Pseudoeohedrine is also more a concern than other abused OTCs because it is something you use to make meth. Thus, the individual buying it is not likely going to be the one using meth, but rather is more likely to be a dealer. Yes, the extra steps required to acquire pseudoephedrine will be annoying, but it will keep those who try to buy mass quantities of the stuff for producing meth from securing a very convenient supply and any person using a sane amount of pseudoephedrine is unlikely to be affected beyond the inconvenience at the pharmacy (i.e., very few false positives).
Yes, there are ways around this. A producer of meth could get his friends and family to each buy for him, but anybody going to this extent is likely already or highly likely to be subject to investigation and the information acquired (i.e., the evidence of the producer's purchases along with his confederates) will aid in their prosecution.
I think this measure will help battle meth usage significantly for these reasons. Do I think meth use will disappear? Speaking as someone well versed in the study of human behavior, no; but I do think in this case its a legitimate step to take.
I think we have a winner here! However, for a mild improvement, remove the word electricity from the illustration and replace it with a blank line with "(insert name of a generally useful scientific discovery)" written beneath it.
also, replace "inventor" with scientist, as most phenomena such electricity weren't invented by any one, except for maybe this one physics teacher who used to teach at the school where I attended high school--he practically claimed to have invented everything in physics.
(If you ran track, which this teacher coincidentally also invented, at the high school level in NH about 7 or 8 years ago, you have a slightly increased chance of getting this inside joke. Do not inquire about further explanations as none shall be forthcoming.)
Actually, most bacteria resistant to antibiotics became that way through no small part by patient non-compliance. The too many people see the directions to finish all the medication in the bottle, but pay it no heed. Instead, they stop taking their prescriptions when they feel better. Unfortunately, feeling better and being infection free are two very different conditions. When a person feels better it is likely that that person just has a level of infection that has no ill effect on the body. Unfortunately, since those bacteria have been exposed the longest to the antibiotic they are more likely to contain genetic mutations indicative of resistance. Perhaps continued treatment could have provided sufficient dosage to kill even these bacteria, but the premature cessation now gives that mutation a chance to strengthen in subsequent generations.
Unfortunately, those who stop taking their medications early do so for what they feel are good reasons, and, being ignorant of the negative effects, they don't see how their reasons don't out weigh the negative. For example, some people stop when they feel better because they think they'll save money. Next time they get sick they believe they can just use their leftovers. Save money not only at the pharmacy but also by doing away with the need for a visit to the doctor. Obviously, the problems here are: 1. most "illnesses" are caused by a virus, thus their leftovers will not help an ounce, and 2. they are contributing to the resistance of bacteria at least twice--first when they fail to finish their prescribed medicine when infected, and secondly they take another abbreviated treatment increasing the chance of resistance in the multiple bacterium inhabiting their bodies. The long-term ramifications of these actions will likely only increase their total medical expense, thus is counter-productive in more than one one.
I've heard other reasons for stopping treatment early. For example, some people feel once they feel better they should stop taking a prescription because they feel the need to limit their exposure to a drug to avoid any ill effects it may have on their body, and even people who stop because they think overuse causing resistances can be stopped by using the drug for a shorter period of time. Both of these reasons have no more effect than to increase the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and are thus counterproductive to their underlying aims--decreasing negative effects on the body and stopping the development. Such ideas would be like two people dying in the Arctic from hypothermia even though they had matches and plenty of wood both of whom stop trying to make a fire after several failed attempts--one because he wished to decrease the chance he'd burn his fingers with the matches, and the other because he wanted make sure he didn't run out of matches. In this situation both will continue to get colder and, if they happen to abandon their original reasonings, will find their half dead fingers have an even tougher time lighting the matches.
Since this is a thread about political interference in science, I should point out that the only solution to this problem is education. People need to be educated about the consequences of their actions; the absence of this education I would lay blame to those who should be safe guarding the public welfare, the government. Simply adding this material to the required syllabus for health classes in public schools would help, but something more would need to be done as many people would forget much of what they learned in such situations. Some other forms of consistent reminders (PSA's perhaps, or maybe information in freely distributed health magazines subsidized by the government) would really be necessary to get the point across. I'm sure there is someone out there intelligent enough to come up with an intervention to educate the public utilizing all this modern technology we have. Of course the only way to stop bacterial resistance is to not use the medications at all, which, in my opinion, is just as idiotic, if not more, than any of the above described behaviors. The best we can do is use the drugs to lessen suffering and try to slow the development of any resistance.
