Re: Sniff Movie 720p Download
Vida Hubbert
Background: Inspiratory muscle strength is often better reflected by oesophageal pressure during a maximal sniff (sniff POES) than by maximal inspiratory pressure (PImax). Sniff POES can be estimated non-invasively by measuring the sniff nasal inspiratory pressure (SNIP). The aim was to establish maximal normal values for the SNIP and to compare them with PImax.
Methods: One hundred and sixty healthy subjects (80 men) aged 20-80 years were recruited. All subjects had a forced vital capacity (FVC) of > 80%, a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1)/FVC of > 85% predicted value, and a body mass index of 18-31 kg/m2. Because PImax is known to be reduced in the supine posture, the SNIP was measured in both the sitting and the supine positions. PImax sustained over one second was measured from functional residual capacity (FRC) in the sitting position with a standard flanged mouthpiece during four manoeuvres. SNIP was measured from FRC in the sitting and supine positions using a catheter through a plug occluding one nostril during 10 maximal sniffs through the contralateral nostril. For each test the largest pressure measured in cm H2O was taken into account.
Respiratory muscle weakness is the usual cause of death in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The prognostic value of the forced vital capacity (FVC), mouth-inspiratory force, and sniff nasal-inspiratory force were established in a group of 98 patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who were followed trimonthly for 3 years. Sniff nasal-inspiratory force correlated with the transdiaphragmatic pressure (r = 0.9, p < 0.01). Sniff nasal-inspiratory force was most likely to be recorded at the last visit (96% of cases), compared with either the FVC or mouth-inspiratory force (86% and 81%, respectively, p < 0.01). A sniff nasal-inspiratory force less than 40 cm H(2)O was significantly related with nocturnal hypoxemia. When sniff nasal-inspiratory force was less than 40 cm H(2)O, the hazard ratio for death was 9.1 (p = 0.001), and the median survival was 6 +/- 0.3 months. The sensitivity of FVC < 50% for predicting 6-month mortality was 58% with a specificity of 96%, whereas sniff nasal-inspiratory force less than 40 H(2)O had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 79% for death within 6 months. Thus the sniff nasal-inspiratory force test is a good measure of respiratory muscle strength in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, it can be performed by patients with advanced disease, and it gives prognostic information.
I have a small network in which there are 2 electronic devices and one desktop connected using a switch. Through the desktop with Ethereal/wireshark installed on it, can I sniff the packets that are being communicated between the 2 electronic devices?
Hub would be the easiest way. Switch with a SPAN port next. However, if you don't have either of those and given that you mentioned that you have a computer with two ports, you could setup bridging between them. However, it would actually be much easier if you can configure the two electronic devices' IP addresses to setup the desktop as a router. Specifically, if you're running Linux (or can boot a Linux LiveCD with wireshark on it), you can very easily assign device 1 the IP address 10.0.0.2 with a default gateway of 10.0.0.1 (assuming you can set the devices to use static IP's; if they use DHCP, you'll have to set up a DHCP server on the linux box and that's getting out of scope). Setup the second device with IP address 10.0.1.2 with default gateway 10.0.1.1. Setup the linux box so that interface 1 (eth0) has IP 10.0.0.1 and interface 2 (eth1) has IP 10.0.1.1. Plug all 4 interfaces into the switch (you could also directly connect the devices to each port, but depending on how old the devices are, they might require cross over cables) Last step is to enable routing; on the linux box as root, do echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward and now the two devices will need to go through the linux router so you can sniff the traffic.
Normally, to sniff packets through switch you need to do ARP-poisoning attack (so switch replicates all packets on your sniffing interface). There are tools for such ARP-poisoning attack (Cain & Abel is a great example).
Either device is allowed to exit sniff mode at any time. This is part of how classic Bluetooth is defined. I'm guessing that your target device's controller has a policy to automatically resume active mode at a certain data size payload.
Speaking of running freely, Red Dog pulled or tweaked something a few days ago so we had to keep her quiet and on pain meds. She recovered quickly and when I finally let her run this weekend, she did not stop (except to sniff!) for about 45 minutes. The 12-year old GSP that we met on the walk quickly decided against trying to keep up. ?
