Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Synsensa, Sep 7, 2019.
That's money right there for whoever pulls it off.
Stop! Before you head off to your bookie again, note that the link to "universal flu vaccines" takes you to the Daily Mail.
Yeah, saw that. But it still seems probable that someone is pursuing that angle, and there's no question that anyone who pulls it off will be hitting the payday lottery in the pharmaceutical industry.
Yes, I know. I just hate links to the Daily Heil.
Here's a better one from Nature for those interested:
Viruses are damn tricky things. Some (admittedly non-flu types. yet.) can break into three or more parts which each infect completely different types of cells, hijack the reproductive machinery of each of those cells to replicate the virus parts, and then burst out of those cells and recombine back into the original virus.
Imagine if eradicating most flu viruses opens up avenues for those types to infect us instead.
Sweet dreams cfc.
And today's doom and gloom award goes to...envelope please...
I used to use this extension.
There's money in it for sure but also a lot of money to be lost by the firms that churn out yearly vaccines.
It's punishment for calling it "a lego" instead of "a piece of lego".
Automatic binding bricks.
It would still be yearly, it would just be a lot cheaper to produce and more effective.
I thought it was a universal flu vaccine? Thus you'd only need it once, not yearly. I know they'll have to keep producing it continually, I just assume they'd produce a lot less of it after the initial roll out.
Na, this stuff mutates to fast, you need a yearly update.
No, it's just a wider target approach. Current vaccine is a combination of very specifically targeted vaccines, and every one they add means increased cost as well as increase in all the bad aspects; like a bigger shot is more painful, opportunity for allergic reaction and/or side effects increase, etc. If you can combine three vaccines that each target four or five strains you get a lot more effectiveness than the current six pack of individually targeted vaccines, with only half the injection. You still have slightly modified strains to contend with every year.
How do they get the flu shot out before flu season? Surely that's when the modified strains will manifest themselves?
Monitoring coupled with guesswork. Little outbreaks due to mutated strains are happening all the time, not just in "flu season." So they monitor those and predict which strains are going to expand and cause problems vs which will just be beaten down without a whole lot of fuss, then they brew up the vaccine cocktail appropriately. Or so they hope. There's a whole lot in that process that can go wrong.
Is there any particular reason why the (rather simple) Luhn algorithm is used in the generation of credit card numbers?
They do it specifically to annoy you.
Is there anything about credit card numbers that calls for something more complex? Seems like the basics of 'must be unique' and 'don't issue sequentially' pretty well cover all the requirements.
Just had a look at the wiki entry, and not sure if Tim is thinking of the right algorithm there, or Kyriakos of the right purpose.
The purpose seems to be to check for accidental mistyping of credit card numbers, which leads to only one digit being automatically created.
And the reason why it's used is probably because it's simple. You can easily implement it, is fast to execute, implementations are available, and it reasonably well protects against most errors.
You probably would not gain much with a more complicated algorithm.
I wasn't. I took "generate credit card numbers" at face value, as in I have a bank and I issue credit cards and they need a number on them so I have to generate those numbers. I had no idea that there was something checking for accidental mistyping of credit card numbers, or that there needed to be. When you type your credit card number you generally also type the name on the card, and if those don't match I thought you'd just get booted to "wrong, try again clown."
I guess I better go look this thing up. Thanks @Kyriakos
EDIT: Hmmmmm...so this algorithm recognizes "that isn't a valid number" based on the included checksum number in almost all cases. Okay, that might be useful I guess.
Separate names with a comma.