Just because the name can be a joke doesn't make it a joke. It really could be owned by Mike Hunt. (Back in the day, there were no less than two completely unrelated Ben Dovers at my high school.) (Also knew a Mike Hawk.)
Furthermore, if it is a pseudonym, I seriously hope that it isn't a valid reason for taking this action. Pseudonyms are an essential tool in a free society; after all, we may be able to exercise free speech, but so can everyone else--including those who may not benefit from what we say. Pseudonyms allow us to bring information to the publics attention without getting directly involved in any fallout which precipitates from the revelation. (Of course, this assumes the revealed information is factual; if it isn't factual and isn't obviously satire, then that is libel which is quite illegal.)
Personally, however, if I was going to use a name such as this for political purposes, I wouldn't have used Mike Hunt. I'd probably would have register the site to two individuals (if that is possible), that way I'd be able to make whichever political figure I was targeting listen to Mike Hawk and Ben Dover.
Um, most of you guys replying to this post didn't read it, did you. The poster said planes only have two engines, implying the reason they don't have more than two engines. Large jet liners used to four engines, each of which was capable of allow a controlled landing because, while the chance of one engine failing was greater with more engines, the probability of having a remaining engine to control an emergency landing. As jet reliability has increased, large commercial jets have moved towards a two engine design since the probability of losing both engines is now sufficiently low as to not require four (or three) engines (as two engines having other economic benefits).
True, but in order to gain similar capacity from a seven disk array of 100 GB drives you cannot have any redundancy. Thus, while the failure rate any individual drive is an independent event, the failure of any single drive in the array represents a failure of the array. In other words, if you flip seven coins what is the chance you'll come up with at least one heads. This is a situation of additive probability if one ignores any factors other that could affect a moderately sized array such as the example.
Given that Xbox 360 is going for £280 in the UK I think it should read will not sell at...although the price diference is quite similiar to the difference we'll see in the US.
Sucks even more for the Brits with VAT, though. (I love NH, no sales tax, no income tax!)
Agreed, I was hard pressed to even consider recommending a Sony laptop to my (ex)girlfriend a couple of months ago due to the whole root-kit incident. I know it will take a lot to get me to buy anything else Sony branded for a long time. (Hell, I'm not even sure I feel okay using the Sony stuff I already own.)
I don't see how the PS controller is the best controller out there. Most likely it is the controller most game interfaces are optimized for since there are so many of them out there. In my opinion, and that of many people I know, the Game Cube controller fits the hand better and most of the buttons are more intuitive. (This is mostly due to the important buttons residing in a more anatomically correct positions; the thing that bugs me the most about the PS controller is the L2 and R2 buttons. I've used one after-market model that fixed this for me. The offending buttons were located closer to the palms of the hand, a location where the middle finger would prefer to rest.) Unfortunately, game controls are unlikely to be re-optimized for the GC controller on game ports since its market penetration is lower.
In my view, Sony's controller design is actually holding back innovation due to its popularity combined with its shortcomings forcing developers to utilizes a sub-par piece of equipment.
This would only happen if we nuke Africa. Furthermore it would be accompanied by a deluge of awesome African science fiction B-movies about giant land-hunting catfish and the development of African style animation. Doesn't sound half bad.
Well, they could ask other review sites if they could lend their review samples having identical specifications to use in the articles test system. Then they could go out and buy an equal number of retail units having identical specifications from a number of not necessarily geographically diverse, but statistically representative locations. They could then compare the performance of the two groups of memory for a statistically significant difference. In order to have a decent power level they I'd imagine they would need at least 20 in each group. (Although more wouldn't hurt.)
In the end, it seems that they would have a near impossible task at hand if they wished to prove a difference between retail and review products. (20 identically speced review units?) Not to mention this would only indicate a difference, not what caused the difference (e.g., manfucture date, differences in platter quality, as well as cherry picking, etc.). Add the time and effort needed to determine if any of these factors were responsible and the task goes from near impossible to converging on impossible; all to legitimately answer the question at hand even though we can safely assume that, yes, memory manufacturers are providing the best of the best to the review sites. Essentially, anyone actually willing to perfrom said experiment would have to be as stuborn and stupid as a person would need to be to write this post at 4 in the morning.
While init100 may agree with the rest of your post, can't say that I do. Since when does H2 + O2 -> H2O? On the other hand, 2H2 + O2 -> 2(H2O2) has a slight chance. Balance is key to good chemestry and mathematics mrchaotica-san.
Slashdot Mirror
That's only an over-clock of around 42%. My old Celeron 300a ran 500 MHz on air cooling, that's a 66% over-clock!
