Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.
What are you talking about? The patient visit is protected by some of the strongest confidentiality laws in the country. Any breach in that confidentiality without the permission of the patient is a grievous violation of both medical ethics and the law. Of course, there are exceptions for things that must be reported (ie. a case of tuberculosis or child abuse), but overall a physician has no ability to air feelings or statements about a patient in a public forum. They can lose their license, their practice, and their reputation, which is everything. Confidentiality laws are designed to protect patients, not physicians.
People say things anonymously because they fear reprisal or punishment. I have posted here anonymously, when it seemed risky or inappropriate to do so. I have no problems with anonymity, but even Amazon recognizes that an anonymous opinion is worthless.
Recently, at a practice I'm familiar with, a patient pulled a knife on a physician who refused to prescribe him unnecessary pain killers (read: narcotics). They were arrested, of course, and thankfully no one was hurt, but this person is free to post whatever they want anywhere they want, under as many usernames as they want, to try to get revenge. One person, if they are dedicated, could shatter that physician's career.
I would venture to say that 99% of doctors aren't out to screw people. If you don't get along well with you physician, find another one. If you think impropriety or malpractice was involved, file an official complaint. Review boards are ITCHING to remove doctors from practice. Because it increases public trust, and decreases the number of quacks out there. If that doesn't work, there are always lawsuits and the internet, but I'm afraid most people skip to the end of the process, and careers are destroyed far more often and far more inappropriately than is commonly known.
Plasma Cosmology is not the same thing as Physical Cosmology. Asuming that stars aren't balls of flaming fusion and are nodes in a giant intergalactic powerline, well... you don't have to be a nuclear physicist to realize thats a strange idea.
After you RTFA and think to yourself
"I haven't heard that much non-sensical technobabble since Star Trek!" head over to Wiki's Plasma Cosmology page. Or this more detailed page. Its contested, mainly because this is a contested field and the article is overly broad, but I think it fills in some of the holes.
Honestly if their predictions are true it will change everything in cosmology. And if my predictions are true I'll win the Lotto. I'm not sure who has better odds....
I'm sure you've heard it before, and you will hear it again, but in my humble experience networking is the best (the only?) way of breaking into the tech industry. Ask a friend at the company you're applying to, a former boss, contacts from conferences, etc. if they would be willing to submit your resume and give you a recommendation at their company. Many companies will look more favorably upon recommendation from within. Even consider asking former coworkers if they'd be willing to put in a good word at their old job: anything to lift you out of that cold-calling pile. Networking.
Beyond that, I don't have much. But I would definately at least Include a cover letter. If you don't its going to look like you don't care, and thats the last thing you want.
How many people would be fully aware of all the implications of adding 'nonspontaneous'? And how many who Do know the difference between a spontaneous and nonspontaneous reaction wouldn't also assume the nonspontaniety?
Would you feel any more informed if they had mentioned the dangers of 'spontaneous' explosive dihydronmonoxide recombination inherent to the process?
You don't really have to worry about the divers breathing pure oxygen. They won't be. They'll be breating a mix similar to air.
The process of lowering the pressure around the seawater will lead to the release of all disolved gasses, not just oxygen. I didn't notice anything about a co2 scrubber, so I think its safe to say that the inhaled gasses will be similar in content to whatever is disolved in the ocean.
At atmospheric level, air is: ~73% nitrogen, ~23% oxygen, ~2% carbon dioxide, ~2% other, if I recall correctly, and I don't think that the solubility constants are signifigantly different in salt water to throw off those percentages that much. If anything its probably less rich in oxygen and more carbon dioxide enriched at greater depths due to marine life respiration.
With a system like this, it might even be possible to remove some of the nitrogen from the breathing mix with a second step. This would allow unlimited dive times without the nitrogen buildup that results in the bends if you stay down too long.
My little LG Vx 3100 (may it rest in peace) was the perfect little phone until that unfortunate cement mixer incident. Too bad that LG doesn't make them any more.
Its about time that someone was able to make a plain phone that works as a... wait for it... a phone!!
1) Connects well to the tower 2) Long Battery life 3) Fits in my pocket 4) Quick button response time 5) That's it! Nothing else! Is that too much to ask? They could charge me more for such a device and I would not care.
But seriously, now they just need to take this one by Vodafone out back and beat the ugly out of it until it looks good again.
Evidently the arguments of bigots get equal weight at MS.
