www.theyworkforyou.com
Make your MP your mailman (or mailwoman). They don't have anything on at the moment.
497 publicly visible posts • joined 28 Oct 2011
But suppose those few iPhone-brandishing terrs can do A LOT of damage: if not outright destabilize the country and put EVERYONE in danger?
What, all 280 million people in the US? Or are you *only* talking about the 60-70 million in the UK?
I think you need to consider reality as an alternative worldview.
OTOH, I think the post you're replying to (" It has only fuelled one of the arguably worst and darkest periods in American (and world) history.") also needs to rein in the rhetoric: this has been bad, but not the worst.
Different exams test different things. An open book exam is good at testing ability to problem solve and come up with creative answers. A "normal" exam is good at testing fact retention and relevance.
Both are good in appropriate settings.
Obvious statements are obvious, but don't appear to have been made yet. And can we please, on a technical site, avoid the confusion the government/media have between arithmetic and maths.
Your point is good and I particularly like the image of a hospital lying on top of a robot. I was thinking of one patient's emergency, not a mass disaster. And I work in a hospital that's the safest earthquake building in town, so everywhere else may be destroyed but the hospital (should) just keep going...
The situations envisaged for these robotic surgeons are doing Exceeding Complicated Specialist Surgery in relatively remote locations - so rather than travelling to London village, you get your ECSS* in your local hospital. It will also help in emergency situations (a long way in the future) as it will be permanently available and you can have a roster of surgeons in your distant location (or even spread across the country).
So no, nobody's thought about security and although they will be tested on closed networks, they will be on open ones before anyone gets round to sorting it out. Unless the authors of this paper get a bit more traction... more power to them.
* I think I can sell this acronym to surgeons. It sounds flashy enough.
So it isn't just Franco's preference for conservative Catholicism that's to blame here.
It's also the Catholic church in Spain's preference for fascism that's to blame. Along with wanting to do everyone else's thinking for them, just like all those with untrammelled authority throughout (and presumably before) human history.
Pulse oximetry can't distingish between oxyhaemoglobin and carboxyhaemoglobin; you need to do arterial blood gases. OTOH, you do make a reasonable point that there are many conditions where monitoring of pulse oximetry can be helpful - you can get cheap ($30) pulse oximeters online these days. Lots of GPs have them now.
Although I agree the UK is economically leaning increasingly to the right, in social terms there has been a mass shift leftwards (or "progressive" if you like the Whig view of history). The Blair government made significant shifts in reducing causal homophobia, sexism and racism. This has been continued by Brown and Cameron. Bizarrely the Labour party doesn't seem to make a big thing out of this (presumably as it might make voters scared they're going to change society again).
Icon to represent fear of change
If a GP were to actually do that, with many clients, they'll just leave and never come back. Turns out, people just don't want to be told they're unfit.
Fine, if they don't want to be told. I tell people but they still come back: I can modulate my language and tone to be different irl compared to internet fora. I also think you're making the classic error of assuming that all patients are like you. Most are elderly, frail and have multiple problems. I hope this isn't you.
And clients? Really?! I have patients. Nobody chooses to be ill; free markets don't work for illness. (Healthcare maybe, but I doubt it - costs, unpredictability, asymmetrical information, anxiety all prevent patients from being able to "choose" health care providers appropriately)
with a bit of medical knowledge
A fat person has more impact-absorbing lard but may lack strength in the bones a fitter person is likely to have
Acutally bone mass tends to be directly proportional to weight. If you do more weight bearing exercise (running/jumping events) you will increase bone mass (not cycling/swimming/walking; they will not help).
I'm surprised you didn't point out the obvious which is that a fitter person may be able to leap out of the way in time
But they may be more likely to be out for a run, rather than sitting on said bus, etc etc. We can only deal with the observational evidence we have, and I am unaware of any evidence linking fitness to risk of being involved in a pedestrian v vehicle.
Exercise damages joints , in my staffroom
Generally only "twisting" sports - ball games/racket sports. If you've had a joint injury eg from these sports, you're more prone to develop them when running; runners who have not had such injuries are (surprisingly) not more prone than the general population to develop joint problems. And can I suggest that you've got a biased and too small sample: how many of your staffroom are in the last 5 years of their lives? I'd guess a very small percentage (sadly, it is unlikely to be zero). You are therefore (given your small sample) unlikely to be able to see the benefits of exercise on longevity or general health.
That's enough medicine; I'm off for the icon. Cos nobody lives forever.
I agree it's a common error, but think it is the role of doctors to tell the unfit they should be fitter.
It will probably* help you live longer and have a shorter period of disease at the end of your life.
