Is Microsoft Dead?

With Windows 10 now installed on 110 million devices, the company is hardly down for the count. Their strategy to offer Windows 10 as a free upgrade to most Windows 7 and 8 users has clearly paid off ensuring that Microsoft will continue to be a major player in the future. Microsoft also just released its first laptop. Whether it can successfully market laptops against an ever competitive field that includes not only Windows-based devices but also ultra-affordable options like Chromebook and higher end Apple products remains to be seen. Nevertheless, Microsoft is aggressively pushing tablets, phones and Xbox to cover its bases. Although the ride with Microsoft has been bumpy at times, the company continues to innovate and no effort this large will likely go unrewarded.

Discrepancies in Weather Models

With conflicting weather models showing very different trajectories for Hurricane Joaquin last week, many people were understandably confused. Knowing the European model is typically more accurate, I assumed the storm would go out to sea. In the meantime, business was slow as many people stayed home. Although indirect affects of the hurricane did reach shores and mixed with a nor'easter to produce historic flooding in some areas, the European model still proved correct. So why is the European model better than ours? It all comes down to investment.

If anything, you would think the United States with all its hurricanes and tornadoes would have the best system. The U.S. does upgrade its hardware from time to time to ensure it has the necessary computing power but there is much more to producing accurate weather forecasts than supercomputers. Europe spends more on the logistical end driving its models and the role of software engineers is thus paramount to a reliable forecast. Nevertheless, as with the LCH (Large Hadron Collider), Europe invested well in science and America has a way still to catch up.

When asked about the discrepancy in weather models and which is superior, I was surprised to see a local news source actually downplay somewhat Europe's model. Are we so egotistical that we cannot accept the possibility that Europe is clearly ahead in certain regards? I'm as patriotic as the next person but the reality is we are not making the investment in science that we should and the human cost we pay could very easily make the difference in life or death for those who choose to follow the wrong model.

See Also:

Discover more human interest articles on home, business, science, technology, health, humor, etc. at http://roberthaskell.blogspot.com/.

Flatscreens Falling on Kids

Yes watching television can be hazardous to your health. Today's lightweight screens are inherently unstable and have been known to cause many accidents. As the Examiner notes, "Between 2011 and 2013 more than 15,000 kids a year were treated for injuries involving TVs or TVs and furniture in the nation’s hospital emergency rooms." This number does not even include all the accidents involving adults. So how can this be avoided? Teaching your kids not to climb on furniture can reduce some injuries but that alone is not enough. The #1 reason why TVs fall is collision. Climbing is the second most common reason. In addition, accidentally pulling cables is often cited along with tipping hazards.

Another issue often not considered is how well secured wall TVs are. The average household contains numerous code violations from do-it-yourself armatures. Wall brackets must be properly secured in studs using the correct mounting brackets and recommended screws for the load. Not following this advice can cost you greatly. No home is ever 100 percent safe but one can never assume that the unlikelihood of an event occurring is just cause for ignoring known hazards.

How Can we Reduce Drug Costs?

Recent outrage by a pharmaceutical company that sent the price of an important medication through the roof has sparked debate on everything that is wrong with this industry. "The price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat a life-threatening parasitic infection, increases from $US13.50 per tablet to $US750, after being acquired by a start-up ...". Outraged, many people are asking, how can they get away with this and what can be done to stop it? For starters, lobbyists have successfully blocked most attempts to regulate this industry. To complicate matters more, it costs so much just to develop and test a new drug that the incentive is not there unless consumer prices are raised. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, "On average, it will cost a company $359 million to develop a new drug from the research lab to the patient." Then there is always that sticky little matter of lawyers. With class action lawsuits sometimes costing billions of dollars, high risks demand greater rewards.

Given the situation, how can we actually reduce the costs of pharmaceutical drugs? Certainly some limits should be set on the amounts that can be asked in class action lawsuits but this alone is not enough. Why does it cost so much to develop new drugs? Much of the cost actually occurs during the human testing phase. To even be considered, the drug company must raise hundreds of millions of dollars. For this reason, many good medications never even make it this far even after they have been developed. Fear of litigation has set the bar so high that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has to be strict. Some would argue innovation has been stifled because standards are set too high. In their defense, the FDA has been criticized for being wrong in the past letting some medications with dangerous side effects slip through the cracks. Personally, I think the whole system is at fault. Human drug trial costs are excessively high and could probably be reduced if overzealous mandates were eased. This does not excuse inefficiency, wasteful spending, greedy investors or improper testing but unless a coordinated effort is made to both reduce development costs and corporate liabilities, the likelihood is that no real progress will be made.

