Tinypliny's Journal
My Podcast Link
04/04/2012 14:24 #56320
A page by any other name...Category: i-tech
But I am convinced M$hitWord must view it like this:
I am seriously so annoyed right now that I need to suffer through Word (in addition to wrestling with LaTeX) just because people haven't even heard of LaTeX. Why do I have to even make a crap Word document when I have already compiled a good enough PDF from tex? Why??
Because of the decades of misthinking and mistakes M$hit has heaped upon the world, that's why.
04/03/2012 15:01 #56314
e:strip. Now! Even MORE green!Category: e:strip
With Chromebot
Hee Hee
The title gave me an idea... and I missed the orange. And we had something similar like this before...
Et voilà !!! Tree-hugger (e:strip)!!
Get it here:
img.mini_userpic { border-style: none; } #stripe { display: none; } div.section.flip { display: none; } div.padding { display: none; } ol li a { display: none; } div.section h1 { font-variant: small-caps; font-size: 10px; } #col_left { display: none; } div.link_list { background-color: #8fad15; height: 0; } html body { background: url(http://cdn.tomorrow.do/Woodtable-merge.jpg) ; margin-left: 250px; } .buttons a { background-image: none; border: #eee; } #signup p { background-color: =; } #latest_entries ul li { font-size: 16px; line-height: 2.1em; letter-spacing: 1.6px; } #latest { background-color: #8eb320; padding-left: 30px; width: 350px; padding-right: 30px; moz-border-radius: 15px; -webkit-border-radius: 15px; border-radius: 15px; border-style: dotted; border-color: #6d8217; border-width: 1px; } div.mini_comment { letter-spacing: 1px; padding-bottom: 0; border-style: dotted; border-color: #6d8217; border-width: 1px; background-color: #8eb320; width: 350px; height: 120px; } div.mTopBottom { -moz-border-radius: 15px; -webkit-border-radius: 15px; border-radius: 15px; width: 400px; overflow: hidden; } div.link_list.buttons { margin-left: 729px; border-style: none ; } div.link_list.buttons a { border-style: none; color: #ffffff; } #comments { width: 400px; margin-left: 250px; margin-top: 20px; } div.section label { font-size: 15px; color: #ffffff; } #banner { width: 400px; height: 100px; margin-left: 250px; margin-top: -500px; } div.frontleft { margin-top: -30px; } div.body { color: #ffffff; } .module a { color: #8eb700 ; } #comments p { #comments p { margin-left: -250px; width: 300px; }
Its cute.
03/30/2012 18:35 #56300
ICS upgradingCategory: android
Or maybe I will try rooting it and revering back to Honeycomb - it used to be perfect till the update.
heh, my dislike for apple is even more so I am going to hold on to ICS and whine till 4.0.4 or Jelly bean gets here.
Maybe you need an ipad.
Hate it. Hate IT. HATE IT! The thing has rebooted a zillion times in the past week. I need 4.0.4 on my tablet. this older version is TERRRIBLE
I hear Jelly Bean is made specifically for tablets. Can't wait. ICS + T101 is extremely aggravating and painful
ICS + TF101 = completely rotten combo. :/
ICS 4.0.4 + nexus S = promising
Honeycomb + TF101 / Nexus one + honeycomb = very efficient
This is definite progress. 4.0.4 is way more smoother than the old one. Hate to say this but I dislike ICS on my tablet so much that I want to go back to Honeycomb. But the present ICS avatar feels much better on Nexus S. I don't know when it will hit my tablet, so I will attempt to go back to Honeycomb. :/
I am so jealous. Although I love my phone very much, enough to be willing to wait.
03/30/2012 12:50 #56298
Mega Lottery?Category: the odes
The blue moon rose today and I happened to glance at the top headline. A lottery. Seriously, a lottery of 640 bazillion dollars. That is top national and international news. Specifically, all the different ways you could spend the 640 bazillions that you have a whole 1:zillion odds of winning.
I say, this is an exemplary example of the human spirit and hope. Imagine buying a $1 ticket and hoping you can beat the 1:zillion odds. Fascinating. Maybe I should get a ticket too and join everyone else. The thing is does anyone know where I can get one within a 1/2 mile radius. Does Walgreens sell lottery tickets?
