That charge is for cases where a company with at least 25 developers wants to include this as a component in their own apps.
It's a pretty normal and reasonable charge for that kind of scenario, in which the company licensing it would likely be charging/earning vastly more than this from their clients or end-users.
There's a charge if you want to use the image editor in your own app. You're buying a library, and if your organization has more than 20 developers working on implementing it $2k is peanuts.
They want to be able to easily boil the organs of any target by simply typing coordinates in 3D space for multiple towers to focus their beams on. It's a weapon pretending to be a useful innocent technology so no one will protest its widespread deployment.
Where do you find these "cool doctors"? I once tried to bribe six different doctors in my area with $3000 in exchange for agreeing to allow me to get an exploratory MRI and they all said no.
I suspect many would be far more open to clearly non medical usage of machines they actually own or lease. What you were asking for isn’t any, and had perceived risk for them.
If I was a random clinician there is no way I would have helped you either.
If you do want a MRI done out of curiosity your best bet is to go through biomedical imaging research group who needs subjects, I would guess. Unless you happen to live near a manufacturer.
An exploratory MRI has inherit risk (even if minuscule) to your life, and thus their livelyhood. A very big difference from asking for an x-ray of a cable.
That is not true. It doesn’t involve ionizing radiation, so not a dose risk like CT. But look up PNS and SAR (peripheral nerve stimulation and specific absorption rate), for example. This is mostly handled well for standard pulse sequences of course, but not “zero risk”.
Beyond that, there is a reliance that you do not have any implants etc., even some tattoos. And you tell the truth about it. From the clinics point of view too risky.
I don't think that's what they're especially worried about; those are fairly minor.
Instead, think about interacting with someone who a) is so convinced that they need an exploratory MRI but b) can't convince a doctor of that need. I'd be afraid that either I'll be stuck dealing with someone perseverating over a totally normal anatomical variation (and everyone has a few). If they get sick later, I might also get dragged into a debate over whether I should have noticed something on that scan, done a different scan, or whatever, possibly with big legal implications.
This is why our techs will happily scan a fruit or something, but don't run an ad-hoc clinic.
I agree that in the parent comment case, there is no reason to risk a review or lawsuit which is probably mainly why a clinician wouldn't do it; I alluded that that in another comment.
This one was specifically a comment about "zero risk" on MRI, it's not true. Low risk, sure. But people have been hurt.
I also suspect any clinician is going to look askance at a low risk action that isn't necessary, but the potential liability is the kicker here.
Nothing is totally risk free, but compared to most medical procedures--and most activities of daily living--MRIs are a walk in the park. For a subject with no implanted devices, I would bet the drive to the scan center is much more dangerous. I just flipped through MAUDE (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/d...) and I couldn't find any adverse events that were more severe than a small burn or blister.
> The magnetic fields that change with time create loud knocking noises which may harm hearing if adequate ear protection is not used. They may also cause peripheral muscle or nerve stimulation that may feel like a twitching sensation.
> The radiofrequency energy used during the MRI scan could lead to heating of the body. The potential for heating is greater during long MRI examinations.
Minimal, perhaps negligible? Absolutely. Worth risking a license for a mere $3k? Probably not.
CT scans are far more dangerous than MRIs, and yet doctors recklessly schedule CT scans for everything, to the point where they treat you like you're crazy if you try to avoid CT scans. One could argue that every single thing a doctor does has inherent risk to the patient's life, so by your logic, doctors should simply not do anything, ever.
I don’t know anything, but I would not be shocked to learn that malpractice insurance does not cover "exploratory" practices paid in cash under the table.
Every single thing they do opens them to a giant slew of malpractice claims. By your logic, doctors should simply not do anything, ever.
I also lied for the sake of brevity. In reality I wanted an MRI in order to look for evidence of diverticulitis. They all said I needed to either get a CT scan or get lost. CT scans are more dangerous than MRIs. Doctors can't possibly be exposed to more malpractice risk from a harmless MRI than from a dangerous CT scan.
What's wrong with hate, exactly? Last I checked, hate is the emotion that one experiences in response to the realization that someone else is doing horrible things to them or the people they love. This then compels one to protect themselves and those they love from the hated individuals, which is good.
Lawyers strive to become as good as possible at aggressively defending the objectively wrong opinion. He's either doing this as some sort of devil's advocate exercise or he's actually getting ready to defend 5G technology in court.
Alas, I'm just a nerd who likes radios and infrastructure, and is fed up with NIMBYs and feelers.
EDIT: regarding "who stands to gain"--consumers! It's very odd to me that I'd have to defend the technology upgrade treadmill on HN of all places. In October, Apple's going to come out with the A13 chip. Is anyone going to wonder "who benefits?" Or ask "why do we need it?" No, we'll all understand that the A12 is obsolete trash now. That's how this industry works.
It's a weapon disguised as communications tech to keep the sheep calm while it's deployed. They want to be able to easily target any coordinates in 3D space from multiple towers at once with lethal microwave beams to boil the organs of any troublemakers who speak out against the chosen ones. Just don't make any more problematic posts and you'll be fine.
Perhaps they don't complain to the police because they are stoic and also prefer maximizing peace and order in their society rather than selfishly clutching their pearls over inconsequential annoyances. Japanese tend to have an intuitive understanding that sending an easily tolerated creep to jail will cause damage to everyone in his life including his employer and his family. They lack the impulsive blind urge for life-destroying revenge which you incorrectly believe everyone naturally possesses. Their culture is different but you seem hesitant to respect or recognize that. Japan Times is also widely considered by actual Japanese people to be racist anti-Japanese propaganda meant to confuse non-Japanese people into eventually insisting on various forms of heavy-handed intervention in their country. The article is written by a no-name pop music blogger and based entirely on his personal spin on a small handful of random tweets. It is probably mostly false.
You're merely whitesplaining how Japanese people should live. Japan will weigh the importance of various problems and solve them however they want at their own pace. They don't need your "help" and they never asked for it.
Sounds like he's the type of person who thinks getting upvotes from his fellow redditors is more alluring than being right. Thank you for confirming that there is no reason to click this link.
I always worry about what those jarringly bright LED brake lights with a low refresh rate (the ones that leave highly distracting dotted red trails across your field of vision when you move your eyes) are doing to my eyes and everyone else's.
https://pqina.nl/doka/#pricing