Despite its accessibility, many doctors say the medication wasn't a good option for patients.
Although the CFC ban is what eventually drove Primatene Mist from the market, Pulmonologist have argued for years that it was at the very least, not the best medication for asthma control, and at worst, dangerous. The active ingredient in Primatene Mist is Epinephrine (also known as adrenaline, adrenalin), which can cause a dangerous increase in heart rate.
"Primatene Mist does not treat asthma -- it treats symptoms that can come from asthma," said Dr. Kyle Hogarth, an assistant professor of medicine and the medical director of the pulmonary rehabilitation program at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
The danger in treating only symptoms, he said, is that repeated asthma attacks can permanently damage the lungs. Poorly controlled asthma can progress to a point where, "in their 40s and 50s, [patients] have the lungs of someone who is 80 or 90 who has smoked."
For that reason, the goal of asthma care isn't to react just to attacks -- it's to prevent attacks in the first place. That's generally done with daily medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids, which keep the airways from becoming inflamed. Ideally, Hogarth said, rescue inhalers shouldn't be used more than twice a week, at most.
Sounds great, but one of the symptoms of asthma is not being able to BREATH. Primatene is good for dealing with that quickly and when you are having that issue you want to deal with it.
Thats because Epinephrine is used to stop anaphylactic shock. There are rescue inhalers that do the same now. You just need a prescription.
AM and FM radio haven't been a significant part of our actual "telecommunication system" since maybe 1960. Other than the occasional storm warning.
I think you misunderstand the post. Radio is definitely a government thing and the most important thing the government does in this field is frequency allocation. It's vital for modern society.
Without frequency allocation anyone could broadcast at any power at any frequency. Just think about that and how much is still controlled via radio/microwave signals. The following things rely on there being set frequency bands with no outside interference:
No they actually couldn't. See for you to be able to broadcast, you would have to overpower those other stations. That would require the SAME equipment that they have as well as the technical expertise. Very few have that. As for no outside interference; hah. There has always been interference. Its called background noise
So you want to steal from the people who earned those pensions because the road is bad. That's not those people's fault. Its yours for either not voting at all or voting for the right person.
All true. Also all can be achieved on an island by yourselves if you have a good understanding of science, construction, electricity and bought a goodly amount of supplies with you. We are all being pendantic.
Yes, because keeping an army of developers on staff to maintain legacy applications from 20 years ago only used by 4 people doesn't cost anything. With the exception of Apple, most hardware manufacturers operate with a razor thin margin.
And why is that? Because most the money that should be invested back into production and R&D is spent on that corner office, jet, limo, and the golf games. You won't convince me that the same decisions can't me made in an office one level above the production floor that has no beautiful view.
No. People are ignorant. The companies manipulate it to look like option 1 is better than option two. You can have both at $15 too but the CEO and board would have to sacrifice their jet and weekly golf games at the country club.
windows xp is 1 million lines of code that is fundamentally buggy now. Its basically like making a person walk on burning glass for a 1/4 mile barefoot
It's a two cultures problem in IT. The vast majority of Microsoft's, or Apples, or Oracles, or whoever's customers use their OS on laptops, workstations, or servers, where the consequences of bugs are fairly well approximated by "nuisance". The other culture of computer software customers are folks who use computers handle large amounts of money and control moving machinery (power plants, drones, etc), where the consequences of bugs and unintended features start at "oh shit, we've lost millions of dollars" to "oh shit, the crane dropped its load 200ft" up through "oh God, the power plant has exploded!" People in the second camp have a healthy suspicion of getting the latest and greatest upgrade from companies run by and for people in the first camp. And that dichotomy is why most embedded OS's come with source code that you get to debug yourself if it doesn't quite work for your application (VxWorks, QNX, Windows Embedded, RTLinux, etc).
This is why People in the second camp should NEVER be using OS from the first group because they CAN"T make mission critical, reliable OS period. You don't need just 6 9s of uptime, you need 9 (and sigma 6 just to throw in another fun but useless buzz word. [I know what sigma 6 is])
There are two lessons here: one, if you make something non-upgradeable it may have a bug that requires a fix; two, if you make something upgradeable some nefarious actor could exploit that and install something bad.
no, the lesson here is "DON"T MAKE STUFF UNUPGRADEABLE!" Otherwise, you will pay the piper and he looks like the main character from V is for Vendetta.
Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves. The legal system would become instead of 80% biased for the Republicans like we have now to 100% against the normal people. That is a horrible idea.
Its already 100% biased against the poor. We just want all lawyers to work probono.
This is the correct answer. The Hawaian islands form over a "hot spot" under the sea floor that doesn't move with the plate. When the plate moves enough, a new volcanic vent appears. The entire chain of islands is the result of this process. Note that Hawaii, "The big island" is currently over the hot spot, and all the other islands are no longer active. The further away (in a line!) from the hot spot they are, they more they've eroded, so the smaller they are.
That looks suspiciously like compelling evidence for a >10000 year old earth.
Damn the devil is good! Hes obviously put alot of effort in to making the physical evidence as logical and consistent as possible.
Come to think of it, he would make a damn good engineer if he wasn't so evil. Its a real pity God lets this veritable mountain of evidence against a literal bible slide.
To be honest, He needs to lift His game a bit and put a stop to all this physical evidence thats fooling so so many intelligent humans...the plausible deniability argument is going to be pretty hard for Peter to refute at the Pearly Gates to be honest.
**Before the hate machine begins its inexorable slide over me, please note that this post is actually satire.
Ok, I'll bite. according the Christian Bible, Yahweh is omnipotent. By definition ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent 'having complete or unlimited power' 'having virtually unlimited authority or influence' 'arrant: being notoriously without moderation'
This is what amuses with people. Why can't an entity who has all power and authority create a universe with spoken word instanteously just like it is now and then make it look old? Why couldn't he screw with people and simply keep changing the science?
This is the whole point. When you interject an all powerful deity into the mix the answer will always be 'I don't know.' Yes, it could be 10k yrs old and look billions simply because he could.
So if you want to believe that great. If you want to believe science is right great. Fighting about it is ignorant.
Please forgive me if I disregard all your academic arguments about economic philosophy that are based on one term I used ("free market") because that was the most concise term I could think of using the english language. There is no dogmatic and irrational belief in lassaiz faire at work here.
I'm not sure what features YouTube has that couple users to it, because I've never had a YouTube account, yet I can go to YouTube and watch absolutely anything (with the exception of a few vexing restrictions when using a mobile device). I'm not forced to use YouTube for anything, and plenty of videos I watch are provided by services other than YouTube. Lots of stuff is on YouTube, but I don't feel particularly coupled to it. In fact, I'd classify YouTube as the most uncoupled service on the internet because I am not forced to be a YouTube user in any way, yet I can watch any YouTube video I wish on just about any device I own.
More importantly, I can choose to NOT watch YouTube videos, and there is plenty of interesting information out there that does not use YouTube.
I'm not seeing the closed market you are describing, at least with respect to YouTube. I DO see a closed market with other services that require me to use that service exclusively to see something, but YouTube has been pretty egalitarian in my experience.
So what is your point exactly, and what service do you use that is more free than YouTube?
Have to ask this but how did you manage to watch porn on Youtube. (yes a bit pendantic but sorry it is a good argument)
other subscription streaming services aren't profitable precisely because of those fees.
So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok;)
Pushing a new service (streaming) by exploiting a market-dominating position in another area (video sharing on YouTube) sounds like a gross violation of antitrust laws.
No just being anti competitive can do that. lets see At&T, Comcast, EA. Viacom etc (i could continue but then I would have a list of over 100)
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Despite its accessibility, many doctors say the medication wasn't a good option for patients.
Although the CFC ban is what eventually drove Primatene Mist from the market, Pulmonologist have argued for years that it was at the very least, not the best medication for asthma control, and at worst, dangerous. The active ingredient in Primatene Mist is Epinephrine (also known as adrenaline, adrenalin), which can cause a dangerous increase in heart rate.
"Primatene Mist does not treat asthma -- it treats symptoms that can come from asthma," said Dr. Kyle Hogarth, an assistant professor of medicine and the medical director of the pulmonary rehabilitation program at the University of Chicago Medical Center.
