
Not that we are perfect. After 70 years of Democrat meddling, I feel pretty confident in saying that we have the worst medical billing system in the world.
I had most of the same problems early on - pretty much everyone did in those days. Even today, using an electronic cigarette is a huge hassle compared to smoking. But totally worth it.
For many years, I just dripped into 510 atomizers on a hand-built regulated 5v battery box. But modern tanks are very good. I use Kanger Protank 2 and clones. There are newer tanks that are just as good or maybe better.
For the claim quoted above, I am my own source. I took a high school health class in the 1990s, and the addiction aspects of tobacco use were described entirely in terms of nicotine.
I'm shocked. Yet another SJW ranking that doesn't even attempt to measure the headline. Kinda like the list that puts the US dead last in healthcare by measuring everything they can think of other than medical outcomes.
Tobacco contains a variety of psychoactive chemicals, mostly alkaloids and nitrosamines. Nicotine is the most well known, and tobacco plants produce a large amount of it. Several of the alkaloids would be called "antidepressants", if they were being sold by a pharmaceutical company.
Traditional electronic cigarette juice contains none of these other chemicals. They contain nicotine has has been extracted from tobacco leaves, and then purified. Which is important, because...
Different people react to the different chemicals in different ways. Some people develop an addiction to nicotine only, while other people also develop addiction to the other alkaloids. The people who do not get addicted to the lesser chemicals generally stop smoking permanently within a day or two after getting an electronic cigarette. It really is almost like flipping a switch in them.
I know at least a dozen people in real life like that, and I've read hundreds of their stories online since like 2009 or 2010 (whenever I first started looking into electronic cigarettes). I've never heard of anyone in this group ever having gone back to smoking, ever, for any reason. Quite a few of them have reduced their nicotine intake to zero and a several have stopped using their electronic cigarettes entirely, but most don't see any point because nicotine isn't very harmful by itself.
Other people, if their brains get more involved with the other alkaloids, fit on a spectrum. Some of them took months to quit smoking, others haven't quit entirely and maybe never will. For those people, things like snus can be used to fill in the missing chemicals, and work is underway to develop liquids that contain the full spectrum of tobacco-derived alkaloids.
These other chemicals were poorly understood 10 years ago, at least by laymen. Possibly researchers in some specific fields were well aware of them, but pretty much no one else was. Today, they are fairly well understood by (at least) the enthusiast portion of the electronic cigarette community. But I haven't seen any reason to think that they've entered the general consciousness.
No offense intended towards you, but your knowledge of the subject appears to be about on the level that a high school student would learn in health class in the 1990s. Thinking in terms of "nicotine addiction" is a dead giveaway! I encourage you to educate yourself on the subject matter if you find it likely that you will be offering your opinion to others in the future.
The people moderating my comment down apparently think the Democrats are the pro-science party.
I don't think they know what science is.
Science is a process for testing ideas so that faulty ones can be discarded. When you cling to an idea after it has been tested and found faulty, you are anti-science. When you count male and female and claim that there are 57 genders, you are anti-science. When you cling to global warming hysteria long after the failure of all projections, you are anti-science. When you pretend that the thing an abortion kills is not a helpless unique human being, despite the overwhelming evidence that it is, you are anti-science.
I'm not too worried. The anti-science party is already working overtime to lose the next elections. Even before the "shutdown", something like 70% of Democrats were opposed to shutting down over DACA, and I can't imagine that number has gone up now that footage has surfaced of Chucky saying, just a few years ago, that it would be crazy to hold the government hostage for immigration.
SDI was part of the Strategy of Technology. It was an economic strategy, not a military one. The wikipedia page is awful, by the way. I only link to it to show that it was a real thing that people took seriously. To learn about it, it is better to go straight to the source.
The goal here isn't to demoralize us, it is to force us to spend money to develop underwater anti-drone technology.
Unfortunately for them, I think it will backfire. We can afford it. We'll end up with underwater drones and underwater anti-drones and our economic growth will still outpace Russia.
None of that matters. The President has an (R) after his name - a situation that they cannot allow to continue.
Yawn. Same shit I've been reading every day since 2011. Any day now it is going to crash and die. Any day now... Since before there were exchanges - any day now.
In his opinion, the "correct" price of bitcoins etc is zero.
An investor may believe from time to time that the market is mispricing something, and occasionally he can be right. But if he believes, for example, that stocks (in general) or bitcoins are worthless, then no amount of analysis or strong opinion will help him - he is wrong. No matter how sure he thinks he is, his opinion does not outweigh the opinions of thousands (or millions) of people and billions (or trillions) of dollars involved.
I'm saying that he is already wrong today, and will continue to be wrong until or unless he changes his opinion.
Indeed. There is no such thing as value.
Bitcoin Cash is more like Bitcoin than Bitcoin is. It is way too early to tell, but we could be looking at the first stages of a switch from Bitcoin (which isn't really Bitcoin any more) to Bitcoin Cash (which still IS Bitcoin).
Or (in my opinion far more likely) the market price was way too high compared to the long term trend, and is now correcting. We could fall all the way back to ~5 times the previous peak high (or lower if it overcorrects) and not make it back to 10-20k for 2 or three years.
Only if you assume that your two cents is worth more than the billions of dollars involved in bitcoin.
In the long run, the market is the mechanism we use to determine the "correct" price of something. You may be right now and then in the short term, but over longer terms, if your opinion and the market are in disagreement, it is you who is wrong, not the market.