Wether we agree with them or not, listening and valuing people of alternative viewpoints is exactly what freedom is all about. Be they bigots, the kkk, the aclu, anti-microsoft zealots, or my grandma, their opinions are all of equal worth in a relativistic and free society such as ours.
Wether we agree with them or not, their ideas and arguments listened to and considered, otherwise we are just as bigoted as they.
-The funniest thing I have ever seen was a man on a tirade against fundamentalists because they were not being more tolerant. Unfortunately for him, he never saw the irony.-
But a point mass should not be neccicary, the mass just needs to be perfectly sperical. So long as the distance from the center of the mass is greater than the radius of the mass + a few wavelengths to eleminate defraction, there should be no difference how the gravity field is generated. It simply needs to be uniformly constant for all points in every concentric shell larger than the mass. Am I right?
Unfortunately, the deflection of a beam of light from a 1kg mass would be so infinitesimally small, that it would be nearly impossible to measure except over stellar or perhaps galactic distances, and how far from the center of the mass should the light be? This will influence the measurement also. They key is not to pick another arbitrary unit, but to explicitly define an existing constant, Avocado's [sic] constant, or Planck's constant.
count the number of atoms in the platinum-iridium alloy
And how do you propose we do that? That's exactly why the article was talking about using x-ray crystallography, but you just can't do that on a 1kg block of iridium-platinum alloy.
Why the motivation for the change? The mass of subatomic particles have been given in kg for over a century. What exactly needs a more precisely reference of measurement? Physicists use their own units when it's convenient anyway. . . .
Lets say someone disputes the mass of a kilogram at the 10^-8 digit: In order to verify this cylinder has to be re-weighed. Not only is this inconvenient, but if someone has polished it or even 1 pg of dust has fallen on it, the precise weight is no longer repeatable, and is a ludicrous basis for measuring the mass of subatomic particles.
But more importantly, there are many standard units in SI that have an uncertainty of 0, the speed of light, and the second among them. The kilogram however, has non-zero uncertainty, which keeps us from refining other measurements that are based on the kilogram. So if we can measure the kilogram exactly, based of a physical constant in the universe and not a block of fickle matter, then we can measure other units either exactly or with higher precision.
The whole point is that the kilogram is not defined precisely enough, and its current referent is variable, which makes other measurements variable and imprecise.
I think the shockingly absent outrage/response to adware has more to do with lack of awareness than anything else.
We all have gotten used to the idea of planned obselesence. From your car that is "old" after 3 years to your computer which was the absolute best until about 15 seconds after you bought it; most people expect their computers to run more slowly with time. And while popups suck, many people just don't really equate popups with adware. To them, its just "one of those things" that happen to PCs, especially when connect to that darned internet. I've worked in numerous offices that were about to buy a new set of PCs because their existing ones were "old and slow." After 30 minutes of AVG and SpySweeper they were amazed at the power of their "outdated" computer.
IMHO, Even when you include the viruses that go with spam, it seems like adware does much more to reduce producivity, hands down.
Alas, with SPAM we all see media 'orange alert's lasting for several days like: "You computer will eat your first born and wreck your car if you open this email!!!" But who has seen something like that for adware? How many people really know what it is or does?
We gotta get the word out! Alert the press! The baby eating, credit card stealing, nazi adware legions are headed straight for your comptuer! And if you don't uninstall them, Santa will be shot! That should wake some people up.
All of these doomsday senarios are a little extremist. According to this index of US Nuclear Incidents, (quoted below) the bomb that was lost had its core removed.
Most nuclear weapons in that era were transported with there core's removed. If the weapon was to be used, it would be armed by the physical insertion of the fissile core into the high explosive trigger system.
Essentially, a plutonium based fission device operates through a Highly complicated system of focused explosions crafted to compress the plutonium core evenly from all angles to create a supercritical mass. This is a very complicated and technical explosive. Accidental detination by overheating will generally not result in a uniform explosion, so the core will not begin to fiz.
A uranium weapon works by the rapid combination of 2 sub critical masses to form a supercritical mass. If these aren't brought together rapidly enough the ensuing reaction will blow itself apart before the mass has a chance to really get going (about 70 generations of fission reactions).
So, a nuclear weapon needs a lot of high powered explosives to get going. To be extra safe, the fissile material and the explosives are kept seperate to prevent a nuclear disaster in the event of an accidental explosion. Without those high explosives AND the fissile core, there is No Way to detonate a nuclear device. Any radiation that is still present is no doubt from the radioactivity imparted to the casing when it was exposed to the nuclear core.
