Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:I love Model Ms. I still have two of them. (Score 2) 304

by jvp (#48093327) Attached to: The Greatest Keyboard Ever Made

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.

Comment: Re:I love Model Ms. I still have two of them. (Score 1) 304

by jvp (#48093243) Attached to: The Greatest Keyboard Ever Made

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... :-) (The PS/2 - USB adapters are all trash). I do completely agree with the post though: the M is simply the best, by far. I have USB versions of them (done by Unicomp/ on all of my Macs, and my gaming rig. It gives my co-workers yet another reason to dislike me, but, eh. I loves me some M.

"Say what? I can't hear you over the massive awesomeness of my keyboard!"

Comment: Re:so much for the stem cell hype wagon (Score 1) 75

by jvp (#47249239) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

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.

Comment: Re:Measure blood directly (Score 1) 75

by jvp (#47249225) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

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.

Comment: Re:Marketing hype (Score 2) 75

by jvp (#47249099) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

]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.

Comment: Re:Warning: Snarky comment (Score 1) 75

by jvp (#47248441) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

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.

Comment: Re:Drop everything to avoid Diabetes II (Score 1) 75

by jvp (#47248401) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

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.

Comment: Re:Isn't this why we have Mexicans? (Score 2) 75

by jvp (#47248203) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

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.

Comment: Re:Marketing hype (Score 5, Informative) 75

by jvp (#47248175) Attached to: Artificial Pancreas Shows Promise In Diabetes Test

Yep. I'm a *big* fan of my insulin pump, but the included "Constant Glucose Monitoring" device that the pump's company touts as "FDA-approved artificial pancreas!!one11eleven!!" is anything but. It's measuring interstitial fluid, which is *randomly* accurate in *random* people at *random* times. It can neither be trusted, nor should be. And I've since stopped using the CGM side of the pump.

The tech that they're talking about in this article is the same idea: measure interstitial fluid and make insulin decisions based on that. Bad. Ju. Ju.

We need some way of measuring blood glucose levels from, ya know, actual *blood*, without the risk of causing infections. Until we get that, no bueno. Just pass on it.

Comment: Praise in Public... (Score 1, Interesting) 307

by jvp (#47180085) Attached to: GM Names and Fires Engineers Involved In Faulty Ignition Switch

...punish in private!

Unlike a lot of nay-sayers, I'm a big fan of GM and will continue to buy specific products from them. However, I'm *not* a fan of this move. Always praise in public and punish in private. They should have simply released a press statement with something like, "We've determine who was responsible for this ignition switch issue, and they've been terminated or dealt with accordingly." Done. Naming them serves no purpose whatsoever.

Comment: Re:Adobe Photoshop Down (Score 1) 164

by jvp (#47012877) Attached to: Adobe Creative Cloud Services Offline (Again?)

Your main workflow, on the other hand, shouldn't be constrained by your network. There's so many things that could wrong in that chain.
1. your computer
2. your router/LAN
3. your ISP
4. the internet (yeah, sometimes everything breaks)
5. Adobe's servers

as opposed to just (1) if you've purchased a static installation.

And this is where some clarity is needed, I suspect. Again, as has been stated numerous times in this thread: the applications will continue working as long as they have already validated your subscription. For instance, I just fired Photoshop and Premiere up. Both popped open a dialog that said, basically, "Hey, we can't validate your subscription, but you can continue using the app until July 28, 2014. If we can't connect by then, your product will stop working."

There are a *FEW* folks that will run into problems authenticating and consequently not being able to use the product. Why their machines haven't authenticated in the past is beyond me. But the dialog is clear: I have almost 2.5 months! I suspect most people (other than those trying to do new installs... UGH!) are in the same boat.

Is it ideal? Oh hell no. Is there anything we can realistically do about it? Well, we can leave Adobe if that's our choice. But as has been pointed out elsewhere, their products really *are* the best out there. I know comparing FCPX and Premiere Pro is almost laughable (and I've done it on my new Mac Pro). As optimized as FCPX is for the new Macs, Premiere is *still* faster for what I do. No one else really has a Photoshop. Or a Lightroom if you don't need PShop's grunt.

Another solution: stick with the CS6 versions of the suite assuming you've already purchased them. The problem with that is: they're not being developed any more, and will *only* have major bug fixes done. What? Can't run them on the latest OS de'jour? Tough shitski. You're outta luck.

I'm not trying to defend the CC sub model because it sucks the big'n. But I *like* Adobe's software, so I'll continue p[l]aying along. If something better appears, I'll look into it.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)