You are not getting it: It has nothing to do with therapy vs. detection.

The article talks about contraband of radioactive materials. I gave you examples where radioactive materials are used both in therapy (certain kinds of radiotherapy for cancer) and in medical imaging (PET and SPECT). You mentioned none of these examples.

Instead, you gave three examples (x-rays, CT scanners, chemotherapy) none of which use radioactive materials.

Thus you used completely invalid examples to illustrate a very valid point.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but you picked up precisely the wrong examples.

X-ray machines and CT scanners (which are essentially an x-ray tube and detector mounted on a rotating gantry) do not contain any radioactive material whatsoever. Yes, they emit ionizing radiation (in the form of x-rays), but it is not originating from a radionuclide. Other types of tomographic scanners such as PET and SPECT do employ radionuclides injected into the patient, but you precisely didn't mention those.

And chemotherapy... again, that uses chemical agents to treat cancer, not radioactivity. Yes, there is radiotherapy, which in some cases (but not always) relies on radionuclides to deliver an ionizing radiation dose, but again you failed to mention it.

Following that exact same logic we could argue that 2000 requests were made (involving 3000 accounts) and 0 were granted.

A 0% success rate in complying with requests sounds pretty un-cozy to me...

I agree that the data is worthless, though.

A lot of people here seem to forget that the PowerPC processor architecture that powered the Macs for over a decade was developed jointly by Apple and IBM (and Motorola).

My point: Apple and IBM working together is certainly not unheard of.

No one is preventing you from backing up your apps. Why you refuse to do it is totally beyond me.

Very good point!

Still the gist of my comment remains: the old, uncorrupted copy of the corrupted file is kept in Time Machine even if the corrupted file ever gets into the backup. Having access to all older versions of your files is what Time Machine is all about!

All the Macs I've owned have always been my main personal computer, and the first couple were my only computer at the time. I did everything on them: schoolwork, gaming, stuff for my dad's office and for others, etc. Looking back, I believe I spent way more time with them than I should have.

Did I experience system crashes with the dreaded bomb box? Yes, plenty of them. Did I experience sad Macs? Yes, occasionally. (I believe it was supposed to appear on hardware failure, but after restarting the computers continued to hum along for years). I never owned (nor pirated) a copy of Norton Disk Doctor, although I did see it running on other people's computers.

It's not my fault that my experience differs from yours.

The parent post is assuming that the user is using Time Machine for the backups. In that case, the checksums are usually not verified (as nine-times said in his reply).

Nevertheless, in some cases Time Machine will perform a "deep" scan, for example if you have not backed up for a long time or if you upgrade your computer's drive. In that case, the corrupted file would be identified as a "change" and would be backed up again, just as you said.

Nevertheless, take into account that the corrupted file is not replacing the original in the backup. Both copies are left there so once you discover the corruption you can use Time Machine to navigate to a backup that is old enough and allow you to recover the file.

No, not "anyone who owned a Mac since the 80s...". My first Mac was a Mac Plus bought in 1987 (IIRC), and I have never used those tools nor experienced the problems you mention.

Thanks for the link to TFA. (I included a hyperlinked version for the benefit of the copy-paste impaired).

Reading that WSJ article allowed me to find the actual scientific paper in Nature Medicine , for those so inclined. Unfortunately it's paywalled except for the abstract and figures but those in the target audience of the paper probably have access through their institutions.

But following that logic ("a pea is not a plant because it is just part of a plant") the statement is still incorrect because I bet you could use the same argument to disqualify all the other ingredients as being plants.

Really? Cause I've read otherwise:

Source

The latest CBO report shows that the law is on track to reduce the total number of uninsured people by 12 million this year. Page 8 of the PDF.

I don't see the mention of 12 billion at all on that page or the ones next to it.

Of course you mean 12 million, not 12 billion.

The reason you can't find the number is because you are (quite correctly) looking at the page labeled as number 8. Unfortunately the PDF was not formatted correctly and the numbering is not restarting after the four-page preamble. Because of that, @artor3's PDF reader is incorrectly telling him that the page he is looking at is number 8, while you will find it's labeled as number 4.

So, go to page 4, Table 2, and look at the column for 2014. The Item (Change in Insurance Coverage Under the ACA) for Uninsured shows an increase of -12 (millions).

You must be new here.

Ha!

Perhaps the most hilarious thing about that website are the photos of "Dr. Amir Khadim, M.D., Ph.D." with the device... He's wearing glasses!

(Yes, I know. Not all eyesight defects can be corrected by LASIK. Still it's bad publicity as it suggests lack of confidence in the device you are selling – or its effectiveness.)