The vast majority of type 2 diabetes patients in the US are obese. Perhaps you should've stopped eating when you were only 100lbs overweight.
Your stab at the "pharma" is as ignorant of your own condition as I would expect, both relating to the nature of your condition, as well as the Herculean (and somewhat Sisyphean) research efforts surrounding it.
I cannot even tell you how much of a bad idea this is. I am graduating medical school in two months, and am barely starting to feel "a little" comfortable making a judgment on my own, only a fraction of the time. I will need to accumulate ALL of the experience that 3 years of 80+hour work weeks of residency can give me. And I am a cocky bastard at that. I just realize that the difference between a doctor (especially one trained at a high-volume top-tier teaching hospital) and a civilian is. The gap is so large, as to be close to insurmountable. Actually, probably the most important thing I have learned in my training, is that I know VERY LITTLE from the overall ocean of medical knowledge, and my pond is much larger than average.
Anyway, I'm ranting. Let me give you a shorter explanation. I have PhD. I am 2 months away from having an MD. If I have a rash that concerns me, I go to a dermatologist. I don't research it online, and won't use an app to do it. I know precisely enough between my two degrees to know where the limits of my knowledge are. Most people don't. The number of soccer-moms (and dads) who think they know medicine is enormous... and their tinkering puts them and their families in danger. Nothing can ever give you the knowledge and especially the experience of going through medical training... other than medical training.
At the beginning of my career, I will have spent 4 years in college, 5 years in graduate school, 4 years in medical school, 3 years in residency, and 3 years in fellowship (19 years total, with my guess an average of >80hrs/wk, even including college, but let's say 80, so over 70'000 hours, with 40'000 hours of medicine alone).
I really hope that when my patients come to me, I'll be more useful to them than an iPhone app.
You're not correct. And THAT is where the big difference between Google and Facebook lies. Google sells eyes, but the fact of the matter is that they are anonymous eyes, but sold as eyes belonging to people most likely to purchase the product being marketed. However, until you click on that link, all the company knows is that they've been matched to you by the black box of Google magic.
Facebook, on the other hand, shares information with "partners". They are BY DEFINITION a personal info vendor.
Google sells ads, and tailors them to the vendor. Facebook sells your data to the vendor directly. BIG difference in privacy implications.
In a way, Apple has been wise to wait on 4G to catch up to the point where... well, where it actually means something because it doesn't mean anything right now.
I have been enjoying LTE on my Verizon HTC Thunderbolt for almost a year now, and I categorically disagree with that statement. It certainly means something because it's about 10x faster than the competitors, and is significantly (read - 2-3X) faster in real world use.
But considering the fact of global warming/climate change and the topic of greenhouse gases, isn't our core problem that we are simply burning too much stuff? With that in mind, is this really going to help?
Shouldn't our focus be on creating forms of energy that produce energy without burning things?
Your argument is fundamentally flawed, because ultimately, any energy generation will result in rising global temperature. After all, heat is the ultimate byproduct of reducing local entropy in any system.
If they can keep this GMO sequestered in a watertight tank and remember that it could possibly destroy the ocean it would help the population of the world. It's sort of silly, however, that they spent all those resources creating this GMO when hemp is a very common and old source for ethanol. But nooo, we don't want to upset the fine folks at Dow, Goodyear, or Monsanto do we. Let's forget hemp and create a new organism.
The above illustrates the problem of informing the uninformed about scientific developments.
What reproductive and survival advantage does E Coli get from having these modifications done? Right... none. So while it'll happily digest the seaweed in a lab, or even in a manufacturing tank, if you dump it into the ocean it will a) die from incorrect environmental osmolality and pH b) be eaten by a variety of sea creatures.
Introducing rabbits to Australia was FAR worse than dumping TONS of this stuff into the ocean. This bacterium is so far from being able to "destroy the ocean" that it would take a colossal act of ignorance to claim it as such. Oh wait...
You mean they're promoting a law that would make Victoria's Secret disclose the endless belly-fold-tucking and (B to D) breast enlargements they love so much? As a doc, looking at those anatomically-impossible bodies it makes me sad, because they change our perception of what should be seen as attractive to a standard that is literally impossible to meet. And at times even I have caught my own perceptions as being skewed, despite knowing full well how it happened.
"The medium is the massage." -- Crazy Nigel
