Usually the staff of ALS ambulances have more training than regular ambulances. Obviously, they have less than an emergency room physician. What needs to be studied is locality and transit time. Does an ALS make sense in rural areas, where the nearest hospital is 30 minutes away? Does it provide a better mortality rate than a helicopter (which costs significantly more)? Or maybe, it's just the opposite where ALS is more effective in metropolitan areas where heavy traffic congestion can make a relatively short trip take a long time.

Even the article itself stated that more research needs to be performed before determining that ALS is better or worse. Limited data often limits the validity of the results. The known facts are that only 10% of people who have a cardiac arrest outside the hospital survive it, regardless of how they were transported there. There appears to be a higher mortality rate associated with ALS than not. However, it is not clear whether that is a causation or a correlation. To understand that, there are many additional factors that need to be taken into account.

For instance mortality rates are higher on helicopter ambulances, too. Does that mean they shouldn't be used? No, of course not. They have higher mortality rates because they tend to be used for more severe injuries to start with. Until a proper study is conducted, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's.

Would you have preferred waiting to regain consciousness and walking their yourself? Yes, ambulances can be expensive, but you are paying for depreciation, salaries, benefits and ongoing training of the staff, fuel, maintenance, liability and malpractice insurance and various other costs.

While the methodology used for the original inquiry (I hesitate to use the word study) is non-statistical and therefore impossible to validly extrapolate from, so is the methodology used to debunk the original. At best, both reports provide anecdotal evidence, but without a statistically valid approach, either could be correct or both could be wrong.

You are correct, that's what happens when you don't actually review after hitting the preview button! :)

So did the oxygen simply appear out of nowhere (he asks rhetorically)? Of course not. If it was somehow trapped in the oceans or underground, and then released as postulated by these papers, then one must explain the mechanism that would have dissolved and/or trapped the O2 to start with. What was different about Pre-Cambrian oceans that allowed for more oxygen to be dissolved in it than modern oceans? What caused the release and the change to what we have now? Likewise, what mechanisms in tectonic plates shifting would account for a massive release of oxygen and from where?

I am not saying these hypothesis being presented are incorrect, but they need to be able to explain the before as well as the after.

But you must still defend your mark and Gnome the open source project desktop environment and also GnomeOS the operating system are pretty similar sounding to the GNOME point of sale system which includes the GNOME operating system per the article. While most of us could see that Apple Records and Apple Computer were two unrelated things, the courts found Apple Records to infringe on Apple Computer's mark. Likewise, McDonalds has fought very hard to protect its mark and also to expand it. Or, when Starwars first came out, it was a book and a movie. Now, it includes all sorts of merchandise that is anything but the book and movie. Ford could not come out and advertize a Darth Vader F-150 without getting into trouble, even though a pickup has nothing to do with the franchise.

Groupon is advertising an open source software project called GNOME that is an operating system for a point of sale system, that runs on a tablet. It is conceivable that Gnome Foundation will also wave a version of their Desktop environment that runs on a tablet or could be the foundation for somebody else's point of sale system. As such, Gnome Foundation is well within their rights to protect their mark and actually if they failed to do so, could lose their mark.

I'm pretty sure if Groupon named their POS system WINDOWS, nobody would bat an eye at Microsoft defending their mark, even though Microsoft's desktop environment is not the same thing as a point of sale system.

With trademarks, one must defend them or lose them.

One must protect their trademark or risk losing it. That is why we now have Jello brand gelatin and Band-Aids brand bandages. Apple Computer successfully defended it's trademark against Apple Records which was founded by the Beatles and those two categories were a lot further apart than Gnome the desktop environment, GnomeOS (put out by the Gnome foundation) and Gnome the point of sale operating system.

That explanation fails as a home is only passed on to one child, if at all. The microbes are passed on to all offspring. I do not doubt that the microbes are passed on, just that they are considered heritable. On the other hand, if there is a condition or environment in the gut of the offspring that allows some microbes to flourish over other microbes, then that would be heritable. But, the microbes, themselves are not heritable.

They are transferable, but not heritable. For instance, if in vitro fertilization is used and the embryo implanted in a surrogate mother, the microbes that are transferred are from the surrogate, not the biological mother. The offspring inherits the gut environment that might allow one type of microbe to flourish over another, but not the microbes themselves.

This is further evidenced by the fact that identical twins end up with the same microbes, but fraternal twins do not. The mother, as do we all, have most of the microbes in question. It is a matter of which ones can thrive. Identical twins end up with identical guts, fraternal twins do not. As such, identical twins end up with the same flora, but not necessarily for fraternal twins (they may end up with similar gut environments).

In short, it is the gut environment that allows for certain microbes to flourish over others that is heritable, not the microbes themselves.

Workers are responsible for half of cyber incidents? Well, if opening an email or clicking a link as described in the article makes the worker responsible, then so be it. But, in the days before the internet, when corporate (or government) espionage was the issue, it wasn't the worker who created the report that was responsible for it being stolen, but the actual thief. So, other than another attempt to denigrate government workers, why if somebody sends a malicious link is it not the person who sent the link responsible versus the unknowing end user?

Saying the government workers are the cause of the problem is like saying the woman wearing a short skirt was the cause of the rape. Blaming the victim just diverts attention from the real problem.

St. Nicholas was a real person. He was the Bishop of Myra. What has become the commercialized Christmas began relatively recently. Traditionally, December 25th was celebrated as the Nativity of the Lord and was not a big consumer celebration. That began in the Victorian Age, but was pretty mild compared to today. As for occurring at or near the winter solstice, that made sense because the Christ was supposed to bring light to the darkness. For things like evergreens being co-opted by from the pagans, well, yes people did that, but the Christmas Tree is not an official symbol of any Christian religion. Again, that really began in the Victorian Age, so blame the English, not religion.

So, if there is a surrogate involved, whose flora will the fetus inherit, the surrogate's or the biological mother's?

While there can be microbes in a placenta, usually they are not the types found in the intestinal tract, which is what this article is about. So, yes, flora from the mouth can travel through the blood stream to the placenta, but those are not the flora which ultimately colonize the intestinal tract.

But, no. If that were true than in vitro fertilization with implantation into another woman's womb would mean the baby would inherit the biological mother's microbes. That is not the case. The transmission of the microbes is an environmental transfer, not a genetic one.

I thought dinosaurs were birds?

You can, if you are on your own property. The problem occurs when you are taking something of value from property that you do not own.