1) They're not interns, they're fellows. Big difference. In fact, they are already specialists - Foreman is a neurologist, Cameron is an immunologist. Note that Foreman has basically been offered House's job multiple times.
2) Yeah, I'm not sure which is more unbelievable: that, or the idea that Cuddy would still be in charge after letting him run loose like that.
On the other hand, research is showing that in some cases very low doses of radiation can be effective at getting rid of the cancer without most of the long-term side effects. In the type of cancer I had (Hodgkin's Lymphoma), chemo is used to get rid of any cancer big enough to show up on a PET scan, then in some cases radiation is used in order to ensure that it doesn't come back (in other words, to kill off bits that are too small to show up on the scan). Traditionally, a 4-6 week course of radiation lowered the recurrence rate, but also raised the rates of secondary cancers, heart disease, etc high enough that the overall 10-15 year survival rate with or without radiation wasn't much different.
However, when less than half the old dose is used, the recurrence rate falls just as much, but the odds of long-term side effects is also greatly reduced. The article isn't really saying that radiation is less dangerous, but that the amounts produced by these disasters are lower than previously thought, and so lead to fewer deaths than assumed. And these low doses aren't nearly as dangerous as higher doses. So sure, if you lived down the street from Chernobyl, you were screwed. But if you lived a couple miles away and only got a Gray or so, chances are it wasn't a big problem.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but my understanding is that the way the lawsuits are working, people are sued for offering files in a public directory for sharing - regardless of whether there is any evidence that anyone ever downloaded the songs from them or not. That act is what the RIAA is counting as copyright infringement. They are not suing people for downloading the songs, only for uploading them. I'm not personally clear on whether or not that means that downloading isn't infringement, because you'd think if it were, they'd be suing for it, too.
Of course, if they wanted to go down that route, they couldn't possibly justify suing two people for the exact same file copied, could they? They'd be reduced to finding only people who ripped their own CDs and put them online; anyone who then downloaded and re-uploaded them would be covered by the original person's fees.
I mean, I have no doubt at all that they *could* find *some* way to justify it, but I would hope that if the courts allowed an experiment like you describe, they would also conclude that that total amount could only be collected once, whether from the original person or from all the people put together.
I'm pretty sure the RIAA doesn't sue people, the record companies do. But every time an RIAA member is featured here because of their suing, they're referred to as "the RIAA."
If they wanted to go after the low-end market, they wouldn't need to go with cheap manufacturing or licensing the OS. Right now, when the latest and greatest processor comes out, it replaces their top-of-the-line and whatever was on the bottom falls off the face of the earth - and usually the price points stay the same for top, middle, and bottom. Now that they've had a few iterations on Intel, all they'd have to do was next time they upgrade, keep the bottom option around at a cheaper price instead of ceasing to produce it. Voila, a low-end Mac. Identical to a high-end Mac someone bought a year or two ago.
For instance, there could easily be a sub-$1000 iMac if they'd kept producing them with a 1.83 GHz processor after introducing the latest batch. They could even have given it the new casing. Or they could be selling a 1.5GHz mini for $400. But for some reason they don't want to do that - probably because it would have lower profit margins, and/or eat into sales of the higher-end models. Either way, if it made financial sense for Apple to do it, it wouldn't be hard for them to do. So it must not make financial sense. Personally, I highly recommend that anyone looking for a deal on a Mac look for a 1-2 year old used model.
Wow, that is really shitty, making the bills look like junk mail. But honestly, I can't imagine not checking on an account that's supposed to have payments going out of it, no matter how much money is in it. But I've had a couple experiences (a student loan whose bill was going to an address I'd never lived at, a hospital who sent my account to collections before insurance even paid on it) that have led me to be extra-anal about watching every direction money could go in or out of. I'm also too paranoid to use auto-pay for anything that doesn't require it, because of the possibility of glitches like that one. At least if I forget to pay something, it's only going to happen one month. I'll catch it when I go to pay the next month and the bill is higher. (If I forget to pay a bill two months in a row, there is something very wrong.)
