The good thing here is that it brings patient closer to the test - when blood travels long distances you begin to see greater variation in the end results. So it is not just about speed, if this little machine gets it right it may also improve accuracy. There is a flip side in that there probably will not be a trained clinician there to interpret and explain the results. Some people (you know who you are) might get all worked up over a slight deviation that is still within normal limits and can be easily dealt with through a modest behavioral change.
I have to agree - I've been trying to find out more on the multi-threading support, something that is strangely lacking detail but you would imagine could be quite popular
I remember when the shoe bomber got arrested - it was the other passengers that first apprehended him on the plan. By the looks of his face I don't think they were particularly pleased with his botched attempt.
Erm - the guy that jumped the ticket barrier. A bunch of explosive devices had just gone off in London on public transport, the police were actively searching for more terrorists. This guy fitted the description of the bombers, had a back pack (as they did) and ran from armed officers towards a train station. I am not surprised he was shot. It was a very unfortunate set of events and his death was a terrible tragedy. But shit happens sometimes.
No one from David Kelly's immediate family are saying anything to suggest they do not accept the verdict of suicide.
Tomlinson died of natural causes - if he hadn't of had his heart attack when he was hit by the officer he would have had it pretty soon after. That is the sad reality of life sometimes.
If the wind blows there are leaves on the ground. But if there are leaves on the ground it is fallacious to infer the wind has blown. Affirming the consequent, if you are at interested...
Simpler is almost always better - and I for one am pleased to see our past more neatly explained. I worry about our willingness to complicate things in the name of science, sometimes.
Now if the NSA actually did something useful and targeted those creating all this spam perhaps they could get a little positive press and goodwill... or maybe not
A bit of skepticism isn't a bad thing when a lot of science gets hyped beyond belief. Or worse, poorly reported. Nuclear fusion could be one of the holy grails of science right now - it might transform our world unimaginably. I like/. because of this skepticism, it tempers my excitement... in more ways than one
I 100% believe the theory of evolution provides the best fit with the available data. But stating any theory is a "fact" and "incontrovertible" is just too far. One of the issues is that it is hard to experimentally falsify the thoery of evolution. Either we are scientists and honest about what we do, or we are not. Get off my lawn.
This is a good point - we have to be careful about how we interpret observations. Science can be easily swayed by social norms, if we are not too careful.
I would seem that the only reliable means of distributing these rootkits, etc., would be to lace existing softeware accordinfy and release onto pirate sites. Am I missing something or doesn't this risk exposing and therefore crippling a whole load of supposedly legitimate corporations who have been shown to use pirated versions of software?
The surveillance footage probably helped identify the bombers. But they were initially apprehended by an MIT campus security officer and while he may well have known who to look for it was his training and bravery that made the most significant impact in this case. So questions about the value of CCTV and other tech to one side, we mustn't forget there is a very important human element in amongst all. I kind of feel it is imporatnt to not lose sight of this.
Why aren't your thoughts with him anyway? Even if he was just pulling the guys over for driving too fast on campus the bottom line is still the same; he's a guy who's dead for just doing his job.
Sorry - I did mean if someone had died, not whether he/she had died in service.
It looks like, from what I can gather from online media etc., that they were carrying explosives to plant around MIT. And it was campus security that first become suspicious. If this is the case, then thoughts are with the campus security officer that gave his life - a lot of students are probably a lot better off because of his bravery. Thoughts are with everyone in boston and hope this is over soon.
I'd hazard a guess there are a fair few parents out there that don't quite understand apps, smart phones and the like. But in the case of UK law, I'd also imagine that there are instances where apps are misleading people to think play is free, but it isn't. If this is the case then they could be falling foul if UK law - a bit like calling something a beef burger when it is actually 75% Winnie-the-Pooh.
I cannot think of anyone who is so dominated by Facebook that they would want it on their home screen. My experience is that text messaging is the dominant use and that does not need a Facebook account.
There is a cost that you are not measuring - I was fortunate enough to work somewhere where we also had some quite awesome food freely available at lunch time. Maybe not to Google standards, but it really was plentiful, fresh and very nice. Needless to say I then spent a small fortune on gym membership to bring my weight back down to almost normal levels.
I think one reason why medics might have a problem sharing is that there are issues if there are suspected psychiatric issues. Imagine a situation that a patient is prone to aggression and the doc thinks this might be related to schizophrenia or something along those lines. In my experience, anyone dealing with patients like this really try hard to keep themselves distant from the patient, in case they turn up on their doorstep... and this does happen. So I would look closely at how the question was worded in this survey. I would imagine most medics can think of at least one person who they would prefer didn't see their notes and for very good reasons. So if the question was along the lines of "should all patients" have access then the answer must be no.
Presumably the idea is that people experiencing reactions to drug combinations will go in the web and look for advice. And in so doing, we can use Google to pick up on this chatter and therefore determine adverse effects. So, the drugs are already on market and out there being consumed. Surely it would be far better to just have good old fashioned surveillance through clinic staff... less noise, etc. i don't see the advantage of using Google to reveal interactions in drugs that are already out there.
I loved it as a kid, as a 20-something there were more interesting things to do. But now as a parent I find it is one of the few programs we all can sit down together and watch.
I, along with many other children, hid behind a sofa because of this guy. An interesting legacy. Both creative and terrifying and I cannot think of anyone who has does similar and touched so many in the process. Cusick had a good innings and, as reformed juvenile sofa dweller, thanks for the memorable scares.
Slashdot Mirror
The good thing here is that it brings patient closer to the test - when blood travels long distances you begin to see greater variation in the end results. So it is not just about speed, if this little machine gets it right it may also improve accuracy. There is a flip side in that there probably will not be a trained clinician there to interpret and explain the results. Some people (you know who you are) might get all worked up over a slight deviation that is still within normal limits and can be easily dealt with through a modest behavioral change.