A nuclear weapon without a fissile core was lost following a mid-air collision. A B-47 bomber carrying a nuclear weapon without its fissile core collided with a F-86 aircraft near Savannah, Georgia. Following three unsuccessful attempts to land the plane at Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia, the weapon was jettisoned to avoid the risk of a high explosive detonation at the base. The weapon was jettisoned into the water several miles from the mouth of Savannah River in Wassaw Sound off Tybee Beach, but the precise point of impact is unknown. The weapon's high explosives did not detonate on impact. A subsequent search covering three square miles used divers and sonar devices, but failed to find the weapon. The search was ended on April 16, 1958, and the weapon was considered to be irretrievably lost.
There is no "harm" done to anyone (including people who are already freaks) - including children - from viewing porn or anything else.
Any "harm" is self-inflicted.... Any parents who buy into this crap are themselves doing harm to their children by not properly training them to deal with human reality.
You must never have had a childhood or had children yourself. Do you honestly claim that all children, regardless of age, are perfectly able to defend themselves? I have frequently seen children be quite beligerent to authority, but always when they thought that authority could successfully be challenged. Molesters are so 'successful' at what they do because fearful children make easy prey, even if they have been educated about it. Brainwashing is easy enough with adults, its far more simple with a child.
There is a simple and elegant solution to all of this. Instead of escalating spirals of regulation and escapes from regulation, how about this: we do nothing at all to regulate kiddie porn distribution on the internet. I offer this point as the start because I think most people will agree that the internet cannot be effectively regulated for content by anyone except the end user. The same is true of the remote on my tv. It will let me access anything with a password, but my kids don't get to watch the channels I don't want them to. Works great.
So now what about the abuse and molestation of children?
We keep doing it as we always have. Community (definable as anywhere between country and municipality) standards for definition and possession of child pornography with swift and severe punishments for offenders and molesters. You know what your community standards are, and all communities do have their own standards for this sort of thing. We self-police where we can and don't do the typical American overzealous response of policing the world to safeguard our block.
This "children are supposed to be innocent" bullshit started with moronic Christians and has nothing to do with human evolution or human history or practically any human culture.
I don't think many people still think the tabla raza view of child development is a valid one, and frankly I don't understand how anyone who has ever been near a young child could think its true. Romantic era idealism perhaps? I'm a Christian, and the last time I checked, neither I, my church, my Bible, or anything else declared children as 'innocent'. If anything the oposite is true, hence the belief in a need for redemption. Feel free to hate us if you like, but at least hate us for the right reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? The patient visit is protected by some of the strongest confidentiality laws in the country. Any breach in that confidentiality without the permission of the patient is a grievous violation of both medical ethics and the law. Of course, there are exceptions for things that must be reported (ie. a case of tuberculosis or child abuse), but overall a physician has no ability to air feelings or statements about a patient in a public forum. They can lose their license, their practice, and their reputation, which is everything. Confidentiality laws are designed to protect patients, not physicians.
People say things anonymously because they fear reprisal or punishment. I have posted here anonymously, when it seemed risky or inappropriate to do so. I have no problems with anonymity, but even Amazon recognizes that an anonymous opinion is worthless.
Recently, at a practice I'm familiar with, a patient pulled a knife on a physician who refused to prescribe him unnecessary pain killers (read: narcotics). They were arrested, of course, and thankfully no one was hurt, but this person is free to post whatever they want anywhere they want, under as many usernames as they want, to try to get revenge. One person, if they are dedicated, could shatter that physician's career.
I would venture to say that 99% of doctors aren't out to screw people. If you don't get along well with you physician, find another one. If you think impropriety or malpractice was involved, file an official complaint. Review boards are ITCHING to remove doctors from practice. Because it increases public trust, and decreases the number of quacks out there. If that doesn't work, there are always lawsuits and the internet, but I'm afraid most people skip to the end of the process, and careers are destroyed far more often and far more inappropriately than is commonly known.
IM(not so)HO
After you RTFA and think to yourself "I haven't heard that much non-sensical technobabble since Star Trek!" head over to Wiki's Plasma Cosmology page. Or this more detailed page. Its contested, mainly because this is a contested field and the article is overly broad, but I think it fills in some of the holes.
