That would actually probably do more harm than good.
1. It would fork the R&D road and dillute the present efforts at finding a universal vaccine.
2. It would shunt money into the big pharma marketing machine in the meantime.
3. It would create competition among similar products, adding unneeded confusion to a complicated situation where simplicity is very important. You don't want patients having even a little doubt or question about whether they're getting the "right" vaccine.
4. When something more universal DID come out, the competition would become even more fierce and you would end up with a more convoluted and charged atmosphere.
Vaccines have been rejected which are 99% effective in most people, or which are 100% effective in specific subsets of the population. It's because when you're dealing with 6 billion people, small percentages translate to real problems. Economies of scale are not just for server farms and the stock market.
That's not exactly right, but it's close. All opiates (and opiOIDS) work primarily by binding the mu receptor in both the peripheral and central nervous systems. After that point, there is still a lot of unknown in what actually happens with respect to specific signaling cascades, etc. But that's not a result of lack of understanding regarding the pharmacology of opiates/opioids, but rather a lack of understanding what actual biochemical signals/processes/cascades are responsible for producing "pain."
The actual addiction part is not just from what happens to various levels of chemicals when you apply and then remove the drug, but to a larger extent is caused by what actually happens to the number/density of receptors themselves. A difficult problem to combat.
The problem, as many other posts here about heroin and morphine allude to, is that any compound that works via these receptors will cause similar addictive effects. The only way to avoid that it to change the way that the drug targets receptors. But, if you do that, then it's not really fair to have this article. i.e., it would then make about as much sense to say "Pepto Bismol relieves stomach pain without the addictive effects of heroin!" In other words - duh! They're not the same thing.
The reason the mu receptor is a common pain medicine target is because it is SO effective at block pain signals. But, as with so many other things posted here, there is no free lunch. You want big time pain relief? Mu receptors are the way to go. But that means issues with addiction/withdrawal/etc.
Re:Does it have a "healing brush"?
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
Honestly - that looks terrible. The first click, which removes the big 95% is the only impressive thing. In the video, as he trys to refine the selection into something that's actually clean and ready for real use, the limitations of the tool become very, very visible. Masking in photoshop is just as fast, and does a much better job.
On a related note, what's with having to go all the way to the left in order to adjust brush size? That's a right click at any point on the image in photoshop.
Wow. That's the second comment you made in this discussion that is way, way off base. Sticking just to this one, though...
The reason you vaccinate the birds IS to save us. Yes, it sucks if 90% of some enormous chicken flock in a third world country dies, and thus lots of people have no food. But it sucks way worse if either 1)The virus spreads to tons and tons of third world countries and ALL the chickens die 2)The virus mutates and jumps to us, and we spread it to each other.
Vaccinating the birds means you break the chain of spread. Just like building a fire break around a roaring wildfire.
The overall solution, of course, being what other's have already mentioned: Mandatory integration (or even "strongly encouraged integration") with Google Checkout. That's definately not going to be a free service. Thus, one could speculate that lost "per click" fees could be more than made up by getting a ton of people using the payment service.
Losing that $0.30 from a few clicks vs making $3 from a transaction fee when somebody buys a product is more than a fair trade.
They've got shareholders to keep happy, so you can bet they're not going to suddenly turn off an enormous revenue stream without something waiting in the wings.
Plus, what about sites that buy ads but don't sell anything? I run a site, for example, that purchases adwords ads (for VERY tightly defined keyword phrases) simply to get people to visit, i.e., the "mindshare" mentioned in the GP. I don't sell anything at all, and in fact, am completely non-commercial. Are they going to keep charging me the same way? Because that seems pretty unfair.
MRSA is worth paying attention to, yes, but it's not some kind of crazy superbug like it's often portrayed in the media.
It's not any harder to kill than any of the other staph species, it just happens to be resistant to certain antibiotics. Vancomycin is not becoming "less effective" at killing MRSA. And there are a host of antibiotics that kill MRSA very effectively. The reason that vancomycin is a "first line" antibiotic for MRSA is because 1. We know it works 2. It's actually a pretty well tolerated drug.
The fact is that there are several "bigger, badder" antibiotics after vancomycin, but more than that, MRSA is vulnerable to cheap, old antibiotics like Tetracycline. We don't use those older drugs to routinely treat MRSA for a variety of reasons (side effect profiles being one of them) but I have seen it done a number of times.
A growing % of MRSA is also what is called "community aquired MRSA" and is sensitive to a variety of antibiotics, and can actually be treated on an outpatient basis.
