Category: Uncategorized

Julia is similar to Python, in that it is a high level language where it is easier to read and write syntactically yet it retains a great deal of speed, similar to the lower level c language. So, the question I pose is, who may win 100 or 200 years from now? Maybe something else will beat Julia too by then… But right now Python has a massive number of available modules, a plethora of helpful troubleshooting tips all over StackOverflow, etc. The user-base is extremely widespread with Python and people are sometimes reluctant to delve into another language unless they truly feel hindered in some way. Speed might be the main enticing factor that will pull users away from Python into Julia. Julia even lets you use cool Greek letters within the code which is atypical – that alone of course is trivial in my mind in terms of becoming the next, up and coming coding language of the future though. But imagine Python what it is today and imagine adding to it the speed Julia has. All Julia needs is time and, in my opinion, Julia will win the contest.

If you are unfamiliar with academic reviewing of journals, you may find it odd that the reviewers are unpaid and know who they are reviewing for. The person or group who submitted the article is/are blinded to who is reviewing, however. Their are generally 2-4 reviewers for an article.

There are a number of issues I see with not paying reviewers to review for science journals. Let me explain.

First off, why would someone who is well versed in a field want to review for the journal? Generally, it is an inconvenience. In academia, it is an obligation essentially and frowned upon if you do not. It is also frowned upon in academia if you review too frequently. The reason why is because they are either interested in getting a leg-up in what is being published by a particular group, are interested in the topic, or like the person or group submitting the article, or does not like the person or group submitting the article. There is no other reasons. There should be one reason – it should be a financial reason, in my opinion and this is why.

If I want a leg-up in terms of who is publishing what in my field, the people who get to really take advantage of this are they who are already established in the field because the journals generally only ask reviewers to review when they have already published in their journal. If the content is fantastic – which is what you are hoping for, then you are more likely to be established. This does not favor the up and coming academicians.

The next reason is you are simply interested in the content. This is not a great reason, similar to the reasons outlined in the previous paragraph.

The next reason is that the reviewer can see (which is the case) when deciding if they want to review it (you see the abstract, the authors and the institution) and they may choose to accept to review the article because they like or dislike the people or group whose article is being reviewed. If the reviewer is on friendly terms, they are more likely to give them an easier time getting the article published. If they do not like the person or group and if they see the person as competition for a grant, then they are less likely to give an easy review.

Furthermore, I have heard of horror stories where a reviewer will ask for extremely difficult requests and in really high profile journals, the group who submitted may even have a year to respond with the revision. Sometimes the reviewer(s) steal the private information to their benefit.

My suggestion would thus be to pay people to review. The reviewers should not know who the names are, nor the institution. They should be blinded.

Furthermore, the editor who facilitates this process should be blinded as well. I know for a fact that a colleague of mine was taking advantage of this process where they would submit to a high profile journal because their past PI was an editor of the journal. Pathetic and biased.

The journal reviewing process needs to be more fair and less biased.

Best wishes,

Pharmacoengineering.com

The link to the original article can be found here. I feel that anti-vaxxers should not spread misinformation. With that said, anti-vaxxers feel they are not spreading misinformation. Is the government freaking me out because they gave loans to groups of people who are anti-vaxxers? I would say, I could not disagree more with what these groups are advocating but for the government to interfere would also freak me out. What about the first amendment? Is our government a dictatorship? If the government did not give loans to these groups for what they are doing, I think that would be worse in terms of the power our government would have. When I say “worse”, I do not mean either/or. I mean having anti-vaxxers advocating garbage and having a government deciding to hush them by having them go to pot is also compounding horrible things that are happening in the world.

According to what I know, these loans were on a first-come, first-serve basis. If there were groups who needed loans more who helped children find safe homes, or feeding them, and they didn’t get the money needed because these anti-vaxxer groups did, that would tick me off. I don’t have that kind of information in terms of who on the list did not get funding because some other group did.

I wonder about how an anti-vaxxer and someone who believes in following the Hippocratic Oath differ. An anti-vaxxer will not vaccinate because they believe it causes harm. Someone who takes no action, does no harm, and thus they do not break the Hippocratic Oath (according to them). It is going to depend on your vantage point whether you are breaking the Hippocratic Oath or not. There is a truth, however.

I am of the opinion that you can do harm by taking no action. I feel the Hippocratic Oath should be updated to reflect this. By not knowing how to treat someone because you are not aware of all of the facts should be considered breaking the Hippocratic Oath. Shame on people who spread misinformation about vaccines and pretend to know science. Shame on they who are easily persuaded by garbage and have strong desires to convince people that vaccines are horrible. Why do people not understand that our societies are far far better off having vaccines?