The danger in treating only symptoms, he said, is that repeated asthma attacks can permanently damage the lungs. Poorly controlled asthma can progress to a point where, "in their 40s and 50s, [patients] have the lungs of someone who is 80 or 90 who has smoked."
For that reason, the goal of asthma care isn't to react just to attacks -- it's to prevent attacks in the first place. That's generally done with daily medications, such as inhaled corticosteroids, which keep the airways from becoming inflamed. Ideally, Hogarth said, rescue inhalers shouldn't be used more than twice a week, at most.
Sounds great, but one of the symptoms of asthma is not being able to BREATH. Primatene is good for dealing with that quickly and when you are having that issue you want to deal with it.
Thats because Epinephrine is used to stop anaphylactic shock. There are rescue inhalers that do the same now. You just need a prescription.
AM and FM radio haven't been a significant part of our actual "telecommunication system" since maybe 1960. Other than the occasional storm warning.
I think you misunderstand the post. Radio is definitely a government thing and the most important thing the government does in this field is frequency allocation. It's vital for modern society.
Without frequency allocation anyone could broadcast at any power at any frequency. Just think about that and how much is still controlled via radio/microwave signals. The following things rely on there being set frequency bands with no outside interference:
No they actually couldn't. See for you to be able to broadcast, you would have to overpower those other stations. That would require the SAME equipment that they have as well as the technical expertise. Very few have that. As for no outside interference; hah. There has always been interference. Its called background noise
Didn't you hear? Glenn Beck IS builting Galt's Gulch.
So you want to steal from the people who earned those pensions because the road is bad. That's not those people's fault. Its yours for either not voting at all or voting for the right person.
Um Somalia has a effective Government. tribal dictatorship
All true. Also all can be achieved on an island by yourselves if you have a good understanding of science, construction, electricity and bought a goodly amount of supplies with you. We are all being pendantic.
Yes, because keeping an army of developers on staff to maintain legacy applications from 20 years ago only used by 4 people doesn't cost anything. With the exception of Apple, most hardware manufacturers operate with a razor thin margin.
And why is that? Because most the money that should be invested back into production and R&D is spent on that corner office, jet, limo, and the golf games. You won't convince me that the same decisions can't me made in an office one level above the production floor that has no beautiful view.
but what would the teaspoon be made of?
No, the ads aren't off topic if you have the ad box checked and suddenly an ad is above it.
No. People are ignorant. The companies manipulate it to look like option 1 is better than option two. You can have both at $15 too but the CEO and board would have to sacrifice their jet and weekly golf games at the country club.
no, companies are greedy.
windows xp is 1 million lines of code that is fundamentally buggy now. Its basically like making a person walk on burning glass for a 1/4 mile barefoot
+1 to your +1
It's a two cultures problem in IT. The vast majority of Microsoft's, or Apples, or Oracles, or whoever's customers use their OS on laptops, workstations, or servers, where the consequences of bugs are fairly well approximated by "nuisance". The other culture of computer software customers are folks who use computers handle large amounts of money and control moving machinery (power plants, drones, etc), where the consequences of bugs and unintended features start at "oh shit, we've lost millions of dollars" to "oh shit, the crane dropped its load 200ft" up through "oh God, the power plant has exploded!" People in the second camp have a healthy suspicion of getting the latest and greatest upgrade from companies run by and for people in the first camp. And that dichotomy is why most embedded OS's come with source code that you get to debug yourself if it doesn't quite work for your application (VxWorks, QNX, Windows Embedded, RTLinux, etc).
This is why People in the second camp should NEVER be using OS from the first group because they CAN"T make mission critical, reliable OS period. You don't need just 6 9s of uptime, you need 9 (and sigma 6 just to throw in another fun but useless buzz word. [I know what sigma 6 is])
so your solution is legislation that basically says that any OS sold has to be maintained forever. I would LOVE to see that happen.
There are two lessons here: one, if you make something non-upgradeable it may have a bug that requires a fix; two, if you make something upgradeable some nefarious actor could exploit that and install something bad.
no, the lesson here is "DON"T MAKE STUFF UNUPGRADEABLE!" Otherwise, you will pay the piper and he looks like the main character from V is for Vendetta.
