It was still the done thing.
It was still the done thing.
It was also the "done thing" to lurk for a while before posting. Well, that was the case before Eternal September, anyway...
Yup. The main elements of soap opera are that it is a serial with a large primary cast of characters, where the primary (or even exclusive) focus is on inter-personal relationships and the emotional lives of those characters.
If it's that kind of show, it's a soap opera.
I'm not disputing that it's a story. We've both been on Slashdot for a long time, and our memories are probably hazy, but nonetheless help me out. Has "some analyst bets against the share price" ever been the primary focus of the story here?
One AC above noted that the real issue is that the maintainer of an implantable biomechanical device may go bust, stranding everyone who has one implanted and (as a general case) the huge risk inherent in the rise of the Internet of Safety-Critical Things. That is the news for nerds and the stuff that matters. That is not what the headline, the write-up, or most of the up-voted top-level comments are focussing on.
The US pharmaceutical industry tried some of the short-cuts you recommended and ended up with several disasters, such as the New England Compounding Center disease outbreak, which caused 64 deaths.
The Chinese pharmaceutical industry also tried it with the same results.
Pharmaceutical quality control and manufacture is a lot more complicated than making artisinal beer.
You also mentioned something about a media source claiming syringes require "extensive medical training" or something... I call BS. Again, diabetics deal with this all the time. There are some precautions, but most are similar to EpiPens, and the additional warnings can easily be explained in a few minutes. You also may want to check into the credentials of that medical professional -- I've seen some media quotes in stories in the past few days saying similar, but it turns out they work for allergy societies that get a huge amount of support from the manufacturer of EpiPens, which at a minimum presents a significant conflict of interest.
That "media source" was Consumer Reports. I have checked into their credentials. Their medical reviewers are probably more qualified in each of the specialties than some of the reviewers in the second-string peer-review journals. And they take no money from industry.
Diabetics do inject themselves with insulin, however there are differences between them and people with anaphylactic reactions so you can't equate the two. The most obvious difference is that insulin-dependent diabetics inject regularly, several times a day, so they're used to the equipment and familiar with it. People with anaphylactic reactions might a reaction once in their lives, once a year, or once every few years (according to a friend of mine who did have an anaphylactic reaction to bee antigen in a doctor's office), so they can forget how to use it.
You want to say that it makes no difference. I don't accept that. In a matter of life or death, you need better evidence than your own personal feeling. You seem to know enough about medicine to be able to look up articles on PubMed, but I'm certain that you're not a medical doctor or medical student. The standard of evidence for pharmaecuticals is a lot more rigorous than, say, the flavors and fragrances industry. I'd rather follow the advice of an MD.
It's not good enough to say that diabetic injections are sort of like epinephrine injections, so if it works for diabetes it seems like it should work for epinephrine. The only thing that will tell you what kind of problems come up when people use manual epinephrine injections is a well-designed study of people who use manual epinephrine injections, preferably with a comparison group of people who use the EpiPen. But that would be hard to do, because an anaphylactic shock is such a rare event.
And contrary to what you say, there is nothing in those studies that addresses the claim that "people won't fill them correctly or they'll lose time in doing all that for people inexperienced with them." Those were just lab studies of 2 narrow issues -- stability and sterility.
If you want to understand the design of medical studies, you could read the NEJM, BMJ, and JAMA Internal Medicine (my preferences) over the last few years. If you want to get a summary of what it's all about, you can look in http://www.healthnewsreview.or...
Can You Get a Cheaper EpiPen?
You could save about $400 per two-pack with generic Adrenaclick and still protect against life-threatening allergy attacks
By Ginger Skinner
August 11, 2016
The DIY Syringe Method
To further cut costs, some have turned to using manual syringes and buying vials of epinephrine to fill them. The drug costs a few dollars per vial. But experts caution that switching to a do-it-yourself syringe is more complicated and can result in getting too much or little epinephrine. What’s more, you’ll need to be trained by a doctor or pharmacist on how to inject the drug quickly and accurately before attempting to try it during an emergency.
And because there are different concentrations on the market, getting the proper dose is critical, especially for children. Work with your pharmacist to get the right amount of the drug. One more hiccup: You’ll need to replace the syringe and epinephrine every few months because studies show the drug loses potency after just three months. (It’s recommended that you replace EpiPens and generic Adrenaclick pens every 12 to 18 months.)
"While switching to a needle and syringe is not ideal,” says allergist Murphy, “it may be the only choice some patients have."
Because the multiple trillions of dollars we've already spent trying to instill common sense into people, the multitude of social programs designed to try and help people get jobs or a roof over their head, the grants or subsidies to help people start their own businesses and all the other programs who in one way or another have tried to set people on the correct path to life have worked so well we should spend trillions more.
The easiest way to reduce the prison population and those committing repeat crimes is to execute people. Domestic violence. Gone. You don't beat the crap out the woman (or man) you're living with and think that's acceptable.
You don't have multiple crimes against you before you're 18 then get a free pass to start the process over. Rapes, child molestation/rape, recidivists, murderers in general, gone.
Clean out the system instead of coddling and you will see a dramatic improvement in society. With the criminals gone, who will commit the crimes?
It's true they can use this technology for good but you know it'll be abused to hell and back. Safer? Very little but certainly much less free.
There's nothing to be done about Powell today
The story we've been discussing has nothing to do with Colin Powell.
Maybe you should read some of those links before you give an opinion, see what the whole thing was about.
"Fair Use" has much more protection in the US. Many other countries (Japan, and many EU countries) either don't have a concept for fair use, or it's very limited.
So it's okay to commit a crime because someone else got away with doing so before you did?
No. It's hypocrisy to care about a crime only when the person you don't like committed it.
Have a little moral clarity.
Cherry picking that there might be one or two emails out there that are still missing
It's not, "one or two". Maybe you missed this part of the story:
However, an untold number of official e-mails from President George W. Bush's era will probably never be recovered because it would be extremely costly to do so, lawyers involved in lawsuits brought by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said.
Because allowing people to "buy" products to which you have no right to be "selling" in the first place is something we should defend.
When your company produces a product I'll be sure to "share" it with millions of people while charging them for it. I'm certain your company won't mind me making money off their efforts.
I looked up your Pubmed citations in the hope that they would show that it was practical for people to use epinephrine injections rather than auto-injectors.
Unfortunately they didn't say that. Those were just lab tests of stability and sterility. In order to be convinced, I'd have to see a study of actual patients who successfully learned to do their own epinephrine injections. That would be a hard study to do, since anaphylaxis is relatively rare. Consumer Reports had an article about alternatives to the EpiPen, and their medical experts said that epinephrine would require more training than the EpiPen. You'd need a product that could be used by a bystander, such as a teacher, with minimal or no training.
If as you say people screw up the autoinjectors, it seems that they would be even more likely to screw up epinephrine. I'll believe it when I see the data.
(The other problem was that ephinephrine degrades after 3 months, while the EpiPen lasts 12 months.)
My basic reaction to your post is, you can't know that something is going to work until you've done a well-designed study in the real world.
Many, many issues in life are just inherently complex. So, when there's conflict, a person has to weigh which conflicting principle Is more important to them.
So basically we're totally fucked and it's not a question of *if* the ants take over, it's a question of *when*?
I'd bet on early December, but I doubt I'll be around to collect.
We can found no scientific discipline, nor a healthy profession on the technical mistakes of the Department of Defense and IBM. -- Edsger Dijkstra