Why do we have cars when some people die in car wrecks? People and cars are far riskier than vaccines by a long shot. Should we not drive cars as well? If you are an anti-vaxxer, shame on you for driving a car and shame on you for doing anything that causes risks in anyone’s life. Don’t be a hypocrite. Go ahead and believe what you will, anti-vaxxers, but stay true to the concept in every aspect of your life. Your life will suck. Imagine your life when you are causing no risk greater than what a vaccine is responsible for.

Hopefully an anti-vaxxer’s sentiment can be controlled via CRISPR technology. 😉 I will talk to the government regarding municipal water and Coca-Cola (i.e., Dasani, etc.).

First off, let’s answer why does the log function or log() or sometimes also written as log10() cancel out the 10^x in the following equation:

10^x=M

log(10^x)=log(M)=x

the answer to why is because it is designed to do so.

the log() is the inverse relationship for solving exponents where the base is 10. ln() =log base e()=log_e() is the inverse relationship for e^x.

The purpose of such functions is to solve for the exponents.

If you want to solve the following:

3x=2

then you divide both sides by 3 because division is the inverse relationship of multiplying 3 and x which is done to isolate the x variable. Similarly, to isolate the exponent of two very important numbers, namely 10 and e, we use the inverse relationship of log() and ln(), respectively. We commonly use 10^x notation for scientific notation. And we use e as the base solution for all differential equations. Even sin(x), etc., can be written as e^x combinations. All functions can be written as combinations of e^x functions. It is truly a beautiful thing. It was designed that way.

Base 2 or log2() is also commonly used for graphical purposes and the same holds true:

if you want to solve

2^x = M

then:

log2(2^x)=log2(M)=x

it is simply a function. The why it is this way answers the how… because the function was designed to be the inverse relationship of exponents for the purpose of isolating exponents and to solve for the exponents.

Many people quote Newton by saying:

“If I have seen further than other (wo)men”, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants”.

This truly is poetic when viewed in the light that most people use it. However, Newton hated somebody by the name of Liebniz. In fact, he wrote his famous book Principia Mathematica in an overly complicated way to try to confuse Liebniz so he had a more difficult time taking credit for Newton’s work. They were competing for getting the credit for who figured out the revolutionary ways of calculus.

Well, funny or not funny enough, Liebniz was short in stature, thus if Newton had seen further than others, it wasn’t because he stood on the shoulders of Liebniz.

We are not 100% sure if Newton meant it in this hidden way but it sure would shed a dark side to Newton. Another interesting fact about Newton that not a lot of people know is that he was a closet alchemist. Back then, it was considered highly frowned upon to be affiliated with it – like the dark arts. He was known for helping to catch those who were forging coins as well..

Sincerely,

Pharmacoengineering.com

The length of the document below is: 52 page(s) long

The self-declared author(s) is/are:

www.dxrgroup.com

The subject is as follows:
Subject: Original authors did not specify.

The original URL is: LINK

The access date was:
Access date: 2019-04-09 14:29:09.215254

Please be aware that this may be under copyright restrictions. Please send an email to admin@pharmacoengineering.com for any AI-generated issues.

The content is as follows:

Diagnostic Reasoning1© 2000 DxR Development Group, Inc.,

150 East Pleasant Hill Road, Carbondale, Illinois 62901,

for software template and icons.

All rights reserved.

No part of this software program, including artwork and text, may be utilized, repro-

duced, stored, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, or

by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the

copyright holder.

Address inquiries to DxR Development Group, Inc., 150 East Pleasant Hill Road,

Carbondale, Illinois 62901

Licensee of the software does have permission to duplicate

the printed manuals, and to print and duplicate manuals

from the PDF files contained on the CD-ROM.

Macintosh is a registered mark of Apple Computer, Inc.

Windows is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

QuickTime is a trademark of Apple Computer, Inc.

DxR Development Group, Inc., is a licensed distributor of QuickTime.

QuickTime and the Quicktime logo are trademarks used under license.

Shockwave is a trademark of Macromedia, Inc.

Director is a trademark of Macromedia, Inc.

Portable Document Format (PDF) and Acrobat are trademarks of Adobe, Inc.

ActiveState Perl/Active Perl is a product of ActiveState Tool Corp.

Diagnostic Reasoning was made

with Director, © a product of Macromedia, Inc.