I think the next big wave of treatment options for resistant strains of bacteria will not be newer and better antibiotics, but rather a reexamination of drugs that are already within our toolkit, but have fallen out of favor as newer drugs were introduced and heavily marketed by drug companies because of their higher cost and better margins.
That's what they're called. "Tumor Suppression Genes" They're called "Tumor Suppression Genes" because that's their job - to suppress the development of tumors. The problem arises when they become mutated in some way and are no longer able to perform this function.
All the "big" genes involved in cancer are either tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes, which have exactly the reverse effect. An oncogene, in it's normal state, is not very active. When they become mutated, they get VERY active, and actually lead to the production of tumorgenic cells. It's a "gain of function" mutation in this case, versus the "loss of function" mutation in the case of tumor suppression genes.
What a misleading article. While it isn't surprising that a high contact, repeatedly used device, with focal points of contact will have a very high concentration of little bugs and such, this is a great example of halfway reporting at it's finest.
The density of bacteria on your skin is much higher than that cited for the keyboard. The fungal density on the keyboard is pretty high, but that's not an issue - your friendly little skin bugs happily outcompete them very quickly. If you want to see a really high density of pretty bad bacteria, check out your GI tract. In other words - so what? Guess where those bacteria on the keyboard came from? Your hands. Or the hands of others, true, but the velvety bacterial sheath that encases us all is pretty much the same from person to person. Unless you've been letting a leper type up his memoirs, don't sweat it.
The only really scary study I've ever read regarding bacterial densities, etc. was one done a few years ago that looked at the density of pathogenic bacteria on various surfaces in the hospital. That was pretty wild, and probably the best argument for hand washing I've ever seen.
TFA says that Apple, for example, might be charged a nickle or dime per song to make sure that the data transfers completely and quickly. Ignoring the big bad implications of the word "completely," I just dont' get it.
Apple doesn't magically or arbitrarily produce it's own bandwidth. They have, at some level, an ISP, which they pay for a certain amount of bandwidth use.
That ISP also has a carrier, and the ISP pays that carrier.
And so forth...
So, if Apple is already paying for their bandwidth, why do they have to pay again? I just don't understand. The only analogy that I can come up with as a comparison is like renting a car that the rental company has leased. In this case, if you go to Enterprise and pay to rent a car that they have in turn leased from GM, does GM come after you for an "extra fee" because you drove 1,000 miles? Is that the kind of situation that's being explained here?
Slashdot Mirror
That would actually probably do more harm than good.
1. It would fork the R&D road and dillute the present efforts at finding a universal vaccine.
2. It would shunt money into the big pharma marketing machine in the meantime.
3. It would create competition among similar products, adding unneeded confusion to a complicated situation where simplicity is very important. You don't want patients having even a little doubt or question about whether they're getting the "right" vaccine.
4. When something more universal DID come out, the competition would become even more fierce and you would end up with a more convoluted and charged atmosphere.
Vaccines have been rejected which are 99% effective in most people, or which are 100% effective in specific subsets of the population. It's because when you're dealing with 6 billion people, small percentages translate to real problems. Economies of scale are not just for server farms and the stock market.
That's not exactly right, but it's close. All opiates (and opiOIDS) work primarily by binding the mu receptor in both the peripheral and central nervous systems. After that point, there is still a lot of unknown in what actually happens with respect to specific signaling cascades, etc. But that's not a result of lack of understanding regarding the pharmacology of opiates/opioids, but rather a lack of understanding what actual biochemical signals/processes/cascades are responsible for producing "pain."
The actual addiction part is not just from what happens to various levels of chemicals when you apply and then remove the drug, but to a larger extent is caused by what actually happens to the number/density of receptors themselves. A difficult problem to combat.
The problem, as many other posts here about heroin and morphine allude to, is that any compound that works via these receptors will cause similar addictive effects. The only way to avoid that it to change the way that the drug targets receptors. But, if you do that, then it's not really fair to have this article. i.e., it would then make about as much sense to say "Pepto Bismol relieves stomach pain without the addictive effects of heroin!" In other words - duh! They're not the same thing.
The reason the mu receptor is a common pain medicine target is because it is SO effective at block pain signals. But, as with so many other things posted here, there is no free lunch. You want big time pain relief? Mu receptors are the way to go. But that means issues with addiction/withdrawal/etc.
Honestly - that looks terrible. The first click, which removes the big 95% is the only impressive thing. In the video, as he trys to refine the selection into something that's actually clean and ready for real use, the limitations of the tool become very, very visible. Masking in photoshop is just as fast, and does a much better job.
On a related note, what's with having to go all the way to the left in order to adjust brush size? That's a right click at any point on the image in photoshop.
Wow. That's the second comment you made in this discussion that is way, way off base. Sticking just to this one, though...
