I append a tongue-in-cheek assertion on the Slashdot.org website (from which the above posting was copied), below.
"Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts that unattainable, and three parts which are still under development."
This new test gives an employer a tool to determine whether an employee is being truthful about having missed work due to "the flu"!
"Blood test" by GrahamColm - Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
About three years ago, it dawned on me that a city that boasted an ice hockey team, must have an ice skating rink; so, I started polling the people at the gym and all of my friends to find someone to go skating with me. Please don't think of Sonia Hennie when I mention that I used to ice skate: I probably spent a couple of dozen Saturdays in 1949-1952 figuring out how to stand up on skates and motate myself around the rink. My parents and those of the slightly younger girl who lived across the street dug up enough money to treat us to those skating sessions. While the parents dug up enough money for us to take baton twirling lessons (the neighbor and her cousin took lessons for a year while I persevered for three years), there was never any thought of our taking skating lessons. I think I even skated with high school friends on a frozen lake in Swope Park during the early 1950s.
When we were in Seattle (1965-1966), I recall taking Bogie and Dudette ice skating. Again, there were no lessons involved, but we had a good time!
In 1978-1981, I went so far as to buy a pair of ice skates so that I could skate on the frozen ponds and west-side athletic field parking lot in Wichita. The city flooded the parking lot to provide recreational skating when temperatures were low enough, and I remember skating there with one or the other daughter and a friend from work. When I moved to Florida in 1981, it signaled the end to ice skating but I did go roller skating with the daughters of a couple of men with whom I worked. Then there was a long "dry" spell. From1982 until recently I was never on skates of any description.
When the bright idea occurred to me that Wichita had, at some point in time, built an ice rink, I cast about for co-conspirators with whom to get back into skating. Finally, a few weeks ago, I decided that I was going to die of old age before I found anyone. I launched off on my own.
Long story too-late shortened: About 10 days ago, I went skating for the first time since 1981 - using rental skates, since I had given away my ice skates many years ago. Having learned that, at my age I must approach physical "feats" slowly, I only attempted one circuit of the ice on my first time out - hand firmly resting on the side ledge the whole circuit, wobbling along and encouraged by a 20s or 30s-something woman who took me under her wing (Sabra). Second time out, I let go of the side ledge for the third circuit, stopping after six. Third time out, I kept to the ledge for the first circuit or two, but "skated" (that means concentrating on staying upright) for a total of nearly 30 minutes. Today I was aiming for 40 minutes. I didn't quite make it, taking a small fall during the first circuit and never quite feeling as stable on the skates as I had on the previous outing.
At about the 23-minute mark, I got distracted by a tiny little girl (maybe 3 years old) whom I was passing and the next thing I know I'm on my back!!! Everyone at the rink gathered around the ridiculous old woman, quite anxious to get her back on her feet. For my part, I told them to let me lie there for a moment gathering my wits. They were bound and determined to get me upright, but I was having none of that because I could feel that I would black out if I came upright too quickly. When I would let them, they helped me into the penalty box where I put my head between my knees as I sat on the bench. (One of the expert skaters kept insisting that I lean back against the wall. He may be a physician, for all I know; but, I know how to handle it when I am in danger of blacking out.)
Within 10 minutes I was over the danger of blacking out, I was being questioned by the skating rink manager, and four Emergency Medical Technicians had arrived from the Wichita Fire Department. After establishing that I was lucid, that I had taken the brunt of the fall on my left shoulder, that I bumped my head lightly, that I had fallen (not passed out), that my blood pressure was normal, that I would sign a form saying that I declined transport to a hospital, and that I wished to continue skating, the EMTs and crowd dispersed. However, for the few circuits that I skated after the fall, everyone was very solicitous.
I am at home, it has been a few hours, I know that I am more injured than I had realized (of course!), and knowing that I won't be able to move in the morning (I had told my new friends at the rink that it would probably be a week before my aches would let me return), I have decided that I really mustn't make a habit of taking such falls. I really need to learn to stay on my feet/skates. Anyone have a sky crane that I may borrow?
Sabra has sent me three emails, one of which included this (below) photo of two of the young girls who went to get me a cup of water, offered to remove my skates for me, and were quite solicitous of my well-being. Sabra wrote that she and the young girls all hoped that I would be back on the ice soon. Awwww...aren't they sweet?
When I return to the rink, I plan to sit down with the manager to educate him on dealing with us elders. Good grief! If he is going to call 9-1-1 every time I fall, we have a problem here. He needs to understand that young people jump up from a big fall like a Jack-in-the-box, that adults take 1/2 second longer, and that we elders take 10 minutes. Let's not make a federal case of it unless there are broken bones or unless the ice is becoming red with blood! He probably has a rule by which he is bound; but, I'm hoping that I can leave a document with him that absolves the rink and its management from blame when I fall. (He offered to have the skates I was using sharpened to get better grip on the ice. I assured him that the fall wasn't caused by the ice or the skates but by my inattentiveness.)
Some of us (me, for instance) know just enough about science to understand that (following is my assertion) the results set out by principle researchers of studies are often 1) wrong, 2) ill-conditioned, and 3) (at best) misleading. I agree with a statement made in a health news article, "There’s lots of evidence that demonstrates that industry involvement can skew the direction of research, it can skew the research questions that are asked, and researchers follow the money...."
If you are interest, the particular study in the health news article concerns chocolate and its "health benefits".
By Kelly Crowe, CBC News Posted: Jan 05, 2015 10:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 05, 2015 10:01 PM ET
When the New York Times ran this headline last fall, "To improve a memory, consider chocolate," it quickly became one of the newspaper’s "most emailed" stories. Other news outlets rushed to match the story.