It can be hard to know what to do. We both need exercise, but if we take 45 minutes to get around one suburban block, because one member of the party can get lost in a sniffing location for two full minutes, neither of us gets any exercise.
I have three dogs and live in an urban environment with few off leash areas apart from small dog parks. As one of my dogs has dog reactivity issues all our outings are on leash. Our walks have always been at their pace and we stop and sniff the pee mail whenever they want. I have only three rules for my dogs on these walks- no pulling, we wait til everyone is finished sniffing before moving on, and no eating of garbage.
First a non-dog comment for Mireille. When my mom developed Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus, one of the first symptoms was loss of balance, along with incontinence and some dementia-like symptoms. It was treated through a surgical procedure and she is now, at 83, doing great.
Now to the topic:
When I started going on sniffing walks with my dog, I noticed all sorts of wonderful things. She started peeing less often on walks. We lived in an urban area and some peeing on walks can be a sign of stress. I also noticed she was a bit less tense when we came upon another dog. I think the sniffing and more relaxed pace helped her to relax in general. And her intermittent limp, caused by an old injury to the psoas, got better. I believe this was due to her being able to move more naturally. For some dogs, just as for people, keeping up a swift pace at a walk or trot can cause repetitive motion injuries. Our dogs are not able to tell us they need to slow down or take a break. And as another person stated, the sniffing posture helps dogs stretch.
For my students I suggest a quick 5 minute sniff multiple times during a structured walk (where quick obedience cues are thrown in) to keep the walk interesting for all involved. It also helps with proofing.
If the dog is nervous, I suggest a lot of sniff breaks. I use them heavily when working a shy or nervous dog. Temple Grandin went over sone research about it activating a different portion of the brain and reducing anxiety.
I created a dog park that is primarily tall grass just for the dogs to sniff and I think it is cruel not to let dogs have their sniffing time. I think it goes along with the fact that most people want to get their dogs exercised as fast as possible and while that may get them physically tired how much fun is it for the dog.
Finally, the issue of rude dogs and inconsiderate owners, that is an issue of training and consideration not of people letting their dogs sniff. My pups do not bother other dogs or other people and if I see someone with a dog, heck if I see another person I call my pups to me and depending on where we are we may leave the path.
I am very, VERY careful when and where I let Sydney sniff. She is not a candidate for off-leash time, ever. At all. My oldest boy, Darwin, is better, and he gets quite a lot of leeway and sniff-breaks, while Seeker, the 9 month-old baby, unfortunately appears to be taking after his big sister in the sniff-and-eat department. No detached squirrel tails yet, though.
Not everyone with smell loss will develop a brain disease. Researchers are studying this link to learn more about the connection. Request a scratch-and-sniff test to help scientists learn more about this risk factor.
This ACLU of Illinois report begins with a brief discussion of the Study Act, upon which this report is based. It then presents findings of substantial and ongoing racial disparate impact in the use of consent searches and dog sniff searches during routine traffic stops.
The Study Act has twice been expanded to capture new kinds of traffic stop data. In 2006, in response to Study Act data regarding racial disparity in consent searches, it was expanded to require disclosure of whether a consent search yielded contraband, and whether a motorist declined consent to search. See Public Act 94-997. In 2011, in response to Study Act data regarding racial disparity in canine sniffs, it was expanded to document whether a dog sniff occurred, whether a dog alerted, whether a dog alert caused a search by an officer, and whether contraband was discovered. See Public Act 97-0469.[3]
First, dog sniffs are menacing, especially for minority motorists, in light of historical abuses committed with police dogs. Dog sniffs also are humiliating, taking place in full view of passing motorists, friends and strangers alike, many of whom probably conclude that the people subjected to dog sniffs must be guilty of something. Full car searches based on false dog alerts are even more frightening and embarrassing.
Second, dog sniffs are all too frequently unreliable. As shown below, dog alerts are wrong as often as they are right. Thousands of innocent motorists are subjected to lengthy, invasive, and humiliating vehicle searches by police officers as a result of erroneous dog alerts.
Statewide in 2013, no contraband was found during 40% of the officer searches performed in response to a dog alert. Stated differently, false alerts by police dogs caused police officers to manually search the vehicles of 1,715 innocent motorists. See Exh. 17 (analysis of statewide dog sniff hit rates).
aa06259810