*ban
The Specialist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip1KdYy4AyE

*ban
Lighting Specialists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFF7B1d9UJc

I consider a cell phone a hand held computer. I started computing on an Apple2, so the power of a cell phone certainly meets the definition in my eyes.
Also, my PC has a decent camera built in. One could just as easily scan it into their PC, no? If not, why not?
I've never have a cell phone (FREAK!...What?! Who said that?!), so I don't really know how those QR codes work.

I just assumed that phones are nearly as vulnerable as computers, and I know that just opening a web page CAN infect your system, even with anti-virus software and without clicking/intentionally installing anything. Some viruses auto-download once you're on the site with no notice, or a fake notice pretending to be a 'I've read the terms of service' or 'I agree' boxes and downloading to hidden files in the background in ways only IT specialists would notice.
I know that I've seen many reports claiming that many 'fremium' games include Trojan horse programs that track your phone usage, location, and in some cases steal your information. I'm just guessing that the same thing is possible without the game attached. It wouldn't be difficult on a PC to use a link/web page to auto-infect visitors, I'm just guessing the same goes for 'hand held computers'.

I think "literally zero risk" is a bit much. Possibly extremely unlikely, but certainly not really zero risk.

1) Depends
2) WHY?!?
3) Dunno. It shrinks as girls age, possible it helps keep germs etc out before, you know, anything else might need to go there.
4) The same way as women prolly. Winky Face. I'd wager men have probably _seen_ about as much, or possibly more, hymen (Hang on, plural of hymen? Hymens?) than women given-
a) I don't imagine it's actually that easy for women to see their own hymen - feel free to correct me on this ladies.
b) Gynecology, as indeed almost all of the medical specialist areas, has been the domain of men until recently.

Oh, and I did google it and I don't regret it because of this entry on the wikipedia page:
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, medical researchers used the presence of the hymen, or lack thereof, as founding evidence of physical diseases such as "womb-fury", i.e. (female) hysteria. If not cured, womb-fury would, according to these early doctors, result in death."

One wonders what treatment they might have prescribed for WOOOMB-FURY!!!!

*ban2.0

QROPS Specialists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__8PBMRr4pc


*related= http://videosift.com/video/QROPS-Pensions
*ban1.0
QROPS Specialists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHRIrieNqk

*ban1.0

QROPS Specialists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UHRIrieNqk


*related= http://videosift.com/video/NZ-QROPS
*ban2.0
QROPS Specialists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__8PBMRr4pc

Grocery shopping has become too complicated lately it seems to me. Used to be not all that long ago that you just got what looked good at the big chain grocery store and then made the odd trip to specialist shops for particular things on occasion. Whole Foods does have some good stuff, but it's way too expensive to just buy everything there. Trader Joe's has decent quality and prices but very limited selection. The local hippy organic grocery store/coop is in a similar situation to Whole Foods but with different stuff, and then there is the still the big chain grocery store with good prices on things that don't really vary much in quality. Oh, and of course there are still the delis and butcher shops and whatever else for the particular things they do well. Also, they went and knocked down the Pick 'n' Save that was three blocks away and are building a Metro Mart, which in my experience is exactly the same thing but with fancier decor and higher prices.

I have like five different grocery lists now. So, the end result is that I actually have access to much higher quality food at not unreasonable prices and yet somehow I'm ending up eating frozen pizza a lot more than I used to when it was Pick and Save or nothing.

So goes all specialist endeavors when society decides for better or worse that an area of expertise is no longer needed.

I'd rather be prepared for it and adapt quickly, than be featured in a documentary decrying the injustice of it all.

I'm always afraid my ball pit might have cobras in it so I hired a crack team of specialists to handle the problem.

Adrenaline rushes aren't dangerous if they're done properly. Personally I'm going to make sure my little boy is exposed to plenty of 'scary' things as he grows up so he can learn about risk and how to assess/handle it properly.

I saw a great documentary about this with Danny MacAskill called Daredevils: Life On The Edge. It looked at adrenaline junkies and investigated why they do what they do. At the end of the program there's a really nice choreographed sequence with MacAskill and various others performing tricks as they descend down the step into an underground station in London, and through the station itself.

The sequence was directed by a hollywood stunt specialist who has worked with all the top guys in big blockbuster movies and he said that the stuntmen and women, far from what most people think, are the least likely people in the world to do something risky. There are two parts to this. Firstly they've learned how to be very good at assessing risk. They understand extremely well what makes something safe or risky. They've had a lot of experience and have learned from it.

Secondly they are very highly skilled. What would be very risky for us to do isn't for them because they have the training to perform safely. We only think what they're doing is dangerous because we ourselves would be very likely to be hurt doing it.

