Exact match. Not showing close matches.
'[TECH]:: AIDs in Africa - three Scenarios to 2025'
|Consider this a trial post of sorts.
I dithered over whether to use OT or TECH.
In some ways it's highly OT, and it's not about technology
in the mechanical sense, but it is very very much about the
use of science and technology to perform vast acts of human
engineering - both medical and social.
As we are learning where people want the TECH boundaries set
I'd be interested in people's comments on the
appropriateness of this in TECH. A shame to noise up the
list with many polls so if you just want to offer an opinion
one way or other please email me offlist - say at above
address or gmail.com . Please use above apptechnz
By all means comment on list if you feel it's worth doing
so. eg - 'TECH relevant because xxx' OR 'definitely OT as
yyy'. Or whatever. Even "has no place on the list at all"
AIDs in Africa - three Scenarios to 2025
Interesting, large (220 page), colourful, informative,
stunning, sad UN report on 3 scenarios for AIDs in Africa
until 2025. Published January 2005.
Some photos. Many graphs and tables and maps. Highly
Far far far more than just an analysis and commentary.
Covers all aspects of life, all factors. Very much a human
interest document. Its approach would be very much condemned
Some lovely photos that I would have loved to have the
opportunity to take.
Some of the graphs contain information of such enormity that
it's hard to take in at first glance. I found myself doing
calculations in some cases to check that the results I was
seeing could really be per year and not cumulative.
I'm am, of course, well aware of the moral aspects of this
"has no place on the list at all" Sounds like a medical/social forum would be appropriate. I look at [OT} as not fitting other topics, but of similar nature, i.e. engineering (there are other specialties of engineering beside electrical, and originally there was only Civil and Military), and electronics. Don't need more traffic on a wider subject matter. Probably [OT} is mainly for a subject that starts on one of the other subjects, and wanders off course (which commonly happens) and at that point the last post on the original subject should indicate it's going to [OT} with a new subject header.
Richard Seriani, Sr.
This belongs on some sociology newsgroup or your private blog, definitely
not here on PIClist.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Apptech" <paradise.net.nz> apptech
To: "PIC List" <MIT.EDU> PICLIST
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:54 AM
Subject: [TECH]:: AIDs in Africa - three Scenarios to 2025
I believe this becomes Tech once an electronic or mechanical gadget /
process becomes apparent. Might be Tech or OT if a superduper
programming algorithm is published that can crunch a billion smaples
per second and the results used for medical or drug research.
As a general discussion though, not relevant to the Piclist.
:::: Consider this a trial post of sorts.
:::: I dithered over whether to use OT or TECH.
:::: In some ways it's highly OT, and it's not about technology
:::: in the mechanical sense, but it is very very much about the
:::: use of science and technology to perform vast acts of human
:::: engineering - both medical and social.
cdb, btech-online.co.uk on 20/07/2008 colin
Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk
Hosted by: http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359
Friendship multiplies the good of life and divides the evil.
I'd rate this one as OT. To me, TECH should have a more
I can see the TECH angle - I just don't think it belongs.
I don't have a problem with it being OT.
2008/7/20 cdb <btech-online.co.uk>:colin
|I think this post fits TECH well, as science and its fruits are major
tools in tackling the problem it presents. The historical, political and
ethical parts are indeed more OTish, but on the other hand I think EE
tech (e.g. cellular communications) will play a leading role in shaping
the next 20 years in Africa, so TECH is reasonable place in the middle.
As for whether this belong in the list on the first place, I think
everything belongs on the list as long as there are people who want to
discuss it and it isn't explicitly offensive to anyone. Neither
bandwidth nor lack of interest are offences, not when a message takes
less than a millisecond to be sent and a thread can be killed with not
much more. People who find it difficult to handle the bandwidth would do
better to revise their toolset than to try and limit it at the source.
That this post yielded no on-topic replies is, of course, a different
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:54:37AM +1200, Apptech wrote:
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008
, 2009 only
- New search...