Honestly if their predictions are true it will change everything in cosmology. And if my predictions are true I'll win the Lotto. I'm not sure who has better odds....
I'm sure you've heard it before, and you will hear it again, but in my humble experience networking is the best (the only?) way of breaking into the tech industry. Ask a friend at the company you're applying to, a former boss, contacts from conferences, etc. if they would be willing to submit your resume and give you a recommendation at their company. Many companies will look more favorably upon recommendation from within. Even consider asking former coworkers if they'd be willing to put in a good word at their old job: anything to lift you out of that cold-calling pile. Networking.
:-P
Beyond that, I don't have much. But I would definately at least Include a cover letter. If you don't its going to look like you don't care, and thats the last thing you want.
*now I'll sit back and wait to be corrected*
How many people would be fully aware of all the implications of adding 'nonspontaneous'? And how many who Do know the difference between a spontaneous and nonspontaneous reaction wouldn't also assume the nonspontaniety?
Would you feel any more informed if they had mentioned the dangers of 'spontaneous' explosive dihydronmonoxide recombination inherent to the process?
(Sorry! Somebody had to make the joke!) =)
You don't really have to worry about the divers breathing pure oxygen. They won't be. They'll be breating a mix similar to air.
The process of lowering the pressure around the seawater will lead to the release of all disolved gasses, not just oxygen. I didn't notice anything about a co2 scrubber, so I think its safe to say that the inhaled gasses will be similar in content to whatever is disolved in the ocean.
At atmospheric level, air is: ~73% nitrogen, ~23% oxygen, ~2% carbon dioxide, ~2% other, if I recall correctly, and I don't think that the solubility constants are signifigantly different in salt water to throw off those percentages that much. If anything its probably less rich in oxygen and more carbon dioxide enriched at greater depths due to marine life respiration.
With a system like this, it might even be possible to remove some of the nitrogen from the breathing mix with a second step. This would allow unlimited dive times without the nitrogen buildup that results in the bends if you stay down too long.
My little LG Vx 3100 (may it rest in peace) was the perfect little phone until that unfortunate cement mixer incident. Too bad that LG doesn't make them any more.
Its about time that someone was able to make a plain phone that works as a... wait for it... a phone!!
1) Connects well to the tower
2) Long Battery life
3) Fits in my pocket
4) Quick button response time
5) That's it! Nothing else!
Is that too much to ask? They could charge me more for such a device and I would not care.
But seriously, now they just need to take this one by Vodafone out back and beat the ugly out of it until it looks good again.
Wether we agree with them or not, listening and valuing people of alternative viewpoints is exactly what freedom is all about. Be they bigots, the kkk, the aclu, anti-microsoft zealots, or my grandma, their opinions are all of equal worth in a relativistic and free society such as ours.
Wether we agree with them or not, their ideas and arguments listened to and considered, otherwise we are just as bigoted as they.
-The funniest thing I have ever seen was a man on a tirade against fundamentalists because they were not being more tolerant. Unfortunately for him, he never saw the irony.-
But a point mass should not be neccicary, the mass just needs to be perfectly sperical. So long as the distance from the center of the mass is greater than the radius of the mass + a few wavelengths to eleminate defraction, there should be no difference how the gravity field is generated. It simply needs to be uniformly constant for all points in every concentric shell larger than the mass. Am I right?
Unfortunately, the deflection of a beam of light from a 1kg mass would be so infinitesimally small, that it would be nearly impossible to measure except over stellar or perhaps galactic distances, and how far from the center of the mass should the light be? This will influence the measurement also. They key is not to pick another arbitrary unit, but to explicitly define an existing constant, Avocado's [sic] constant, or Planck's constant.
count the number of atoms in the platinum-iridium alloy
And how do you propose we do that? That's exactly why the article was talking about using x-ray crystallography, but you just can't do that on a 1kg block of iridium-platinum alloy.
Why the motivation for the change? The mass of subatomic particles have been given in kg for over a century. What exactly needs a more precisely reference of measurement? Physicists use their own units when it's convenient anyway. . . .
Lets say someone disputes the mass of a kilogram at the 10^-8 digit: In order to verify this cylinder has to be re-weighed. Not only is this inconvenient, but if someone has polished it or even 1 pg of dust has fallen on it, the precise weight is no longer repeatable, and is a ludicrous basis for measuring the mass of subatomic particles.
