I'm sat in my local lab right now. As far as I know we haven't yet used Gad on a single human (it is used in some animal studies here). We rarely used gad in my previous lab too. One of the biggest uses of MRI these days is functional studies (fMRI), where the contrast is given by changes in blood oxygenation - gad wouldn't help there at all. It's hard to call a study non-invasive when you have to inject something like gad - which is why a lot of us are working on getting the most SNR out of the MR machine, to avoid the need to add contrast agents.
MRI zaps a huge magnetic field yet still may require the ingestion of Gadolinium
Huge magnetic field, check. Gadolinium - not necessarily, you can see a lot without it. Those fancy brain images you keep seeing on TV don't require a contrast agent. As for crude - in 20 years time our current machine will probably look a bit rough around the edges, but neither CT or MR is too simple.
Nope, no technical problem at all. Technically it works fine, and I assume technically it would work just the same whoever is controlling it. But surely the question is all about politics?
Reading through this whole thread, there is clearly a vast gap between the American and non-American understanding of the problem (or non-problem, depending on your point of view). Here's a simple trick to help you understand the non-American viewpoint. Everywhere you read US, replace it with UN. Ignoring the detail of the arguments, the horror you feel at putting the UN in charge seems pretty similar to the horror I have of keeping the US in charge. Clearer now?
You've made an important point. Apart from the open/closed journal argument, there are too many papers published. It's become a bit self-serving. As scientists we are judged by how many publications we produce. So, we write lots of them. The journal publishers are happy, they get to print more. We're happy, we get a longer publication list. But the overall significance and quality is going down. It's far to common to split a good piece of work into three or four papers, when it would make one really solid publication. It means you have to get all four of my papers from different journals, skip through the almost the same introduction on all of them, and piece together what I did. It doesn't really help 'further the art', but it makes the league tables look good.
True, I've never served on a journal board. I just see things from the other side. It appears to me that production costs should have reduced. The manuscripts we provide, while not perfect, are almost ready to run (not produced on a typewriter with hand drawn diagrams). Electronic distribution isn't free, but is cheaper than paper. But the cost keeps going up. That money has to go somewhere. If someone can give me an explanation of where it goes I'd be truly interested.
Yes, but what are the costs? You write the paper for free, and deliver it in electronic form half-way ready for publication, draw the figures, etc. It's reviewed by your peers for free. It can now be published purely in electronic form (not free, but cheap). Journal publishing houses might as well be printing money - the model needs shaking up.
So we're trying to find enough food and water to survive, and you're sat in the back shed trying to jemmy together a soldering iron and some transistors? I'll be delighted to find you're on my team.
If you already know exactly what you want, and it won't change, make a PCB and enjoy. A well designed PCB is likely to be more stable the wrapping. If you want to tinker, change, modify and add stuff you hadn't even thought of, then wirewrap is the way forward. You wire the data bus backwards? Unwrap, rewrap.
Why on earth did the OO team feel the need to invent a whole new command set, rather than just using LaTeX commands? I went through the pain of learning to set math in LaTeX (like a great many scientists). Now I get it and can set almost anything I want without looking up the commands. If I want to use OO, all the commands are different. I could learn the new commands...or return to LaTeX.
On a positive note, now that I've discovered the Beamer package, I can produce pretty slides complete with equations and don't need Open or MS Office. And LaTeX always looks nicest;-)
You're saying LOGO is a neat toy but doesn't have much power, right? I'm just trying to point out that actually, LOGO has lots of power, it's just not widely realised because so many people get distracted by the turtle and miss the list processing, or how it encourages recursion, etc. Which point did I miss?
I'll second that. It's funny to look at the 'elitist' comments. Many of the writers really don't seem to know much about computer languages, structure, etc. Well, I guess this is/. I'll go back to my toy MRI system. True, it'll never work in the real world, but this is only play^h^h^h^hresearch.
Repeat after me: BASIC is a bad learning language, BASIC is a bad learning language...
You can probably write very elegant BASIC. But only because you already know what you're doing. I doubt it's what you would have written in your first few years of coding.
Pascal is a good learning language. It makes (forces) you to think about structure. Sure, break all the rules later, when you know what you're doing and why you're breaking the rules. Until then, enforced structure is a good thing.
Well, it makes it very easy to write a self modifying program. After all, your program is a list and LOGO is a list processor, so a program modifying itself is no big deal. To code at least. I'd like to see you do that with your whizzo BASIC tricks.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sat in my local lab right now. As far as I know we haven't yet used Gad on a single human (it is used in some animal studies here). We rarely used gad in my previous lab too. One of the biggest uses of MRI these days is functional studies (fMRI), where the contrast is given by changes in blood oxygenation - gad wouldn't help there at all. It's hard to call a study non-invasive when you have to inject something like gad - which is why a lot of us are working on getting the most SNR out of the MR machine, to avoid the need to add contrast agents.