Find more health related articles on this blog and our company website OfficeSalesUSA.com.

Is America's Nuclear Deterrent Obsolete?

During the Cold War, the United States rigorously maintained its nuclear arsenal. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, some have argued the need for such weapons is no longer justified. Recent actions by the Russian Federation call into question this reasoning. Increasingly, Russia has been building up its military at an alarming pace. The United States may still spend more than all other countries combined on military defense but are we really putting that spending into the right areas?

Today, satellite technology makes it possible to target the exact locations of our nuclear missile silos and history has shown that nothing remains secret very long so if any are still hidden, their positions may have already been discovered. Moreover, tactical nuclear weapons can penetrate deep below the surface suggesting that anything stationary is vulnerable. In contrast, Russia moves its ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) regularly to prevent an enemy from taking out its defenses in an attack. With Vladimir Putin recently commenting that he could potentially destroy the United States in a half hour, there would be no time to respond if they waged a preeminent attack on our missile defenses. This leaves only our nuclear submarines, international bases and remnants of undestroyed local capabilities as our only deterrents. Would 12 nuclear powered submarines equipped with multiple warheads on each missile be sufficient against Russia's less updated but vastly superior in number submarines and newer subs capable of attacking even aircrafts? Even more disturbing is that Russia is now building drones to attack our subs. This should be a wake up call to our president and congress but do they really understand how vulnerable we are? Hopefully someone out there reading this could suggest something I'm missing because right now, I'm not feeling very comfortable about our defenses.

See Also: Similar articles listed on http://roberthaskell.blogspot.com/.

Household Pesticides Linked to Childhood Cancers

It was a hot summer day back in the 90's when we found large ants invading our home. Our family abandoned ship and headed for the shore house. An exterminator took care of the problem but when we returned, the house had a horrendous pesticide smell for two weeks! Having already lost a sister due to cancer, the safety of my godchild living with us was a great concern. The exterminator assured us though that the insecticide was safe for humans. A new study now calls into question just how safe these indoor pesticides really are.

According to the New York Times blog, "Exposure to indoor, but not outdoor, residential insecticides was associated with a 47 percent increased risk for childhood leukemia and a 43 percent increased risk for childhood lymphomas". In addition, outdoor weed killers resulted in a 26% increased risk of brain tumors. Although the study was limited to a small data set, the research though not fully scientific is alarming. People living with extreme disabilities in particular already have enough problems and do not need anything else working against them. Just how much industry lobbyists are able to bypass medical concerns is not clear but I know spraying anything inside my home deemed poisonous is not something I would ever want around a pet let alone an infant if I felt I had a choice.

Vitamin D Deficiency Greatly Increases Cognitive Function Decline

Yes your mother was right! Milk really is that important and if you can't bear it, perhaps a product made from milk or other Vitamin D source would be in order. Joint research conducted at the University of California-Davis and Rutgers University found that people with Vitamin D deficiency declined three times faster than people without the deficiency. So what does this mean for people who are lactose intolerant or prefer milk substitutes in their coffee like Silk?

According to Spokeswomen/Author Kathy Freston, an "8-ounce serving [of Silk] contains 45 percent of the daily recommended value of calcium and at least 25 percent of the daily recommended value of Vitamin D". Hmm, that still leaves 75 percent of the RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowances) unaccounted for. A multivitamin would be cheap insurance provided the body can metabolize it completely. If not, Silk and other alternative Vitamin D sources are probably a good bet. Examples of other sources of Vitamin D include:

• fish oils and fatty fish
• egg yolks
• cheese
• beef liver
• some mushrooms
• sunlight

It should be noted that certain Vitamin D sources like beef liver and mushrooms may not contain sufficient quantities of Vitamin D. If you are lactose intolerant, have food allergies or have other medical conditions or concerns, be sure to speak with your doctor or a qualified nutritionist.

In addition to cognitive decline, Vitamin D has been linked to other serious ailments. According to thehealthyhomeeconomist.com "Vitamin D deficiency is strongly related to the development of diabetes, autism, psoriasis, tuberculosis, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s Disease and cancer, even hypertension and psoriasis." While some of this like the autism link might be controversial, it is clear that Vitamin D is certainly a nutrient we cannot live without and any nutritional deficiency has potential for grave consequences.