COI: a doctor who spent this afternoon telling all my clinic patients they should think about more exercise. In fact, I used exactly the same line as you: find a sport you enjoy.
* you may be hit by a bus tomorrow, and in this situation if you are killed immediately fitness won't help. If you're hospitalised for a prolonged period, then it will.
Frank Sinartra was welcomed to a club by the comedian on stage with the line "Hi Frank, make yourself at home: hit someone!"
He was a evil bastard and his memory should be spat upon at all possible opportunities. The fact that he was a great entertainer (?greatest singer ever) doesn't mean he should get away with misbehaviour. See: Jeremy Clarkson.
So yeah, playing Sinartra's music exemplifies poor taste.
1% is routinely quoted as the number of human cells compared to the number of bacteria in the gut. (This ignores the skin, respiratory, genital etc microbiomes)
And faecal transplants have been discussed ad nauseum on this site already. They work for situations where an individual's microbiome has been so severely disrupted that shoving in someone else's crap makes things better.
In response to point 2, from one of my previous posts (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/11/28/beyond_the_genome_youve_been_decoded_again/):
do drugs cost that much to develop? We don't have much evidence - you can read between the lines here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21256615
Here's where the old $800million/new drug figure comes from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12606142 (please note it is entirely from figures from the pharmaceutical industry, not publicly available info)
The $800 million was debunked at book length: http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SKr5BDAmiMoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+$800+million+pill&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WLx6VJjyHoLRmwW73YLYDg&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA
And recently(ish): "one can conclude that R&D costs companies a median of $43.4 million per new drug" from BioSocieties (2011) http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/Biosocieties_2011_Myths_of_High_Drug_Research_Costs.pdf
Apologies for long quote, but bluntly the people who made the original claim (and now amplify it every so often) about the high cost of developing drugs are those who ask for money to pay for the development of drugs. Can you see a conflict of interest?
1) plenty of re purposing going on in medicine already, just most non-oncologists don't feel the need to write about it in quite the same "saving the world" way.
2) drug development doesn't cost $500 million, or $800 million, or whatever the current figure plucked from the air is. It's usually around $50 million, still plenty but not quite the same when you consider what blockbuster drugs make. (Top fact: atorvastatin was the first drug to make more than $1 billion profit in one year. Yes that's profit!)
3) pharmaceutical companies are not intrinsically evil, as some believe, but society has set up some appalling incentives for them. Taken forever? For a rich "lifestyle" disease?
4) treatment data is still required, and whilst safety approval is easier with an already widely used drug, you still need to prove that your purported mechanism of action is efficacious and effective. It's the phase 3 trials which are the big ones.
Car reviews. Read the newspapers and these are notable for their ability to reprint the manufacturers' guff. Generally combined with secondary school essay writing techniques of "something I liked, something I didn't, overall I liked/didn't like it". They then attach some "personality" to it, which is usually dependent on the publication they are writing for.
Well, I don't think the doctor is likely to be risking his* own skin in order to delay the patient suffering, given the ease of obtaining a second opinion and dislike that legal systems worldwide have of anyone trying to stymie their sentence.
And hypertension doesn't normally carry a significant risk of death in the short term, so I doubt very much that that has much to do with the punishment/delay. It can be present from pain, so perhaps the pain from 50 lashes is sufficient to drive an already elevated BP to dangerous levels, but this would appear to suggest physical injury... I don't actually know enough to provide a firm professional opinion however, as my medical education did not include how to mediate torture.
Hypertension is merely a risk factor for vascular (arterial) badness (such as heart attacks/strokes/aortic aneurysms/peripheral vascular disease), so maybe the doctor was concerned that his BP of say 160/90 was enough that he'd have a chance of being >220/110 during the torturelashes, and this was concerning enough that the doc didn't want to be responsible for signing off on him being in a fit state. This is guesswork, based on how doctors behave and what you state about the hypertension being the reason for delay.
* somehow I think it's unlikely to be a her.
But one week after 50 of these "little more than taps", doctors state he cannot undergo a repeat of this "public humiliation rather than anything corporal" as it might kill him?
Utter crap. You should be ashamed of yourself, and I hope you are.
Unsurprising. It's all about using information - the woman from the internet assumed that the 2 cuties knew something about you.
This, I postulate, is why it is important when looking for a lifetime partner/one night stand/anything in between to smile at everyone. Some people smile back, this creates a virtuous circle. (As well as making you seem pleasant to be around.)
I'm not sure that the craftsmen had enough time/cash to make violins "just to see how this one goes" on a regular basis. I suspect the answer is no. Someone will doubtless be along in a moment to answer how many violins a master craftsman could make in a lifetime, giving us the answer (or at least hinting at one).