But more importantly, there are many standard units in SI that have an uncertainty of 0, the speed of light, and the second among them. The kilogram however, has non-zero uncertainty, which keeps us from refining other measurements that are based on the kilogram. So if we can measure the kilogram exactly, based of a physical constant in the universe and not a block of fickle matter, then we can measure other units either exactly or with higher precision.
The whole point is that the kilogram is not defined precisely enough, and its current referent is variable, which makes other measurements variable and imprecise.
I think the shockingly absent outrage/response to adware has more to do with lack of awareness than anything else.
We all have gotten used to the idea of planned obselesence. From your car that is "old" after 3 years to your computer which was the absolute best until about 15 seconds after you bought it; most people expect their computers to run more slowly with time. And while popups suck, many people just don't really equate popups with adware. To them, its just "one of those things" that happen to PCs, especially when connect to that darned internet. I've worked in numerous offices that were about to buy a new set of PCs because their existing ones were "old and slow." After 30 minutes of AVG and SpySweeper they were amazed at the power of their "outdated" computer.
IMHO, Even when you include the viruses that go with spam, it seems like adware does much more to reduce producivity, hands down.
Alas, with SPAM we all see media 'orange alert's lasting for several days like:
"You computer will eat your first born and wreck your car if you open this email!!!"
But who has seen something like that for adware? How many people really know what it is or does?
We gotta get the word out! Alert the press! The baby eating, credit card stealing, nazi adware legions are headed straight for your comptuer! And if you don't uninstall them, Santa will be shot! That should wake some people up.
Most nuclear weapons in that era were transported with there core's removed. If the weapon was to be used, it would be armed by the physical insertion of the fissile core into the high explosive trigger system.
Essentially, a plutonium based fission device operates through a Highly complicated system of focused explosions crafted to compress the plutonium core evenly from all angles to create a supercritical mass. This is a very complicated and technical explosive. Accidental detination by overheating will generally not result in a uniform explosion, so the core will not begin to fiz.
A uranium weapon works by the rapid combination of 2 sub critical masses to form a supercritical mass. If these aren't brought together rapidly enough the ensuing reaction will blow itself apart before the mass has a chance to really get going (about 70 generations of fission reactions).
So, a nuclear weapon needs a lot of high powered explosives to get going. To be extra safe, the fissile material and the explosives are kept seperate to prevent a nuclear disaster in the event of an accidental explosion. Without those high explosives AND the fissile core, there is No Way to detonate a nuclear device. Any radiation that is still present is no doubt from the radioactivity imparted to the casing when it was exposed to the nuclear core.
But this has the same problem! You can't tell where the cell phone is either.
There is no "harm" done to anyone (including people who are already freaks) - including children - from viewing porn or anything else. Any "harm" is self-inflicted. ... Any parents who buy into this crap are themselves doing harm to their children by not properly training them to deal with human reality.
You must never have had a childhood or had children yourself. Do you honestly claim that all children, regardless of age, are perfectly able to defend themselves? I have frequently seen children be quite beligerent to authority, but always when they thought that authority could successfully be challenged. Molesters are so 'successful' at what they do because fearful children make easy prey, even if they have been educated about it. Brainwashing is easy enough with adults, its far more simple with a child.
There is a simple and elegant solution to all of this. Instead of escalating spirals of regulation and escapes from regulation, how about this: we do nothing at all to regulate kiddie porn distribution on the internet. I offer this point as the start because I think most people will agree that the internet cannot be effectively regulated for content by anyone except the end user. The same is true of the remote on my tv. It will let me access anything with a password, but my kids don't get to watch the channels I don't want them to. Works great.
So now what about the abuse and molestation of children?
We keep doing it as we always have. Community (definable as anywhere between country and municipality) standards for definition and possession of child pornography with swift and severe punishments for offenders and molesters. You know what your community standards are, and all communities do have their own standards for this sort of thing. We self-police where we can and don't do the typical American overzealous response of policing the world to safeguard our block.
This "children are supposed to be innocent" bullshit started with moronic Christians and has nothing to do with human evolution or human history or practically any human culture.
I don't think many people still think the tabla raza view of child development is a valid one, and frankly I don't understand how anyone who has ever been near a young child could think its true. Romantic era idealism perhaps? I'm a Christian, and the last time I checked, neither I, my church, my Bible, or anything else declared children as 'innocent'. If anything the oposite is true, hence the belief in a need for redemption. Feel free to hate us if you like, but at least hate us for the right reasons.