Last I read, the cancer hadn't metastatized and was removed without chemo etc.
Okay, fair enough, that's pretty unusual but I guess they caught it early.
Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now? I mean, having a liver transplant introduces a whole lot of health risks, and as far as I know unless his previous liver had already developed the metastatic cancer, they shouldn't replace it - wouldn't that just be throwing away a perfectly good liver, and then putting another one in, only to have it develop tumours in a few years?
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the cancer is worse than they're letting on.
Waiting for that guy with a form to post for this.
Pick a random word from/usr/dict/words.
Search for it on google images, return one of the first 5-10 results.
Ask the user to identify the term in the image.
Admittedly it would be slightly annoying because if it searched for "Aardvark" and you wrote "anteater" it wouldn't work, but i reckon something along those lines might work.
Catholic & Uniting = Church of England?
The Anglican Communion is NOT Uniting Church and it is not Roman Catholic.
It's not Australia, it's the socially conservative politics of Australia. The ALP has always had some degree of social conservatism for the last 25 years, and the Libs.. well.. the less said the better about them.
With Sony thinking about upgradeable consoles, I'd say Consoles are simply becoming more and more like PCs, and it is Console gaming that is dying in a sense.
-ulator would be used for generic common nouns, whereas -ulatron could be used for proper nouns.
Introducing Decombobulatron! The latest, greatest most cutting-edge product in decombobulators today!
The last game I bought from a store was Bioshock, and it ran unnecessarily slowly on my new machine, and couldn't find DirectX 10. After a fair bit of patching, I got it to work, and played it to completion - and was somewhat disappointed, because it began to degenerate into the usual repetitive style of shooter.
And then I realised that the problem was certainly not Bioshock, but the game industry itself. Games these days seem to be rushed out in a state barely past beta, because of extremely strict deadlines. It seems to be a matter of course now to go hunting around for patches and vista fixes and so forth for every game you buy - for an awful lot of money, I might add.
They also seem to be generally repetitions of themes and styles years old. Not only is it more Metal Gear, FIFA, GTA and Final Fantasy games, but the actual gameplay of these hasn't changed for years - particularly in the FPS genre - and I'm looking for NEW games, not more of a game I've already played.
Well, I've had enough of it. After Bioshock, I stopped buying commercial mainstream games, and instead put my money into great independent games like: Mount&Blade, Darwinia, Flatspace (1 & 2), Uplink, Teudogar and the Alliance of Rome, and Defcon. These games have provided me with much better value for money, and usually are better, more enjoyable and more *original* games.
Even so, the advent of such huge PIM and shared calendar technology, combined with the increasing use of blackberries, has made some corporate friends of mine never stop working.
The technology enables their work to follow them home.
My father had to turn off his blackberry when he got home because people would keep emailing and asking for meetings and so forth sometimes at horrible hours of night.
Unless the scientists can show a clearly defined trend everywhere, all they have shown us is an example, not scientific proof. While I am aware that I am, to a certain extent, quoting you out of context, I take issue with this statement on a few levels.
1) It is entirely impossible to determine any universal pattern. It is impossible to observe all the universe - Hence the only "proof" that Science can produce is a tentative proof by induction. That is, to say that the statement holds true for a specific data set, hence it can be extrapolated to other data sets and we can hope that the theory will hold. What you are trying to say is that their data sample is too small to yield valid results from which one can induce a theory. Whether this statement is true or not I don't know, it is up to the reviewing scientist to RTFA and determine how large a sample size would need to be to yield accurate results. Seeing as science is inductive, there is no way to produce a universal proof for all cases without experimentally validating ALL cases (rather difficult:P).
2) There is never such thing as a definitive "Scientific Proof", only scientific theory. Some (stupid) philosophers derived the idea that the entire universe is a figment of a consciousness. If this is the case (which it may or may not be - it is an unprovable statement) then everything science has "proven" is false - seeing as this example statement may or may not be true and cannot be proven either way, this means that scientists can never prove anything about our universe with absolute certainty. When rational, scientifically-minded people such as yourself use the term "proof" in Science, it leads people to think that "Theory" is the step below, a hypothesis - one of the major semantic exploits used by ID advocates. The quicker people stop calling Scientific theories "proofs" or "laws" the quicker people will realise that a theory that has stood for a significant amount of time and has the widespread support of the scientific community can be held to be true, tried and tested - and NOT a hypothesis - at least for all cases in which it has been observed - but every time they are extrapolated beyond these cases, their use is technically an experiment to see if the hypothesis for the theory holds true for other cases. Part of the problem that has allowed creationists to masquerade biblical stories as scientific theory is a widespread misunderstanding of scientific method, and this problem is, at heart, a problem of lazily applied terminology.
end rant for today:)
Slashdot Mirror
Ever been to Kyoto? or pretty much anywhere in Japan really.
Japan has a functional democracy and freedom of speech and expression. Is Japan a "western" nation? They don't consider themselves such.
Last I read, the cancer hadn't metastatized and was removed without chemo etc. Okay, fair enough, that's pretty unusual but I guess they caught it early. Can someone explain to me why they would give him a liver transplant now? I mean, having a liver transplant introduces a whole lot of health risks, and as far as I know unless his previous liver had already developed the metastatic cancer, they shouldn't replace it - wouldn't that just be throwing away a perfectly good liver, and then putting another one in, only to have it develop tumours in a few years? The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the cancer is worse than they're letting on.