My assignment desk perked up and sent me the clipping with the question "interesting?" And it was interesting, but not for the reasons most news editors hope.
It was interesting because the study was not about chocolate at all. That’s because chocolate contains almost none of the compound that the researchers are studying.
It’s an irony that lies at the heart of a major international scientific effort to find something healthy in the cocoa bean, an effort largely sponsored by the chocolate industry.
I recommend that you go to the article (following the headline link) if you really care about the subject. My only interest is that the chocolate debate is so akin to many debates that are bandied about by our Western world (at least) populace and politicians.
On the broader subject of testing:
While searching for photos for the latest addition to the previous posting, I ran across a test that was ostensibly given to Russian soldiers. (A hat tip to Stu for the spelling lesson!)
Can’t see circle 1: High agression, proneness to conflict, the recommendation is to add more physical excercise and cold showers.
Can’t see circle 2: Possible low than average intellectual abilities, can’t serve with sophisticated equipment.
Can’t see circle 3: Possible debauchery, soldier should get increased daily ration, should get more physical activity tasks, should not be connected to food supplies, etc.
Can’t see circle 4: Possible inclination to violence, can be assigend as a leader to his unit, as he can preserve discipline.
Can’t see circle 5: Possible latent homosexuality. Can be light uncontrolled accesses of attraction to the same sex.
Can’t see circle 6: Possible schizophreanic tendency. Required additional inspection.
Every soldier should be tested before assignment, according to the order #2299.”
Well, who are you going to believe - the posting or me? I can't be the only one who remembers the above test as being one applied in the USA, at least, to test for color-blindness. I think someone just wished to have a bit of fun with his/her readers!
The first time I took that test, during a 1st Class Medical Exam to get a medical certificate for flying, I about freaked out the flight surgeon who administered the test - by missing one of the six circles. Most color-blindness is linked to the Y-chromosome (of which I have none of my own!) The flight surgeon in Seattle, 1966, was the first to administer the test on me. My flight surgeon in Wichita, 1964, had not bothered. It was probably #2 that I missed then. At least, just now, I had difficulty deciphering it! (Prior to having cataract surgery 4.5 years ago, I probably wouldn't have been able to decipher any of them.)
I saw this posting (below) on Slash.com, yesterday, and thought of it when I heard a news article on the radio this afternoon. I don't recall the name of the program making the report. More about the radio piece, after the Slash.com posting.
Radio news article
The radio news article explained that a male human's going through tough times (as in near-starvation conditions) during pre-puberty years affected the cardiovascular health of his son - and - even of his grandson. The radio news article was based on a study out of Sweden, published in 2002 by G Kaati, L O Bygren and S Edvinsson.
Here is a link to the report and below is their abstract.
Overfeeding and overeating in families are traditions that are often transferred from generation to generation. Irrespective of these family traditions, food availability might lead to overfeeding, in its turn leading to metabolic adaptations. Apart from selection, could these adaptations to the social environment have transgenerational effects? This study will attempt to answer the following question: Can overeating during a child's slow growth period (SGP), before their prepubertal peak in growth velocity influence descendants' risk of death from cardiovascular disease and diabetes? Data were collected by following three cohorts born in 1890, 1905 and 1920 in Överkalix parish in northern Sweden up until death or 1995. The parents' or grandparents' access to food during their SGP was determined by referring to historical data on harvests and food prices, records of local community meetings and general historical facts. If food was not readily available during the father's slow growth period, then cardiovascular disease mortality of the proband was low. Diabetes mortality increased if the paternal grandfather was exposed to a surfeit of food during his slow growth period. (Odds Ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 1.33-12.93, P=0.01). Selection bias seemed to be unlikely. A nutrition-linked mechanism through the male line seems to have influenced the risk for cardiovascular and diabetes mellitus mortality.
European Journal of Human Genetics (2002) 10, 682-688. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200859
I had my annual physical this morning - 2nd time seeing my new Internist at KUSM-Wichita. Part of the routine was, as usual, carried out by a 3rd year Med student. She will make a good physician, I think. However, she was required to go over a couple of pieces of paper with me that were a hoot: 1) "targets" for good health that I should observe and 2) depression screening.
1) Self Care Plan for hyperlipidemia: "Targets" included weight (I already weigh less than the bottom of the range), blood pressure (my systolic is 14 above goal; diastolic is 6 below goal), LDL (I don't know what it is today - they just drew the blood!) but last year my LDL was 20 points below the goal; exercise (I already do more than goal); and dietary calories (I'm pretty well on or under goal). Oh! And they want blood pressure measurements daily. Are they kidding me?!!
2) Depression screening: I told them that the screening given last year was pretty silly - that I am not depressed, do not plan to kill myself (but, it's none of their business if I did - lol). We chatted for a few minutes, but did not fill in the questionnaire.
No, I don't want another colonoscopy (the one 20 years ago found exactly nothing). No, I don't want another bone density test (if my bones were brittle I would be breaking bones with my falls). No, just because you think you hear a little heart murmur (pulmonary valve you say? Usually, I've been told it might be mitral and/or aortic) does not mean I want another echocardiogram (the one 20 years ago showed no abnormalities).
The physician doesn't think that I come see her often enough. I think annually is too often. As long as I get my low-dose statin and hydrochlorothiazide RXs, I'll be happy to leave the physicians to their own devices. I let her know that I consider myself to be responsible for my health/lack thereof and she shouldn't worry her pretty little head. (Well...that's what I was thinking.) Dr G seems to be a dedicated physician and I'm sure that some of her elderly patients need a lot of testing and hand-holding. I've tried to, somewhat gently, let her know that I do not fall into that category.