Ooh, (e:Paul) just told me - the nearest gas station. Hmm.. need to go on Google maps to find the nearest one. Maybe this is a hint that the tickets are not really targeting my demographic if I am having so much trouble just figuring out how to get them. Nevermind the question of what I will do with the money.
hahaha I never thought of that! Do you have a ticket?
And yes, if the veggies and fruits at a place are rotten, I don't go there anymore, more in protest about neglect of produce than anything else. I guess it is pretty obvious but my primary 2 stores are Pricerite and Walgreens. Occasionally, I consider hiking to the Coop but anxiety and impatience wins out and I end up taking an about turn at .. Walgreens or Pricerite. >8^)
I caught this article about how the entire lottery system is a complete tax from start to finish. :::link:::
Its a very interesting psychological and evil experiment. Low income families keep pouring their money into these programs that fund the state government to often squander profits and additionally offer other subtle and not-so-subtle subsidies to the richer folks at the expense of the low income families.
Nice piece of evil economics, don't you think. All gambling usually is. After paying 25% federal and 14% state taxes in addition to the omnipresent 8.75% tax on everything, you HAVE to wonder why this money is not coming back to the betterment of the society, and why instead our elected representatives are bailing out the richest people who propagate these schemes in the first place.
Guessing you don't shop at corner stores? HA.... No one won so it went up to 500 million then some how it goes up based on how many tickets are bought so now it is 640 million..... But what I wonder is yes whom ever wins it the government gets there cut.... The lottery companies from a guess the different states take there cut... I assume stores where tickets are bought get a cut but I wonder where all the money goes..... That would be a cool piece think there was an article in the paper today and Channel 2 has a piece on at 5PM....
03/30/2012 13:11 #56299
Cancer Survivors and poor health behaviourCategory: science
From:
A total of 18,510 had detailed history on health behaviors and previous cancer history. Overall 2713 (14.7%) reported a previous cancer history. We found statistically significant results indicating that cancer survivors were less likely than those with no cancer history to:
report their overall health as “excellent†(13.6% vs. 21.5%), ...
Was that a trick question?! You said you have had a diagnoses of cancer. Would you say your overall health is "excellent"?
to engage in moderate or strenuous exercise (56.5% vs. 63.3%), and to use complementary and alternative medicine (57.4% vs. 60.2%).
Wonder whether the analyses stratified people with a recent vs. distant diagnoses of cancer... need to look at the tables. Maybe the survivors were physically unable to exercise so much or maybe were on standard medication that could have had interactions with random alternative medicines had they chosen to take them. Maybe they were advised not to take OTC medicine.
Conversely, cancer survivors were more likely to be current smokers (6.3% vs. 5.5%), rate their overall health as “poor†(15.8% vs. 9.1%), and to report more weight gain over time. Among cancer survivors, differences also emerged by the type of primary cancer. For example, cervical cancer survivors (n = 370) were most likely to report being current smokers (15.7%) and regular alcohol users (71.7%) compared with other survivors. Ovarian (n = 185) and uterine (n = 262) cancer survivors most frequently reported being obese (41% and 34.4%, respectively). Cervical cancer survivors reported the largest weight gain (4.9 lbs at 5 y and 13.4 lbs at 10 y).
The study totally begs these questions:
- Do people who are diagnosed with cancer always have poorer behaviours to start with?
- Do cancer survivors indulge in poorer behaviours because they are fatalist?
- Or do they just feel like they have poorer behaviours just because they got diagnosed with cancer and answer in that vein on the administered questionnaires ie. a kind of survivor bias?
- Or did they feel obliged to assign blame for their diagnoses on past and present behaviours?
- Or maybe the non-cancer survivors in this study didn't really feel the need to spill on their current health behaviours in so much detail as the survivors?
Who knows.