Brands and product references noted are the trademarks

Please note all content on this page was automatically generated via our AI-based algorithm (BishopKingdom ID: 17VVD3Ye11GWsAOpS4Tb). Please let us know if you find any errors.

The length of the document below is: 43 page(s) long

The self-declared author(s) is/are:

files.eric.ed.gov

The subject is as follows:
Subject: Original authors did not specify.

The original URL is: LINK

The access date was:
Access date: 2019-04-12 17:23:30.525905

Please be aware that this may be under copyright restrictions. Please send an email to admin@pharmacoengineering.com for any AI-generated issues.

The content is as follows:

Please note all content on this page was automatically generated via our AI-based algorithm (BishopKingdom ID: 17VfsSDIvw9V5VWGg3aU). Please let us know if you find any errors.

The length of the document below is: 547 page(s) long

The self-declared author(s) is/are:

www.gabar.org

The subject is as follows:
Subject: Original authors did not specify.

The original URL is: LINK

The access date was:
Access date: 2019-04-01 17:11:01.622958

Please be aware that this may be under copyright restrictions. Please send an email to admin@pharmacoengineering.com for any AI-generated issues.

The content is as follows:

Please note all content on this page was automatically generated via our AI-based algorithm (BishopKingdom ID: 17tvSwbaEqULcQIddRqX). Please let us know if you find any errors.

The length of the document below is: 26 page(s) long

The self-declared author(s) is/are:

www.epa.gov

The subject is as follows:
Subject: Original authors did not specify.

The original URL is: LINK

The access date was:
Access date: 2019-06-01 17:00:33.499655

Please be aware that this may be under copyright restrictions. Please send an email to admin@pharmacoengineering.com for any AI-generated issues.

The content is as follows:

ATTACHMENT I–FINAL RISK ASSESSMENT OFAspergillus oryzae(February 1997)I. INTRODUCTION

Aspergillus oryzae is an asexual, ascomycetous fungus usedfor hundreds of years in the production of soy sauce, miso andsake without recorded incidents. There are conflicting opinions

about whether A. oryzae can be isolated in nature. Although thedetails of the genetic relationship between A. oryzae and A.flavus remain unclear, the two species are so closely relatedthat all strains of A. oryzae are regarded by some as naturalvariants of A. flavus modified through years of selection forfermenting of foods. A. oryzae is regarded as not beingpathogenic for plants or animals, though there are a handful of

reports of isolation of A. oryzae from patients. There are alsoseveral reports of products of A. oryzae fermentations, e.g. a-amylase, that seem to be associated with allergic responses in

certain occupations with high exposure to those materials. A.oryzae can produce a variety of mycotoxins when fermentation isextended beyond the usual time needed for production of these

foods. While wild A. flavus isolates readily produce aflatoxinsand other mycotoxins, A. oryzae has not been shown to be capableof aflatoxin production. History of Commercial Use and Products Subject to TSCAJurisdictionAspergillus oryzae has apparently been an essential part oforiental food production for centuries and is now used in theproduction of many different oriental foods such as soy sauce,

sake and miso. Potential uses under TSCA include fermentations

of numerous enzymes, e.g., amylase, protease, B-galactosidase,

lipase, and cellulase, and organic compounds such as glutamic

acid. While these products have a variety of potential

commercial uses, some of them are mostly frequently used in food

processing. The experience of safe commercial use of A. oryzae isextraordinarily well established. As a “koji” mold it has been

used safely in the food industry for several hundred years. A.oryzae is also used to produce livestock probiotic feedsupplements. Even the commercialization of byproducts of the

fermentation was established nearly a century ago. The “koji”

mold enzymes were among the first to be isolated and

Please note all content on this page was automatically generated via our AI-based algorithm (BishopKingdom ID: 17saqxwaqNgCxXD7av33). Please let us know if you find any errors.

The length of the document below is: 52 page(s) long

The self-declared author(s) is/are:

www.pwc.fr

The subject is as follows:
Subject: Original authors did not specify.

The original URL is: LINK

The access date was:
Access date: 2019-02-26 18:32:28.283897

Please be aware that this may be under copyright restrictions. Please send an email to admin@pharmacoengineering.com for any AI-generated issues.

The content is as follows:

www.pwc.com/hospitality

Best placed to grow?

European cities hotel forecast for 2018 and 2019

Please note all content on this page was automatically generated via our AI-based algorithm (BishopKingdom ID: 17qKhGrGT7tiUfw0bvcq). Please let us know if you find any errors.