If you insulate a kid from risky experiences you deny them the chance to learn in a controlled environment. It's like teaching a kid to cook. If you look after them really well and provide everything they need and cook them fantastic nutritious meals every day until they leave home they'll love you immensely for it. Then they'll move out, try to look after themselves and end up burning the house down with a pan fire or cut the end of their finger off with a knife or shave the skin off their hand with a grater.

Teach a kid how to use a sharp knife safely and how to sharpen it and keep it keen and they'll be safe for the rest of their life. Kids should be able to use sharp knives, under strict supervision of course, to learn the safe way of doing it. They should be doing 'dangerous' things to learn to do them safely. Part of the learning process is probably going to hurt. They may well get a few cuts before they get their knife skills up to scratch, but if they're in a controlled environment these should be small compared to the injuries that happen when someone with no idea about knives forces a blunt one through something tough.

As for adrenaline sports, the more they fall over the better they learn to balance. If this kid goes on a bit of a bigger slide and gets thrown off in the corners it's going to hurt, but it's not going to kill him. He'll find his limits and respect them more.

I'd rather my kid makes his mistakes while I'm still around to clear up the mess

"(Christopher's) treating specialist wrote a letter specifically saying he was fit for skydiving," the Post quoted O'Neill as saying. "Obviously he wasn't. That was the end of his skydiving career."
Jones said he could not become a pilot because of his condition, but that he thought it had improved enough so that he could skydive.

"I'd been seizure-free for four years," the Post quoted him as saying. "I've always wanted to have the feeling of flight, so I just thought, considering I can't fly a plane due to my condition, I thought I'd give it a go."

You can seek the advise of more than one GP and compare.

By their very title, GPs don't even claim to be the end all of medical knowledge They are in place to ensure the specialists (who are already severely booked) are not swamped with unnecessary work for common treatments, like vaccination.

This also isn't an issue that may vary between doctors or one they can have lack of knowledge about (like your fathers issue). This is a long standing, historically proven treatment.

I know you're not against vaccination but my point is, there's no need to muddy the issue with unrelated treatments where you weren't diagnosed 100%.

Is it just me or does the guy at 4:33 look like Willem Dafoe? Kind of acts like him too lol.

I vaccinated my daughter, but let's not kid ourselves, *general practitioners* are not the end-all-be-all of medical knowledge and, collectively, they make wrong diagnoses and mistakes all the time. For instance, my family doctor prescribed Flovent to my daughter when she was less than a year old, yet the manufacturer's literature clearly states not to give it to children under a year of age. My father was prescribed a drug for a medical condition which should not be given to patients that have atrial fibrillation - he questioned his cardiologist about this and was told not to take the medication. Good thing he didn't just rely on his other doctor's infallible judgement (and yes the other doctor was aware of his heart condition.)

Most general practitioners are likely not at the forefront of medical research; I'd much rather trust the advice of a medical researcher or specialist in the field. I trust our well-tested vaccines, but that doesn't mean future vaccines might not carry unknown or unexpected risks (see Pandemrix).

I'm not sure how serious they were about not treating patients that refuse to vaccinate their children, but up here in Canada, I'm not sure that would fly. I'm not sure a GP can refuse to treat a parent because they refuse to vaccinate their child; it would be an interesting case to see argued in court. It has something to do with the way the Human Rights Code is defined: physicians must provide services without discrimination, which may be in conflict with their moral beliefs.

As I'm reading today's articles about the situation in Greece/Europe, Keynes' "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" came to mind:

We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value.

The love of money as a possession -as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life- will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semicriminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease.

I dunno if I agree with that last paragraph broski. Being a contrarian doesn't somehow make you right.

Not everybody can be a climate scientist. In a sense we do put our "faith" in specialists who have devoted a great deal of time to a specific area of study. I don't think this is a blind faith, the consensus opinion of scientists, has, on the whole proven to be pretty reliable. Of course they have been wrong in the past, but they are also the people who were right first. The nature of science is that when somebody with a good idea emerges, backed by evidence, that challenges the prevailing opinion, it is quickly adopted to be the consensus opinion. I read what I can about the subject, I understand somewhat less. I have my own opinions on the strength of the evidence but I am more swayed by expert opinions rather than my own judgements. Does this make me a sheep? Possibly, but then all human knowledge and understanding is distributed among the herd. We could not have the technology we have had we all made ourselves our own little intellectual islands.

On money, yes I agree, I don't doubt that there is a lot of capital in pushing the global warming "agenda". I do, however, somewhat doubt that it is more than the pressure pushing from the other side. Generally, it seems to me, the powers that be want to maintain the status quo, not submit to radical change and the unpredictable chaos it brings.