I think fever is required for flu.

Work has been going at breakneck speed and I am convinced I am missing things. I hope today to go through pile of notes.

Well, if normal body temperature is 98.6, and anything over 99.5 is a fever, than 1 degree is a fever. Therefore if my temperature is 99 degrees and my normal temperature is 96 degrees, don't I have the equivalent of a 101.6 degree fever?

Flu also tends to have that achy-tired feeling. Colds may make you feel miserable, but for me at least they don't make me feel physically weaker.

I'm the same way, Sophia. My healthy temp is usually 97.4, so if I have a temp of over 99, I usually consider it a fever.

normal body temperature is 98.6

This is more or less a myth. (At best, it's an average number which may or may not have any relevance to any individual's "normal" body temperature.)

I know for kids, 100.4 is the official cutoff for fever, but you're not supposed to worry unless sustained for more than 2-3 days.

My mom had the same procedure done a couple of years ago to remove cataracts, and she was amazed at how good her vision was afterward.

Yep, that's part of why I was willing to do this--not many people have bad enough vision to have it done, but since its basically what they do for cataract surgery without removing a cataract first, it's been done a lot when you look at it that way.

Well, if normal body temperature is 98.6, and anything over 99.5 is a fever, than 1 degree is a fever. Therefore if my temperature is 99 degrees and my normal temperature is 96 degrees, don't I have the equivalent of a 101.6 degree fever?

Yeah, three degrees over your normal sounds like a fever to me!

The guy over the wall is eating the most garlicious thing ever. Like, it's interfering with my apple (which is also extremely bland--I can't work out if it's the varieties at Ralphs, even organic, or just Ralphs, but I'm over the Red Delicious now).

Since I eat garlic fries at my desk every Monday, I know I don't have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't mean I'm going to keep my mouth shut. So to speak.

Okay, buckle your seat. I have a rant coming on. This time about Slate.

Slate's articles are just the worst sometimes. I don't know how they can go from really good journalism to bullshit in like 3 seconds. Here's the bullshit, now complaining about Ira Glass:

[link]

So, I get that the complaints are about TAL in 2012, but it would have been nice for more than 10 minutes to be spent on this article and include the Showtime (?) show, the previous theater live show, and the "fame" of other frequent TAL contributors. Because just concentrating on Ira Glass leaves an incoherent narrative.

It seems to me that TAL has become what it is today because there are so many other NPR programs that are similar to it. So TAL (rightly so) has been flexible and experimented with different collaborations (notable: the financial crisis episodes with Planet Money). It seems to me an appropriate analogy is network tv and cable. TAL (when I first started listening to it regularly which was around 1999) was one of the first readily available engrossing radio programs and to stay popular and thrive, they had to do other things and expand. Not unlike the early years of HBO.

Finally, I also am angry that the author didn't acknowledge the very affecting episodes that recently occurred on TAL that did maintain intimacy between the listener and host (if that is the only yardstick by which TAL should be measured). "What Happened at Dos Erres" was absolutely fantastic, "Lights Camera Christmas" and "Little War on the Prairie" were pretty good as well (as notable examples of many in 2012).

grr argh

I don't know how they can go from really good journalism to bullshit in like 3 seconds.

Because reactionary bullshit is clickbait.