Well, to continue your analogy, the heat still needed to be applied to the fuse. Just because it lit more easily than expected is not a defence. See Arunat the less' explanation beneath your first post.
You don't need new laws, or a big change in society, or adjusting our tolerance. You don't need "protection", whatever that means. It just requires application of current laws. In essence, this man was driven to suicide as a result of some people's attempt to extort money. I think that requires prosecution*. You are welcome to disagree, but I think you're wrong.
*probably not for murder - they didn't actually act to kill him. And prosecution doesn't mean they're guilty, just the Crown think that they are and have a case to answer.
Autism can be thought of as a lack of theory of mind. This means that they cannot understand other people as having independent minds, or the emotional responses from others. This means they seem to lack empathy. They also struggle with understanding lies/untruths, and take the world as it appears. This means that intimate relationships are challenging (if you don't understand white lies and emotional context, responding to "does my bum look big in this?" is impossible).
With this understanding, can you can see why someone with autism who receives an email saying his sexual predilections are going to be publicly announced might respond in the way he did?
Wikipedia has a bit on theory of mind and "The curious incident of the dog in the night time" by Mark Haddon is excellent at helping understand the thoughts of those with autism. You could also look at http://www.autism.com/understanding_theoryofmind
NB: good for you for demanding answers from me, rather than standard internet behaviour of retreating into a slanging match. It's encouraged me to answer :-)
"I can only presume... his autism was sufficiently severe that he was a very fragile person."
Yet managed to go to a mainstream school. Unlikely to be "very fragile".
"nothing more than Daily mail readers comments" - your post is a classic example of Poe's law. The phrasing of your comments following this line makes me suspicous...
From your linked article: "The analysis presented here does not alter Fisher’s
conclusions that, overall, Mendel’s results are closer to
theory than expected on a chance basis."
It goes on to defend Mendel if he did distort the data.I agree Mendel was incredible in getting the right answer (ie explaining hereditary characteristics) well before anyone else as in my post above, but that doesn't vindicate him misusing data.
I was a little strong in complaining about it. And the article you linked has great analysis, thanks.
Do you include Gregor Mendel, father of genetics, also a monk, in that?
Yup. Those who falsify research data are shit scientists. Mendel's data is sadly too good to be true, and is carefully cherry picked. It is fairly amazing though that he managed to guess the right answer, and then fiddled his data to get there.
(Not sure I agree with the original assertion though...)
Thinking about travel time as an opportunity cost for earning is reasonable. However, bus travel time allows reading, thinking, writing, aimlessly doodling, etc. Car travel time shouldn't (although does - back to the discussion at the top about bad drivers...). Bus/train travel is better than car travel as no concentration is required. (This is one aspect where cycling is also not great, but at least it's enjoyable rather than being part of the rat race.)
And as to whether it is best to commute by bus/train/metro or car, I suggest walking. For those who live too far away, I would revisit your priorities. I (admittedly I'm lucky) live 30 mins walk from my work deliberately. This meant buying a house that was smaller, needed more work etc than one that was nicer but would impact on my life every prolonged expensive life-sucking commute to work. It also saves me hours, if you wish to calculate money, on avoiding conversations about the price of petrol.
My best commute was 45 minutes by bike (20km). Much more enjoyable than the alternative 30 minute drive in heavy traffic. Once you shower/breakfast at the other end, it was 60 minutes and I only actually got up 10 minutes earlier as I didn't need to breakfast etc before leaving. I would also get home each day having ridden 40km, feeling great about doing the washing up/house work as I felt I'd had my "me time" for the day.
Icon: another advantage of travel by public transport.
The important issue here is regarding the widespread (in the US at least, mostly in the 2000s) sexual assault cases that are "remembered" following therapy. Many parents have been accused by their children of crimes which there is no evidence of beyond a memory which was completely suppressed until the therapist managed to extract it. Once it has been mentioned as real, then it turns into a very real memory of remembered trauma, with much more typical features - flashbacks, emotional arousal, avoidance - with all the long term consequences of suffering.
The concept of false memory syndrome is important, as otherwise vulnerable people will continue to make their own lives worse by accusing their nearest and dearest of horrific crimes that didn't happen.
There's no need for rail to continue to be "compatible" with 17th century stagecoaches
I think you mean "the width of 2 Roman horses' arses" - the design gauge for Roman roads initially; copied for railways and now an unfortunate legacy as I don't fancy paying to rebore every tunnel/rebuild every bridge for the rail network...
IIRC the most amusing example was the shuttle solid booster rockets had to be scaled down from the planned design as they were going to have to fit through a tunnel somewhere between their (pork) building state and KSC.