Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 260 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Macs Are Not Less "Variable" Than PCs
[Read the article: Once and for all, proof that Macs are cheaper than PCs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One misconception about Macs is that there are not as many peripherals as there are with PCs. At one time this was true, but not any more.
In the old days, most peripherals went inside the computer. But now days, the usual way is to plug in a USB or Firewire peripheral. Or possibly Ethernet.
My Mac has a standard router designed for PCs. It plugs into my Mac's ethernet connector, and works flawlessly. My Mac laptop uses WiFi, the same Wifi every PC uses, and has no problem. My modem is a PC cable modem -- works great. I have a USB printer that also works on PCs. My firewire hard drive is formatted for the Mac, but if reformatted I would bet would work with Windows (maybe I am wrong, but I won't be reformatting it any time soon). I use a wireless Microsoft mouse, also for the PC. Works perfectly.
The only limitation the Mac has is that there are fewer programs written for OS X. This will change. But for the 90% who use the computer for internet, photography, word processing, spreadsheets, and for MP3 files, the Mac works fine. And it is easier to use. And it never crashes. And it has file search and management capabilities the blow Windows out the door.
I don't understand why there has to be an argument about a product that is so clearly superior.
-
A Few Points Clarified
[Read the article: The diet that's too good to be true]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The article does say, but does not make it abundantly clear, that this is an issue with Type 1, not Type 2 diabetes. Type 2 is the far more common affliction, comprising at least 95%, and possibly as much as 98% of all diabetics. Type 2 diabetics cannot lose weight in this way. It is important to make this distinction because Type 2 patients can be misled into thinking they can lose weight by manipulating insulin, when in fact they cannot.
What complicates this issue is the fact that insulin causes increasing fat storage. All types of diabetics will gain some weight with insulin therapy. Thus stopping insulin, in both Type 1 and Type 2, will result in some weight loss, or at least will slow the rate of weight gain. But only the Type 1s can truly achieve significant weight loss by skipping doses. Type 2s may lose a little weight, but this is only water weight, and is not sustainable.
For this reason I have some reservations about this article. While well intentioned, it may mislead Type 2 patients into thinking this strategy could work for them, and lead them to experiment with insulin, which is always a dangerous thing to do. Though the story clearly points out the dire consequences of experimentation, there is always that minority that thinks they are smart enough to "keep things under control."
So, to sum up, if you have diabetes: 95% chance that skipping shots will do nothing for you.
Finally, it cannot be stressed too strongly that the damage done by skipping insulin doses is irreversible. Katie may be doing fine today, but the kidney damage she sustained is permanent and she has dramatically increased her lifetime risk for blindness and being on dialysis. Once a person abuses her kidneys in this way, the kidney function improves as the kidneys compensate, but the lost renal function never really goes away. There is a price to be paid, even yet.
-
He'll Only Make It Worse
[Read the article: Prince wants to sue his fans, undo the Internet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is only a matter of time before offshore internet providers start offering safe harbor for people who don't want to be harassed by idiots like His Looniness.
Want a Prince site? Set one up in the Cayman Islands! No copyright laws here! Post your Hero's life's work in MP3 files for anyone to take!
All it takes is one stupid case like this and you will see fans head for the safety of offshore accounts.
Then the Purple Pop Elitist can scream 4 U Ntil Darling Nikki comes back.
-
Thank God.
[Read the article: Congress to Bush: We're relevant, too]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A big chunk of this money was going to Louisiana to help build up its coastline. This was a crucial part of the Katrina recovery. When Bush vetoed the bill he was imposing a death sentence on southeast Louisiana. The coastline is eroding away there at a terrifying rate, and the money is earmarked to restore the wetlands and to restore New Orleans's natural hurricane protection.
That bastard. In one week he vetoes SCHIP and this bill. Anti-child, anti-wetland. I suppose if Congress passed a Kill the Baby Seals Bill he'd sign it.
-
So What Else's New?
[Read the article: Worst. President. Ever.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't mean to be cynical, because I am not usually a cynical person, but the only people left who think Bush is not terrible are the brainwashed ones. The problem with Stiglitz's essay is not that it is right, but that, at this particular moment in time, it really doesn't matter if GWB is worse than Harding or not.
What matters is that (1) we know he is one of the worst presidents ever, and (2) he is still at his job today. If you had the worst surgeon in the world prepping to take out your gallbladder, what would you do? Scream STOP! I WANT ANOTHER SURGEON!
How will we explain to our children that we let this miserable excuse for a human being continue to govern even when we knew how bad he was?
Somebody get me a dictionary and see if the word IMPEACHMENT is still in there, or if Cheney took it out while we weren't looking.