Do you remember what you ate last Monday through Friday - in detail, morning, afternoon, evening? Do you remember how you generally ate in the past decade? If you are not tracking your periods for some specific reason (or maybe have an android period-tracking application to record days and symptoms for fun), how accurately do you remember the date your last period ended? Do you remember the brands and compositions of the hormone pills you took 20 years back?
Sometimes I wonder if our questionnaires are eliciting anything useful. Or if we should trust them so much. It would be nicer to have more objective ways of tracking health behaviours and milestones.
Does Paul mean bigger boobs....HA.....
Now I don't know enough about the science but would having something implanted be another risk that would have to be factored in based on how ones body would react to it.....?
But yeah, implants for research would be awesome and address at least some level of guesswork and poor quality data collection.
Or more precise analyses of body fluids/secretions including but not limited to poop, mucus and the like.
I say implants that track everything.
Sounds like something Spock might say....
Precisely. A chicken and egg situation. Heavily correlational with a a fair warning against any assumptions of causation.
I am not sure science is anything but truth, arranged logically. (as someone once said... ).
I did take science in school but wasn't good at the lab stuff... But that being said now I know a lot more....
1. I assume all women since it is breast cancer
2. All getting mammograms..
So what this tells me is that you all ready have people who are taking care of themselves at least.... But overall health we can't really judge since we don't know.....
I would think the next study would be to then go and get women who aren't being screened.... But I still think that the results would be what I think are the same.... That in most cases no idea with a percentage.... That people with cancer would be unhealthier then people who haven't had it or don't know they have it.... Since things like smoking cause it or can lead to it.... In terms of a study one (if my memory is correct) can't say it causes it only that there is a correlation ?
Wanted to say more but lost my thought sorry
heh, yes, I was being a bit sarcastic when I pointed out that first question. In my mind, if I were a cancer survivor, I would really find that question quite ludicrous just because cancer has such a looming uncertainty about when it might return or metastasize. If they really meant to ask "Are you feeling excellent TODAY?" then that question means nothing at all. If it were "Have you been feeling excellent over some longer time period?" the expecting cancer survivors to given equivalent answers to those who have never had cancer (and look for statistical significance, no less!) is a very big stretch.
The buzzword for your other two observations: Gene-environment interactions. Let's say you need both elements to progress towards cancer. In that study the inherent assumption is that the interaction is a) possible b) that most of their cases and controls could have both or at least one of the components and c) that these interactions are reversible because this is their conclusion:
Conclusions: These results suggest opportunities for tailored behavioral health risk factor interventions for specific populations of cancer survivors.
3.... And final comment.......
Being unhealthy and doing unhealthy things will for some people lead to cancer you don't do those things and lot of cancer won't happen but some still will.... So it makes sense that being or feeling on healthy would tie into having cancer....
But also I bet this works with anyone who has any Disease.... Even if when asked how they feel they are feeling great that day and have been for some time..... They know they are sick so it is natural to feel unhealthy....
Peter, you would make a wonderful public health researcher. You got right to the core of the matter. The selection of controls. Without proper controls the contrasts would be exaggerated. And you guess is spot on.
----
Methods: In a large cohort of 19,948 women presenting for screening mammography, questionnaires on health behaviors were administered.
---
All of them were recruited from screening clinics. All these women have screening behaviour in common. If we were to speculate why they turned up for screening in the first place, the cancer survivors probably turned up because they are anxious about a recurrence or were simply advised to, and the other non-cancer women turned up because they can a) afford it b) have had some scare or the other in their lives and families c) have been advised by their primaries in the recent past to get a mammogram. All of them are most likely to be insured or at least covered by some sort of insurance.
Now you could argue that all these factors puts the survivors and cancer-free on the same footing (and that is the definition of controls: controls could be cases because they have all the risk factors). But really, it does not, because the reasons the survivors are turning up to these clinics are patently different from the other women.
2A.
A+B+C Often times the truth is those all over lap and you might be healthy and have great DNA but if you waited tables for 20 you get lung cancer.... Or you do all that stuff but your body or your DNA turns the cancer on?
I guess the point I'm getting to in this comment is they are all factors and over lap and some things are part of the others....
2. Can we agree that in terms of Cancer really there are 3 factors? One could make the point that this is true not only of cancer but other things as well....