MRI zaps a huge magnetic field yet still may require the ingestion of Gadolinium
Huge magnetic field, check. Gadolinium - not necessarily, you can see a lot without it. Those fancy brain images you keep seeing on TV don't require a contrast agent. As for crude - in 20 years time our current machine will probably look a bit rough around the edges, but neither CT or MR is too simple.
That's a long time to wait for a birthday for the poor kid born on Feb 30th!
Nope, no technical problem at all. Technically it works fine, and I assume technically it would work just the same whoever is controlling it. But surely the question is all about politics?
Reading through this whole thread, there is clearly a vast gap between the American and non-American understanding of the problem (or non-problem, depending on your point of view). Here's a simple trick to help you understand the non-American viewpoint. Everywhere you read US, replace it with UN. Ignoring the detail of the arguments, the horror you feel at putting the UN in charge seems pretty similar to the horror I have of keeping the US in charge. Clearer now?
We need to use audio capthas: 'If you are a robot please press 0, if you are a human being please press 792168387231962887613'
You've made an important point. Apart from the open/closed journal argument, there are too many papers published. It's become a bit self-serving. As scientists we are judged by how many publications we produce. So, we write lots of them. The journal publishers are happy, they get to print more. We're happy, we get a longer publication list. But the overall significance and quality is going down. It's far to common to split a good piece of work into three or four papers, when it would make one really solid publication. It means you have to get all four of my papers from different journals, skip through the almost the same introduction on all of them, and piece together what I did. It doesn't really help 'further the art', but it makes the league tables look good.
True, I've never served on a journal board. I just see things from the other side. It appears to me that production costs should have reduced. The manuscripts we provide, while not perfect, are almost ready to run (not produced on a typewriter with hand drawn diagrams). Electronic distribution isn't free, but is cheaper than paper. But the cost keeps going up. That money has to go somewhere. If someone can give me an explanation of where it goes I'd be truly interested.
Yes, but what are the costs? You write the paper for free, and deliver it in electronic form half-way ready for publication, draw the figures, etc. It's reviewed by your peers for free. It can now be published purely in electronic form (not free, but cheap). Journal publishing houses might as well be printing money - the model needs shaking up.
Well, Sir, I was drying my shirt in the microwave and now the tag doesn't seems to work. But I promise I'll stay in school....
I used to know the answer to that, but I've forgotten.
So we're trying to find enough food and water to survive, and you're sat in the back shed trying to jemmy together a soldering iron and some transistors? I'll be delighted to find you're on my team.
If you already know exactly what you want, and it won't change, make a PCB and enjoy. A well designed PCB is likely to be more stable the wrapping. If you want to tinker, change, modify and add stuff you hadn't even thought of, then wirewrap is the way forward. You wire the data bus backwards? Unwrap, rewrap.
Why on earth did the OO team feel the need to invent a whole new command set, rather than just using LaTeX commands? I went through the pain of learning to set math in LaTeX (like a great many scientists). Now I get it and can set almost anything I want without looking up the commands. If I want to use OO, all the commands are different. I could learn the new commands...or return to LaTeX.
;-)
On a positive note, now that I've discovered the Beamer package, I can produce pretty slides complete with equations and don't need Open or MS Office. And LaTeX always looks nicest
Have you been to see a movie recently?
Okay, my bad, I guess I misunderstood. Maybe I'm misquoting?
It might not have a lot of power under the hood
Anyway, sounds like we're both happy that LOGO exists, so the world is okay.
You're saying LOGO is a neat toy but doesn't have much power, right? I'm just trying to point out that actually, LOGO has lots of power, it's just not widely realised because so many people get distracted by the turtle and miss the list processing, or how it encourages recursion, etc. Which point did I miss?
I'll second that. It's funny to look at the 'elitist' comments. Many of the writers really don't seem to know much about computer languages, structure, etc. Well, I guess this is /. I'll go back to my toy MRI system. True, it'll never work in the real world, but this is only play^h^h^h^hresearch.
Repeat after me: BASIC is a bad learning language, BASIC is a bad learning language...
You can probably write very elegant BASIC. But only because you already know what you're doing. I doubt it's what you would have written in your first few years of coding.
Pascal is a good learning language. It makes (forces) you to think about structure. Sure, break all the rules later, when you know what you're doing and why you're breaking the rules. Until then, enforced structure is a good thing.
It might not have a lot of power under the hood
Well, it makes it very easy to write a self modifying program. After all, your program is a list and LOGO is a list processor, so a program modifying itself is no big deal. To code at least. I'd like to see you do that with your whizzo BASIC tricks.
Didn't you mean (!==)!=(!=), with noted exceptions?
I've just "fled" Blighty for Switzerland, where the people are equally crazy but in a completely different way.
Battery life or bearings - you choose.
I'm curious now, what sane place have you found to hide?
Perhaps we should arrest everyone studying chemistry (and presumably physics, engineering...)
Haven't you heard, nobody studies science or engineering any more. It's probably for the best, it was all far too dangerous...