The reason you vaccinate the birds IS to save us. Yes, it sucks if 90% of some enormous chicken flock in a third world country dies, and thus lots of people have no food. But it sucks way worse if either 1)The virus spreads to tons and tons of third world countries and ALL the chickens die 2)The virus mutates and jumps to us, and we spread it to each other.
Vaccinating the birds means you break the chain of spread. Just like building a fire break around a roaring wildfire.
The overall solution, of course, being what other's have already mentioned: Mandatory integration (or even "strongly encouraged integration") with Google Checkout. That's definately not going to be a free service. Thus, one could speculate that lost "per click" fees could be more than made up by getting a ton of people using the payment service.
Losing that $0.30 from a few clicks vs making $3 from a transaction fee when somebody buys a product is more than a fair trade.
They've got shareholders to keep happy, so you can bet they're not going to suddenly turn off an enormous revenue stream without something waiting in the wings.
Plus, what about sites that buy ads but don't sell anything? I run a site, for example, that purchases adwords ads (for VERY tightly defined keyword phrases) simply to get people to visit, i.e., the "mindshare" mentioned in the GP. I don't sell anything at all, and in fact, am completely non-commercial. Are they going to keep charging me the same way? Because that seems pretty unfair.
MRSA is worth paying attention to, yes, but it's not some kind of crazy superbug like it's often portrayed in the media.
It's not any harder to kill than any of the other staph species, it just happens to be resistant to certain antibiotics. Vancomycin is not becoming "less effective" at killing MRSA. And there are a host of antibiotics that kill MRSA very effectively. The reason that vancomycin is a "first line" antibiotic for MRSA is because 1. We know it works 2. It's actually a pretty well tolerated drug.
The fact is that there are several "bigger, badder" antibiotics after vancomycin, but more than that, MRSA is vulnerable to cheap, old antibiotics like Tetracycline. We don't use those older drugs to routinely treat MRSA for a variety of reasons (side effect profiles being one of them) but I have seen it done a number of times.
A growing % of MRSA is also what is called "community aquired MRSA" and is sensitive to a variety of antibiotics, and can actually be treated on an outpatient basis.
I think the next big wave of treatment options for resistant strains of bacteria will not be newer and better antibiotics, but rather a reexamination of drugs that are already within our toolkit, but have fallen out of favor as newer drugs were introduced and heavily marketed by drug companies because of their higher cost and better margins.
That's what they're called. "Tumor Suppression Genes" They're called "Tumor Suppression Genes" because that's their job - to suppress the development of tumors. The problem arises when they become mutated in some way and are no longer able to perform this function.
All the "big" genes involved in cancer are either tumor suppressor genes or oncogenes, which have exactly the reverse effect. An oncogene, in it's normal state, is not very active. When they become mutated, they get VERY active, and actually lead to the production of tumorgenic cells. It's a "gain of function" mutation in this case, versus the "loss of function" mutation in the case of tumor suppression genes.
What a misleading article. While it isn't surprising that a high contact, repeatedly used device, with focal points of contact will have a very high concentration of little bugs and such, this is a great example of halfway reporting at it's finest.
The density of bacteria on your skin is much higher than that cited for the keyboard. The fungal density on the keyboard is pretty high, but that's not an issue - your friendly little skin bugs happily outcompete them very quickly. If you want to see a really high density of pretty bad bacteria, check out your GI tract. In other words - so what? Guess where those bacteria on the keyboard came from? Your hands. Or the hands of others, true, but the velvety bacterial sheath that encases us all is pretty much the same from person to person. Unless you've been letting a leper type up his memoirs, don't sweat it.
The only really scary study I've ever read regarding bacterial densities, etc. was one done a few years ago that looked at the density of pathogenic bacteria on various surfaces in the hospital. That was pretty wild, and probably the best argument for hand washing I've ever seen.
I fundamentally don't understand this.
TFA says that Apple, for example, might be charged a nickle or dime per song to make sure that the data transfers completely and quickly. Ignoring the big bad implications of the word "completely," I just dont' get it.
Apple doesn't magically or arbitrarily produce it's own bandwidth. They have, at some level, an ISP, which they pay for a certain amount of bandwidth use.
That ISP also has a carrier, and the ISP pays that carrier.
And so forth...
So, if Apple is already paying for their bandwidth, why do they have to pay again? I just don't understand. The only analogy that I can come up with as a comparison is like renting a car that the rental company has leased. In this case, if you go to Enterprise and pay to rent a car that they have in turn leased from GM, does GM come after you for an "extra fee" because you drove 1,000 miles? Is that the kind of situation that's being explained here?