I can't believe that there are people out there who DON'T follow some of these rules. Who gets a bill and ignores it? If I got a bill or a statement from a company I didn't think should be charging me for anything, I'd be all over it. And who takes credit cards with annual fees unless your credit is SO bad you can't get ANYTHING else, or you know for sure you'll get tons more than that back in rewards that you couldn't get on a free card? Sometimes I really think that personal finance needs to be a high school requirement.
They only have 1-2% right now - which means that if they get only 9% of that 44%, they will have tripled their market share. If they manage to get the whole 25% that claims to be switching in the next year, they'll have 16-17% total, which while not nearly enough to knock MS out of the ring, is certainly a shakeup. Look what happened when Firefox approached those numbers - lots of websites that had claimed to be IE-only started paying attention (though not all), MS actually got around to updating IE, etc. If non-Windows OSes managed to get above 10% share in the business world, it would not be insignificant, even though Forrester's prediction of MS "winning out" would still be true.
The survey, echoing one from Forrester last week, shows most IT professionals are worried about Vista and that 44% have considered non-Windows operating systems, such as Linux and Macintosh, to avoid the Microsoft migration.
"Have considered" is present perfect tense, not past tense, and is more nebulous when it comes to the time frame. But the grammar lesson isn't the main point.
They are clearly using it to refer both to people who are in the process of switching AND people who considered it at some point in the past - if they weren't, then saying that 9% of these people are in the process of switching would be complete nonsense. Yes, most likely a significant portion have given up on switching - but you cannot say that it's the entire 2/3 who are not switching in the next year based on what it says in the article. Sure, you can guess, but the article does not say one way or the other.
Where does it say that 2/3 of them have decided not to switch? It says that 44% have considered (present perfect, not past tense) it, 25% of those expect to switch in the next year, and 9% of them are already switching. It does NOT say anything about the status of the other 2/3 of the 44% - they may have just started thinking about it but not made any decisions, they may have abandoned the idea, they may be serious about it but think they're more than a year away from actually getting the new machines. Yes, I'm sure that a good chunk have abandoned it, but it does not say that in the article.
"Clearly many companies are serious about this alternative, with 9% of those saying they have considered non-Windows operating systems already in the process of switching and a further 25% expecting to switch within the next year," the report "Windows Vista Adoption and Alternatives" reads.
So about a third of that 44% have at least made it past your first two stages, and some of those are in the final stage.
Of course, back then, the Apple alternative was a little thing called 10.1 that seemed somewhat interesting, but had yet to be proven (and 10.0 had not exactly been amazing), and most of the apps had to be run in Classic Mode.
Now, the alternative is an OS that rivals Vista in the amount of hype it's gotten and at a bare minimum at least has support for MS Office and Adobe CS products (and has a couple different ways to run your XP/Vista programs if you really need one or two of them).
And, of course, Linux has come a long way as well - in 2001 it definitely was not user-friendly enough to be seen as a viable alternative for a lot of companies. Now not only has it improved its interface in a lot of ways, it has a much better software selection - a lot of office drones can get by just fine on OO.o instead of Office, people are using Firefox instead of IE even in windows, etc.
Everyone keeps saying "the same thing happened with XP" - but it's a different world now than it was when SP came out. No, I don't think Vista is going to be a MS-crushing flop. But when everything shakes out a couple years down the road, I think that the market share figures will definitely look a little different, even if MS still has a majority share.
I guess you've got your spam filters turned off then, eh? You'd rather filter it yourself with the good ol' noggin than have some lazy-assed "service" decide for you.
Wow, someone who doesn't think that IM is only for misspelled one-liners or that facebook is only for posting pictures of yourself drunk! I swear, some of the posters above make me feel like a teenager again, trying to explain what spam is to my grandmother, and why sending a letter to the president of AOL would not be an effective way to stop it.