The burst was created en route about 6000 years ago: So actually it never happened.
(Please don't mod insightful)
Why not? That would be funny.
Prenda lost because they violated their rules and kept pissing off a judge who actually did some due diligence in the area they were suing.
Wow, you Republicans are getting more brazen. Creating a system where the poor can't afford to sue because they may have to pay for the other guy's legal costs means that only the rich would be able to afford to defend themselves. The legal system would become instead of 80% biased for the Republicans like we have now to 100% against the normal people. That is a horrible idea.
Its already 100% biased against the poor. We just want all lawyers to work probono.
Bingo!
This is the correct answer. The Hawaian islands form over a "hot spot" under the sea floor that doesn't move with the plate. When the plate moves enough, a new volcanic vent appears. The entire chain of islands is the result of this process. Note that Hawaii, "The big island" is currently over the hot spot, and all the other islands are no longer active. The further away (in a line!) from the hot spot they are, they more they've eroded, so the smaller they are.
That looks suspiciously like compelling evidence for a >10000 year old earth.
Damn the devil is good! Hes obviously put alot of effort in to making the physical evidence as logical and consistent as possible.
Come to think of it, he would make a damn good engineer if he wasn't so evil. Its a real pity God lets this veritable mountain of evidence against a literal bible slide.
To be honest, He needs to lift His game a bit and put a stop to all this physical evidence thats fooling so so many intelligent humans...the plausible deniability argument is going to be pretty hard for Peter to refute at the Pearly Gates to be honest.
**Before the hate machine begins its inexorable slide over me, please note that this post is actually satire.
Ok, I'll bite. according the Christian Bible, Yahweh is omnipotent. By definition ttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent 'having complete or unlimited power' 'having virtually unlimited authority or influence' 'arrant: being notoriously without moderation' This is what amuses with people. Why can't an entity who has all power and authority create a universe with spoken word instanteously just like it is now and then make it look old? Why couldn't he screw with people and simply keep changing the science? This is the whole point. When you interject an all powerful deity into the mix the answer will always be 'I don't know.' Yes, it could be 10k yrs old and look billions simply because he could. So if you want to believe that great. If you want to believe science is right great. Fighting about it is ignorant.
kim kardashian butt or brittney spears butt?
Kim's is far bigger.
Greetings Bob9113.
Please forgive me if I disregard all your academic arguments about economic philosophy that are based on one term I used ("free market") because that was the most concise term I could think of using the english language. There is no dogmatic and irrational belief in lassaiz faire at work here.
I'm not sure what features YouTube has that couple users to it, because I've never had a YouTube account, yet I can go to YouTube and watch absolutely anything (with the exception of a few vexing restrictions when using a mobile device). I'm not forced to use YouTube for anything, and plenty of videos I watch are provided by services other than YouTube. Lots of stuff is on YouTube, but I don't feel particularly coupled to it. In fact, I'd classify YouTube as the most uncoupled service on the internet because I am not forced to be a YouTube user in any way, yet I can watch any YouTube video I wish on just about any device I own.
More importantly, I can choose to NOT watch YouTube videos, and there is plenty of interesting information out there that does not use YouTube.
I'm not seeing the closed market you are describing, at least with respect to YouTube. I DO see a closed market with other services that require me to use that service exclusively to see something, but YouTube has been pretty egalitarian in my experience.
So what is your point exactly, and what service do you use that is more free than YouTube?
Have to ask this but how did you manage to watch porn on Youtube. (yes a bit pendantic but sorry it is a good argument)
So it's ok for Google to force people into signing worse terms by threatening to de-list them from YouTube? If Microsoft started charging ad providers for showing ads in IE there would be uproar on here, and I doubt MS saying that browsers aren't profitable enough would persuade many people it's ok ;)
You actually still use IE? How sad for you.
Pushing a new service (streaming) by exploiting a market-dominating position in another area (video sharing on YouTube) sounds like a gross violation of antitrust laws.
No just being anti competitive can do that. lets see At&T, Comcast, EA. Viacom etc (i could continue but then I would have a list of over 100)
The point is: Google isn't even giving us the choice.
And when has they ever? I seem to remember the death of igoogle even though it was popular.