It was in the 60's not the 90's. Lowered to 55 in the Nixon admin and slowly climbing since then.
Shortly after Clinton signed the National Highway System Designation Act in '95. Montana did indeed have a "reasonable and prudent" speed limit set on its (very rural!) highways. It didn't last due to how vague the phrasing was.
...if they raised the speed limit to eighty-eight, scott could save *years*...
That's assuming he was driving something that vaguely looked like a DeLorean
Or has the US DOT had a change in policy?
Repealed as of 1995 with the passage of the National Highway System Designation Act.
So tax the trucks; not gas.
You do realize that taxing either has a negative effect on things you and I buy every day, right? No one likes the big 18-wheeler trucks, but none of the local supermarkets get restocked with food without those big, nasty trucks. If we make it more expensive for those trucks to operate, guess who's really going to pay for it?
That would be: us.
There is a special USB converter available that can handle the current:
Yep, I know. But the results on both WIndows and Macs are, at best: mixed. Unicomp's USB versions are identical from a mechanical perspective, and are already set up with the USB port from the factory. They even have Mac-specific versions (if you're so inclined) with the appropriate key layout and labels.
I had about 7 or 8 of them in unopened boxes before I finally decided to recycle them a month or two ago. Most from back in the mid-late 90s. If they'd just had USB connectors on keyboards way back then...
"Say what? I can't hear you over the massive awesomeness of my keyboard!"
I'm actually still trying to figure out why the *FCC* is getting involved in this, and not the *FTC*
A few tens of millions, and a bionic pancreas is nearing usability
tell me again why the bandwagon for stem cells
A child growing up with Type-1 is going to fare a lot better in life with a completely internal, biological solution to the problem versus having a device attached or implanted. So too will adults. Your thought process is a bit short-sighted, it seems.
It seems as though the big problem with this technology is that it's not measuring blood directly. What are the barriers to placing a sensor more-or-less permanantly inside the body that can test blood directly and the send, via radio or whatever, commands to an external insulin pump to dispense insulin?
Fun problems that aren't insurmountable, but expensive and very challenging. You have the issue of potential infections and rejection, first and foremost. Any insulin pump wearer knows that the site he or she is using needs to be ripped out and replaced every 3 days or so. Why? The body will muck it up via its internal self-defense mechanisms. The same thing would happen to a foreign body fully immersed inside the body.
Power supply. Something that's transmitting constantly or regularly is going to need a power source. Do you make it something that attaches to the outside of the skin for power (ie: a small battery)? Or cut the person open whenever the battery starts flaking out? If the latter, we have new members of the zipper club instantly.
]but when done right the results really are quite useful.
All I ask is that you don't judge the entirety of an approach based on your experience with one flawed implementation.
Show me it "done right" with years(!) of lab evidence, trials including hundreds (if not thousands) of individuals, and perhaps I'll believe you. Oh, and when you provide said data, don't be an "Anonymous Coward" about it, either.
No, blood tests aren't 100% accurate. They are, however, a far, *FAR* more accurate way to get an idea of levels than using interstitial fluid. And, as it turns out in this case: accuracy counts. A lot.
Doughnuts aren't going to eat the selves(sic).
Is it bad that I know that a Dunkin Donuts Boston Kreme donut has about 32g of carbs?
The first company to cure diabetes is going to make a shit ton of money.
My prediction regarding Type-1 is this: The computer geeks are going to come up with a pretty damned good solution before the geneticists do (the tech in the aforementioned article is *not* that). But ultimately, it'll be the geneticists that figure out how to cram new Islets of Langerhans into the pancreas and keep them protected from the immune system without the anti-rej drugs.
The former solution will be an acceptable stop-gap measure for however long it takes the geneticists to cook up the latter.
Anti rejection drugs > death.
Yeah. Maybe. But probably not, depending on whether you happen to get sick one day...
In a very long list titled - Stupid Things I Have Done ---- ignoring my doctors warnings on my blood sugar levels ranks right around #1.
While your contribution to the thread is admirable, it's centered around Type-2. We're discussing the genetic, auto-immune disease known as Type-1.
Why are we screwing around with artificial organs when we can have the real deal?
He. Joking aside, I know someone who actually did get a pancreas transplant, and his Type-1 was *essentially* cured. However. He eats massive handfuls of anti-rej drugs with every meal, all to keep that pancreas functioning. IMHO, not a good trade. At all.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