It's not very useful when you have to discuss Johnny's grades and why he is not turning in any assignments.
Why wouldn't it be? I don't understand all these people saying that IM isn't for serious conversations. As I just posted above, I recently had a 3-way chat with my mom and sister about caring for my grandmother, who just broke her hip. Email would not have worked, 3-way phone would have been OK but we wouldn't have a record of it. Plus, since we talked for 2 hours, my phone would have run out of batteries.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, I would not make jokes about any other thousand-year-old elf either, as they likely have powers beyond our imagination.
Oh, whatever. You know no one on House can go into a scanner and not nearly die. Play that part up and you've got plenty of time.
2) Yeah, I'm not sure which is more unbelievable: that, or the idea that Cuddy would still be in charge after letting him run loose like that.
However, when less than half the old dose is used, the recurrence rate falls just as much, but the odds of long-term side effects is also greatly reduced. The article isn't really saying that radiation is less dangerous, but that the amounts produced by these disasters are lower than previously thought, and so lead to fewer deaths than assumed. And these low doses aren't nearly as dangerous as higher doses. So sure, if you lived down the street from Chernobyl, you were screwed. But if you lived a couple miles away and only got a Gray or so, chances are it wasn't a big problem.
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, but my understanding is that the way the lawsuits are working, people are sued for offering files in a public directory for sharing - regardless of whether there is any evidence that anyone ever downloaded the songs from them or not. That act is what the RIAA is counting as copyright infringement. They are not suing people for downloading the songs, only for uploading them. I'm not personally clear on whether or not that means that downloading isn't infringement, because you'd think if it were, they'd be suing for it, too.
I mean, I have no doubt at all that they *could* find *some* way to justify it, but I would hope that if the courts allowed an experiment like you describe, they would also conclude that that total amount could only be collected once, whether from the original person or from all the people put together.
Well, the people who couldn't get into MIT had to go somewhere, didn't they?
It's a reply to a post that got modded down far enough that you can't see it by default anymore. I was confused at first, too.
Do you have anything to back that up? Or have you just received a couple banged-up packages?
I'm pretty sure the RIAA doesn't sue people, the record companies do. But every time an RIAA member is featured here because of their suing, they're referred to as "the RIAA."
For instance, there could easily be a sub-$1000 iMac if they'd kept producing them with a 1.83 GHz processor after introducing the latest batch. They could even have given it the new casing. Or they could be selling a 1.5GHz mini for $400. But for some reason they don't want to do that - probably because it would have lower profit margins, and/or eat into sales of the higher-end models. Either way, if it made financial sense for Apple to do it, it wouldn't be hard for them to do. So it must not make financial sense. Personally, I highly recommend that anyone looking for a deal on a Mac look for a 1-2 year old used model.
Wow, that is really shitty, making the bills look like junk mail. But honestly, I can't imagine not checking on an account that's supposed to have payments going out of it, no matter how much money is in it. But I've had a couple experiences (a student loan whose bill was going to an address I'd never lived at, a hospital who sent my account to collections before insurance even paid on it) that have led me to be extra-anal about watching every direction money could go in or out of. I'm also too paranoid to use auto-pay for anything that doesn't require it, because of the possibility of glitches like that one. At least if I forget to pay something, it's only going to happen one month. I'll catch it when I go to pay the next month and the bill is higher. (If I forget to pay a bill two months in a row, there is something very wrong.)
I can't believe that there are people out there who DON'T follow some of these rules. Who gets a bill and ignores it? If I got a bill or a statement from a company I didn't think should be charging me for anything, I'd be all over it. And who takes credit cards with annual fees unless your credit is SO bad you can't get ANYTHING else, or you know for sure you'll get tons more than that back in rewards that you couldn't get on a free card? Sometimes I really think that personal finance needs to be a high school requirement.
What a superbly mature reply. Good job. You really made your case.