Get back to me when you hit 583 GHz, IBM!
So, according to the article you posted I should under-clock my microwave?
Pseudoeohedrine is also more a concern than other abused OTCs because it is something you use to make meth. Thus, the individual buying it is not likely going to be the one using meth, but rather is more likely to be a dealer. Yes, the extra steps required to acquire pseudoephedrine will be annoying, but it will keep those who try to buy mass quantities of the stuff for producing meth from securing a very convenient supply and any person using a sane amount of pseudoephedrine is unlikely to be affected beyond the inconvenience at the pharmacy (i.e., very few false positives).
Yes, there are ways around this. A producer of meth could get his friends and family to each buy for him, but anybody going to this extent is likely already or highly likely to be subject to investigation and the information acquired (i.e., the evidence of the producer's purchases along with his confederates) will aid in their prosecution.
I think this measure will help battle meth usage significantly for these reasons. Do I think meth use will disappear? Speaking as someone well versed in the study of human behavior, no; but I do think in this case its a legitimate step to take.
I think we have a winner here! However, for a mild improvement, remove the word electricity from the illustration and replace it with a blank line with "(insert name of a generally useful scientific discovery)" written beneath it.
also, replace "inventor" with scientist, as most phenomena such electricity weren't invented by any one, except for maybe this one physics teacher who used to teach at the school where I attended high school--he practically claimed to have invented everything in physics.
(If you ran track, which this teacher coincidentally also invented, at the high school level in NH about 7 or 8 years ago, you have a slightly increased chance of getting this inside joke. Do not inquire about further explanations as none shall be forthcoming.)
Actually, most bacteria resistant to antibiotics became that way through no small part by patient non-compliance. The too many people see the directions to finish all the medication in the bottle, but pay it no heed. Instead, they stop taking their prescriptions when they feel better. Unfortunately, feeling better and being infection free are two very different conditions. When a person feels better it is likely that that person just has a level of infection that has no ill effect on the body. Unfortunately, since those bacteria have been exposed the longest to the antibiotic they are more likely to contain genetic mutations indicative of resistance. Perhaps continued treatment could have provided sufficient dosage to kill even these bacteria, but the premature cessation now gives that mutation a chance to strengthen in subsequent generations.
Unfortunately, those who stop taking their medications early do so for what they feel are good reasons, and, being ignorant of the negative effects, they don't see how their reasons don't out weigh the negative. For example, some people stop when they feel better because they think they'll save money. Next time they get sick they believe they can just use their leftovers. Save money not only at the pharmacy but also by doing away with the need for a visit to the doctor. Obviously, the problems here are: 1. most "illnesses" are caused by a virus, thus their leftovers will not help an ounce, and 2. they are contributing to the resistance of bacteria at least twice--first when they fail to finish their prescribed medicine when infected, and secondly they take another abbreviated treatment increasing the chance of resistance in the multiple bacterium inhabiting their bodies. The long-term ramifications of these actions will likely only increase their total medical expense, thus is counter-productive in more than one one.
I've heard other reasons for stopping treatment early. For example, some people feel once they feel better they should stop taking a prescription because they feel the need to limit their exposure to a drug to avoid any ill effects it may have on their body, and even people who stop because they think overuse causing resistances can be stopped by using the drug for a shorter period of time. Both of these reasons have no more effect than to increase the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics and are thus counterproductive to their underlying aims--decreasing negative effects on the body and stopping the development. Such ideas would be like two people dying in the Arctic from hypothermia even though they had matches and plenty of wood both of whom stop trying to make a fire after several failed attempts--one because he wished to decrease the chance he'd burn his fingers with the matches, and the other because he wanted make sure he didn't run out of matches. In this situation both will continue to get colder and, if they happen to abandon their original reasonings, will find their half dead fingers have an even tougher time lighting the matches.
Since this is a thread about political interference in science, I should point out that the only solution to this problem is education. People need to be educated about the consequences of their actions; the absence of this education I would lay blame to those who should be safe guarding the public welfare, the government. Simply adding this material to the required syllabus for health classes in public schools would help, but something more would need to be done as many people would forget much of what they learned in such situations. Some other forms of consistent reminders (PSA's perhaps, or maybe information in freely distributed health magazines subsidized by the government) would really be necessary to get the point across. I'm sure there is someone out there intelligent enough to come up with an intervention to educate the public utilizing all this modern technology we have. Of course the only way to stop bacterial resistance is to not use the medications at all, which, in my opinion, is just as idiotic, if not more, than any of the above described behaviors. The best we can do is use the drugs to lessen suffering and try to slow the development of any resistance.