A. DNA..... Everyone's body is the same but different and some things like cancer you will find in families now yes it could be that behaviors are the same but in terms of 4 generations of breast cancer I say it is DNA....
B. Environment.. Now this would be things like exposure to chemicals and dyes or even smoke.... Some stuff can cause cancer or maybe even put you on a path towards it....
C. Health.... Now of course health is tricky what is eating good or to much... Yeah apples are great but do those pesticides hurt you.... How much arsenic (in the seeds) is ok.... But that being said if you eat right and take care of your body then eating the bad stuff won't cause the cancer... But also if one is in tune with your body if you feel bad you may catch something before it is to late...
1. The first question one has to ask is how do they select or find the people who don't have cancer?
--This is huge .... If how ever they do it doesn't get a real cross section of America or the area at least then yeah you are going to get healthy people... If say this was done at doctors offices then generally people who get yearly or bi-yearly checkups will be in better health...
Your post is interesting....
Now to be honest didn't follow the link.... I assume that entire thing would be way to long ......
Now all that being said I'll have a few comments this is kinda my intro to comments......
No matter what I was writing or writing for... If I use a computer I have to use the software the place I'm submitting it to uses..... Can't think of another word like program there used to be something I used .... Now if they state what software they use then part of writing a paper is to use what they use.... yeah it would suck if they used some program that was only on macs and didn't work in word but if I knew that going in then that is what I would have to use....
Peter, the logic seems to be, if this is what everyone is used to, this is what you should do. I could not disagree more.
First, what everyone uses is for the most part influenced by the inability to learn and adapt to new things that make life substantially easier. Second, what the clueless population uses for 3 page documents without references is not ideal for a 300 page document with several intricacies. Third, given the common final expectation of a precisely typeset PDF (with barbaric margin requirements and whatnots defined by my Uni), expecting me to use Word to reach that goal is frankly the most atrocious directive. Fourth, not everyone uses Word for dissertations and LaTeX is WIDELY used in almost ALL academic circles, just not the somewhat rusty folks in my current situation. LaTeX has been around since 1980 - half a decade before Windows was grafted upon the world! :::link::: What more can I say.
And most importantly, why do you think word integrates well with everything? I have a mile long list of things it does not integrate with - including consistent format, bibliographies, mathematical notations - some of the most important attributes of a really long document.
And quite honestly - they don't even need to know what software I use to produce my documents. If the Uni wants PDFs in the end, then isn't it time people learn to review PDFs and not keep on expecting the .doc$hit? All this non-consistent, repetitive and VERY PAINFUL formatting seems like an infinite waste of time to me. I could achieve awesome professional results using LaTeX with a fraction of this effort I am pouring into definining styles in Word.
I don't know all the details.... But from what I understand if you are a company and get a Windows based computer or even a school then it comes with word and that is what everyone knows... All the different software things like say powerpoint and things for slide shows and all that stuff is all integrated....
Now I know that PDFs are common and that at least Adobe makes things so you can read them or download a book or many things in that form...No idea what other companies there are..... But is word works fine to integrate with everything else why even mess with PDF.... Now if one does again I wouldn't know about on Mac's but with Widows based computers at some point they got adobe so if they did do PDFs that is what they would know not this other program.....
Now you might be asking what is my point.... Well if the problem is that this software no one else knows how to use it or integrate it....Even though you love it....Then any project or work should be used on or done on what they use.....
What does it take for people to catch up? These are people who almost write for a living and they have been doing it on Word for like what - 15 years? I think the problem is they all have their PAs and admins do all the dirty formatting for them and have forgotten everything about how wretched m$shitword can make your life if you are dealing with anything other than a 2 page doc with multiple content types and bibliographies. And let's not even talk about the lack of knowledge about BibTeX and reliance (and sometimes insistence) on absolutely bottom of the barrel reference software services like endnote and refworks. ugh
Personally, I wouldn't even do a 2 page doc on M$ if left to my devices.
Ya it seems ridiculous. You should make it a pre-requisite of all future endeavours that the people are fluent in the technology of the last decade at least.