They only have 1-2% right now - which means that if they get only 9% of that 44%, they will have tripled their market share. If they manage to get the whole 25% that claims to be switching in the next year, they'll have 16-17% total, which while not nearly enough to knock MS out of the ring, is certainly a shakeup. Look what happened when Firefox approached those numbers - lots of websites that had claimed to be IE-only started paying attention (though not all), MS actually got around to updating IE, etc. If non-Windows OSes managed to get above 10% share in the business world, it would not be insignificant, even though Forrester's prediction of MS "winning out" would still be true.
The survey, echoing one from Forrester last week, shows most IT professionals are worried about Vista and that 44% have considered non-Windows operating systems, such as Linux and Macintosh, to avoid the Microsoft migration.
"Have considered" is present perfect tense, not past tense, and is more nebulous when it comes to the time frame. But the grammar lesson isn't the main point.
They are clearly using it to refer both to people who are in the process of switching AND people who considered it at some point in the past - if they weren't, then saying that 9% of these people are in the process of switching would be complete nonsense. Yes, most likely a significant portion have given up on switching - but you cannot say that it's the entire 2/3 who are not switching in the next year based on what it says in the article. Sure, you can guess, but the article does not say one way or the other.
Yep, they're as confused as everyone else. If anything, they're the ones creating the confusion in the first place.
Your link took me to a different caption. Here's the one you meant: http://lolcatgenerator.com/downloads/lolcat-339-5268.jpg
Where does it say that 2/3 of them have decided not to switch? It says that 44% have considered (present perfect, not past tense) it, 25% of those expect to switch in the next year, and 9% of them are already switching. It does NOT say anything about the status of the other 2/3 of the 44% - they may have just started thinking about it but not made any decisions, they may have abandoned the idea, they may be serious about it but think they're more than a year away from actually getting the new machines. Yes, I'm sure that a good chunk have abandoned it, but it does not say that in the article.
"Clearly many companies are serious about this alternative, with 9% of those saying they have considered non-Windows operating systems already in the process of switching and a further 25% expecting to switch within the next year," the report "Windows Vista Adoption and Alternatives" reads.
So about a third of that 44% have at least made it past your first two stages, and some of those are in the final stage.
The 9% that have already started moving to non-MS OSes (and the nearly half that are considering it) must not have gotten the memo.
Now, the alternative is an OS that rivals Vista in the amount of hype it's gotten and at a bare minimum at least has support for MS Office and Adobe CS products (and has a couple different ways to run your XP/Vista programs if you really need one or two of them).
And, of course, Linux has come a long way as well - in 2001 it definitely was not user-friendly enough to be seen as a viable alternative for a lot of companies. Now not only has it improved its interface in a lot of ways, it has a much better software selection - a lot of office drones can get by just fine on OO.o instead of Office, people are using Firefox instead of IE even in windows, etc.
Everyone keeps saying "the same thing happened with XP" - but it's a different world now than it was when SP came out. No, I don't think Vista is going to be a MS-crushing flop. But when everything shakes out a couple years down the road, I think that the market share figures will definitely look a little different, even if MS still has a majority share.
I guess you've got your spam filters turned off then, eh? You'd rather filter it yourself with the good ol' noggin than have some lazy-assed "service" decide for you.
Wow, someone who doesn't think that IM is only for misspelled one-liners or that facebook is only for posting pictures of yourself drunk! I swear, some of the posters above make me feel like a teenager again, trying to explain what spam is to my grandmother, and why sending a letter to the president of AOL would not be an effective way to stop it.
Why wouldn't it be? I don't understand all these people saying that IM isn't for serious conversations. As I just posted above, I recently had a 3-way chat with my mom and sister about caring for my grandmother, who just broke her hip. Email would not have worked, 3-way phone would have been OK but we wouldn't have a record of it. Plus, since we talked for 2 hours, my phone would have run out of batteries.