Just because the name can be a joke doesn't make it a joke. It really could be owned by Mike Hunt. (Back in the day, there were no less than two completely unrelated Ben Dovers at my high school.) (Also knew a Mike Hawk.)
Furthermore, if it is a pseudonym, I seriously hope that it isn't a valid reason for taking this action. Pseudonyms are an essential tool in a free society; after all, we may be able to exercise free speech, but so can everyone else--including those who may not benefit from what we say. Pseudonyms allow us to bring information to the publics attention without getting directly involved in any fallout which precipitates from the revelation. (Of course, this assumes the revealed information is factual; if it isn't factual and isn't obviously satire, then that is libel which is quite illegal.)
Personally, however, if I was going to use a name such as this for political purposes, I wouldn't have used Mike Hunt. I'd probably would have register the site to two individuals (if that is possible), that way I'd be able to make whichever political figure I was targeting listen to Mike Hawk and Ben Dover.
Um, most of you guys replying to this post didn't read it, did you. The poster said planes only have two engines, implying the reason they don't have more than two engines. Large jet liners used to four engines, each of which was capable of allow a controlled landing because, while the chance of one engine failing was greater with more engines, the probability of having a remaining engine to control an emergency landing. As jet reliability has increased, large commercial jets have moved towards a two engine design since the probability of losing both engines is now sufficiently low as to not require four (or three) engines (as two engines having other economic benefits).
True, but in order to gain similar capacity from a seven disk array of 100 GB drives you cannot have any redundancy. Thus, while the failure rate any individual drive is an independent event, the failure of any single drive in the array represents a failure of the array. In other words, if you flip seven coins what is the chance you'll come up with at least one heads. This is a situation of additive probability if one ignores any factors other that could affect a moderately sized array such as the example.
...and hairy palms.
Given that Xbox 360 is going for £280 in the UK I think it should read will not sell at...although the price diference is quite similiar to the difference we'll see in the US.
Sucks even more for the Brits with VAT, though. (I love NH, no sales tax, no income tax!)
Probably something Wii can't live without!
Agreed, I was hard pressed to even consider recommending a Sony laptop to my (ex)girlfriend a couple of months ago due to the whole root-kit incident. I know it will take a lot to get me to buy anything else Sony branded for a long time. (Hell, I'm not even sure I feel okay using the Sony stuff I already own.)
I don't see how the PS controller is the best controller out there. Most likely it is the controller most game interfaces are optimized for since there are so many of them out there. In my opinion, and that of many people I know, the Game Cube controller fits the hand better and most of the buttons are more intuitive. (This is mostly due to the important buttons residing in a more anatomically correct positions; the thing that bugs me the most about the PS controller is the L2 and R2 buttons. I've used one after-market model that fixed this for me. The offending buttons were located closer to the palms of the hand, a location where the middle finger would prefer to rest.) Unfortunately, game controls are unlikely to be re-optimized for the GC controller on game ports since its market penetration is lower.
In my view, Sony's controller design is actually holding back innovation due to its popularity combined with its shortcomings forcing developers to utilizes a sub-par piece of equipment.
This would only happen if we nuke Africa. Furthermore it would be accompanied by a deluge of awesome African science fiction B-movies about giant land-hunting catfish and the development of African style animation. Doesn't sound half bad.
Well, they could ask other review sites if they could lend their review samples having identical specifications to use in the articles test system. Then they could go out and buy an equal number of retail units having identical specifications from a number of not necessarily geographically diverse, but statistically representative locations. They could then compare the performance of the two groups of memory for a statistically significant difference. In order to have a decent power level they I'd imagine they would need at least 20 in each group. (Although more wouldn't hurt.)
In the end, it seems that they would have a near impossible task at hand if they wished to prove a difference between retail and review products. (20 identically speced review units?) Not to mention this would only indicate a difference, not what caused the difference (e.g., manfucture date, differences in platter quality, as well as cherry picking, etc.). Add the time and effort needed to determine if any of these factors were responsible and the task goes from near impossible to converging on impossible; all to legitimately answer the question at hand even though we can safely assume that, yes, memory manufacturers are providing the best of the best to the review sites. Essentially, anyone actually willing to perfrom said experiment would have to be as stuborn and stupid as a person would need to be to write this post at 4 in the morning.
While init100 may agree with the rest of your post, can't say that I do. Since when does H2 + O2 -> H2O? On the other hand, 2H2 + O2 -> 2(H2O2) has a slight chance. Balance is key to good chemestry and mathematics mrchaotica-san.