I have to agree - I've been trying to find out more on the multi-threading support, something that is strangely lacking detail but you would imagine could be quite popular
I remember when the shoe bomber got arrested - it was the other passengers that first apprehended him on the plan. By the looks of his face I don't think they were particularly pleased with his botched attempt.
Erm - the guy that jumped the ticket barrier. A bunch of explosive devices had just gone off in London on public transport, the police were actively searching for more terrorists. This guy fitted the description of the bombers, had a back pack (as they did) and ran from armed officers towards a train station. I am not surprised he was shot. It was a very unfortunate set of events and his death was a terrible tragedy. But shit happens sometimes.
No one from David Kelly's immediate family are saying anything to suggest they do not accept the verdict of suicide.
Tomlinson died of natural causes - if he hadn't of had his heart attack when he was hit by the officer he would have had it pretty soon after. That is the sad reality of life sometimes.
If the wind blows there are leaves on the ground. But if there are leaves on the ground it is fallacious to infer the wind has blown. Affirming the consequent, if you are at interested...
This is not accurate. Speeches made in Parliament are archived in Hansard for a start. And there is no changing that.
Simpler is almost always better - and I for one am pleased to see our past more neatly explained. I worry about our willingness to complicate things in the name of science, sometimes.
Now if the NSA actually did something useful and targeted those creating all this spam perhaps they could get a little positive press and goodwill... or maybe not
A bit of skepticism isn't a bad thing when a lot of science gets hyped beyond belief. Or worse, poorly reported. Nuclear fusion could be one of the holy grails of science right now - it might transform our world unimaginably. I like /. because of this skepticism, it tempers my excitement... in more ways than one
I get chills when I see phrases like:
The fact of evolution is incontrovertible
I 100% believe the theory of evolution provides the best fit with the available data. But stating any theory is a "fact" and "incontrovertible" is just too far. One of the issues is that it is hard to experimentally falsify the thoery of evolution. Either we are scientists and honest about what we do, or we are not. Get off my lawn.
This is a good point - we have to be careful about how we interpret observations. Science can be easily swayed by social norms, if we are not too careful.
I would seem that the only reliable means of distributing these rootkits, etc., would be to lace existing softeware accordinfy and release onto pirate sites. Am I missing something or doesn't this risk exposing and therefore crippling a whole load of supposedly legitimate corporations who have been shown to use pirated versions of software?
I sincerely hope for his sake these conflicts of interest are on every one of his published papers and research applications.
The surveillance footage probably helped identify the bombers. But they were initially apprehended by an MIT campus security officer and while he may well have known who to look for it was his training and bravery that made the most significant impact in this case. So questions about the value of CCTV and other tech to one side, we mustn't forget there is a very important human element in amongst all. I kind of feel it is imporatnt to not lose sight of this.
Why aren't your thoughts with him anyway? Even if he was just pulling the guys over for driving too fast on campus the bottom line is still the same; he's a guy who's dead for just doing his job.
Sorry - I did mean if someone had died, not whether he/she had died in service.
It looks like, from what I can gather from online media etc., that they were carrying explosives to plant around MIT. And it was campus security that first become suspicious. If this is the case, then thoughts are with the campus security officer that gave his life - a lot of students are probably a lot better off because of his bravery. Thoughts are with everyone in boston and hope this is over soon.
I'd hazard a guess there are a fair few parents out there that don't quite understand apps, smart phones and the like. But in the case of UK law, I'd also imagine that there are instances where apps are misleading people to think play is free, but it isn't. If this is the case then they could be falling foul if UK law - a bit like calling something a beef burger when it is actually 75% Winnie-the-Pooh.
I cannot think of anyone who is so dominated by Facebook that they would want it on their home screen. My experience is that text messaging is the dominant use and that does not need a Facebook account.
In the blink of an eye all that old Geocities goodness will be wiped away from the eyes of the unsuspecting.
There is a cost that you are not measuring - I was fortunate enough to work somewhere where we also had some quite awesome food freely available at lunch time. Maybe not to Google standards, but it really was plentiful, fresh and very nice. Needless to say I then spent a small fortune on gym membership to bring my weight back down to almost normal levels.
Now I'm hungry again, dammit
I think one reason why medics might have a problem sharing is that there are issues if there are suspected psychiatric issues. Imagine a situation that a patient is prone to aggression and the doc thinks this might be related to schizophrenia or something along those lines. In my experience, anyone dealing with patients like this really try hard to keep themselves distant from the patient, in case they turn up on their doorstep... and this does happen. So I would look closely at how the question was worded in this survey. I would imagine most medics can think of at least one person who they would prefer didn't see their notes and for very good reasons. So if the question was along the lines of "should all patients" have access then the answer must be no.
Presumably the idea is that people experiencing reactions to drug combinations will go in the web and look for advice. And in so doing, we can use Google to pick up on this chatter and therefore determine adverse effects. So, the drugs are already on market and out there being consumed. Surely it would be far better to just have good old fashioned surveillance through clinic staff... less noise, etc. i don't see the advantage of using Google to reveal interactions in drugs that are already out there.
Isn't it a contraction of Scrooge and Google? If so, then my personal feeling is Dickens might have something to say here.
It would be neat to have a nice, light and portable genome sequencer for when I next go eating meat in the UK
I loved it as a kid, as a 20-something there were more interesting things to do. But now as a parent I find it is one of the few programs we all can sit down together and watch.
I, along with many other children, hid behind a sofa because of this guy. An interesting legacy. Both creative and terrifying and I cannot think of anyone who has does similar and touched so many in the process. Cusick had a good innings and, as reformed juvenile sofa dweller, thanks for the memorable scares.