Symbian anyone?
Dunno about maemo, but android uses flash-optimized yaffs for its storage, and doesn't include support for traditional linux types like ext2 or 3.
Hasn't happened in any other country with such a system. Check your facts.
Australians must use paper ballots by law, but we don't get any fraud problems.
Same in Australia.
Waiting for that guy with a form to post for this. Pick a random word from /usr/dict/words.
Search for it on google images, return one of the first 5-10 results.
Ask the user to identify the term in the image.
Admittedly it would be slightly annoying because if it searched for "Aardvark" and you wrote "anteater" it wouldn't work, but i reckon something along those lines might work.
Ah, a fellow xmonad user. Best of luck. Once you get used to it, you will never go back to KDE.
I dunno, for me, people have been amazed by what I could produce with Rosegarden with all the neccessary odds and ends attached.
I think the more important point is that you're a (presumably) *female* housewife that posts on *slashdot*.
He said it. It was in his interview on candidates@google. In fact all his tech positions I agree with.
Catholic & Uniting = Church of England? The Anglican Communion is NOT Uniting Church and it is not Roman Catholic. It's not Australia, it's the socially conservative politics of Australia. The ALP has always had some degree of social conservatism for the last 25 years, and the Libs.. well.. the less said the better about them.
For those of us that can't tolerate romaji
Well admittedly he did write the interpreter in assembly language, I believe.
I wonder why this seems to be localized to the tech industry?
Does slashdot offer any insight?
(hopefully first post yay)
Is there a way to block these specific botnets!? First post yay.
With Sony thinking about upgradeable consoles, I'd say Consoles are simply becoming more and more like PCs, and it is Console gaming that is dying in a sense.
-ulator would be used for generic common nouns, whereas -ulatron could be used for proper nouns. Introducing Decombobulatron! The latest, greatest most cutting-edge product in decombobulators today!
A game advertised to not only run, but run *better* on Vista should do just that. It didn't, and is therefore not living up to my expectations.
The last game I bought from a store was Bioshock, and it ran unnecessarily slowly on my new machine, and couldn't find DirectX 10. After a fair bit of patching, I got it to work, and played it to completion - and was somewhat disappointed, because it began to degenerate into the usual repetitive style of shooter.
And then I realised that the problem was certainly not Bioshock, but the game industry itself. Games these days seem to be rushed out in a state barely past beta, because of extremely strict deadlines. It seems to be a matter of course now to go hunting around for patches and vista fixes and so forth for every game you buy - for an awful lot of money, I might add.
They also seem to be generally repetitions of themes and styles years old. Not only is it more Metal Gear, FIFA, GTA and Final Fantasy games, but the actual gameplay of these hasn't changed for years - particularly in the FPS genre - and I'm looking for NEW games, not more of a game I've already played.
Well, I've had enough of it. After Bioshock, I stopped buying commercial mainstream games, and instead put my money into great independent games like: Mount&Blade, Darwinia, Flatspace (1 & 2), Uplink, Teudogar and the Alliance of Rome, and Defcon. These games have provided me with much better value for money, and usually are better, more enjoyable and more *original* games.
An Article in Slashdot telling us to RTFA? Not bloody likely.
Even so, the advent of such huge PIM and shared calendar technology, combined with the increasing use of blackberries, has made some corporate friends of mine never stop working. The technology enables their work to follow them home. My father had to turn off his blackberry when he got home because people would keep emailing and asking for meetings and so forth sometimes at horrible hours of night.
1) It is entirely impossible to determine any universal pattern. It is impossible to observe all the universe - Hence the only "proof" that Science can produce is a tentative proof by induction. That is, to say that the statement holds true for a specific data set, hence it can be extrapolated to other data sets and we can hope that the theory will hold. What you are trying to say is that their data sample is too small to yield valid results from which one can induce a theory. Whether this statement is true or not I don't know, it is up to the reviewing scientist to RTFA and determine how large a sample size would need to be to yield accurate results. Seeing as science is inductive, there is no way to produce a universal proof for all cases without experimentally validating ALL cases (rather difficult
2) There is never such thing as a definitive "Scientific Proof", only scientific theory. Some (stupid) philosophers derived the idea that the entire universe is a figment of a consciousness. If this is the case (which it may or may not be - it is an unprovable statement) then everything science has "proven" is false - seeing as this example statement may or may not be true and cannot be proven either way, this means that scientists can never prove anything about our universe with absolute certainty. When rational, scientifically-minded people such as yourself use the term "proof" in Science, it leads people to think that "Theory" is the step below, a hypothesis - one of the major semantic exploits used by ID advocates. The quicker people stop calling Scientific theories "proofs" or "laws" the quicker people will realise that a theory that has stood for a significant amount of time and has the widespread support of the scientific community can be held to be true, tried and tested - and NOT a hypothesis - at least for all cases in which it has been observed - but every time they are extrapolated beyond these cases, their use is technically an experiment to see if the hypothesis for the theory holds true for other cases. Part of the problem that has allowed creationists to masquerade biblical stories as scientific theory is a widespread misunderstanding of scientific method, and this problem is, at heart, a problem of lazily applied terminology. end rant for today