None of the NHS trusts I've worked for are using Windows 3.1 or CRT monitors, except for maybe esoteric lab equipment which isn't worth upgrading. I agree that NHS informatics is generally a mess, but the hardware isn't generally as bad as you're making out.
No, because the point is that the false positive results lead to more invasive tests (which in themselves may do harm), over-interpretation of other physical signs, worry etc.. The parallel with terrorism is that people end up on no-fly lists, get invasively searched and questioned, might get turned down for jobs or credit etc.. The uselessness of screening tests for low prevalence diseases is well known in the medical world, which is why tests need to be targeted to a high-risk population to have any value.
This is the nub of the problem. Drilling down through the bullshit, Windows 8 seems to be the archetype of what Ballmer has in mind... and it sucks. Apple have been criticised for making OSX too like iOS but in reality most of the changes can be ignored, the only thing that really confuses people is reversing the mouse wheel scroll (which can be reverted easily). The whole 'magic corners' thing on Win 8 is stoopid, particularly when Win 7 is such a great OS (and I say that as a card- and iPhone-carrying Apple Fanboi).
Microsoft's main competitor is themselves, and their best strategy right now would be pushing and incentivising the replacement of XP with Win 7 in the corporate environment to drive sales of updated Office and server software.
I've used various iDevices for years, including all models of iPhone bar the 5, iPods and iPads. None of them sync by replacing the entire contents of the device. All of them will sync a single file. None of them will break Windows' features relating to third-party cameras and USB sticks. You either have a seriously messed up Windows installation, or iDevice, or probably both - or you're just deluded.
Wow phones are so expensive in the US. In the UK I'm paying GBP40/month (about 30 dollars I think) for "free" iPhone 4S, unlimited data including tethering, 500 talk minutes to any network and 1000 SMS. I didn't pay any upfront fee.
It wasn't a strawman, it's a hypothetical illustration of the problem with providing an exception for free services. Businesses in the EU, that provide a service to consumers/citizens, are required to meet certain criteria in order to prevent abuse. The fact that a business funds a service by means other than direct billing doesn't entitle it to ignore its legal obligations. You questioned why those obligations exist - the answer is, if they didn't, then consumers would be exploited and businesses would inevitably find means to have their services categorised as 'free' in order to avoid their obligations. It's interesting to note that it's not unique to consumer rights - if I walk into a business premises and injure myself, I can still sue them if they were negligent, whether I bought anything or not. These consumer protection laws are an extension of that logic. There is a certain cost involved in doing business in any given region, and in the EU that cost involves fulfilling consumer protection obligations.
The logic is, that if you provide a service to consumers (as much as I hate that term), you are required to provide a minimum level of service. Financially discounting that service (even a 100% discount) doesn't change that situation. It's done to prevent abuse of the little guy. If there was an exception for free services, businesses would use all sorts of means to exploit that loophole (e.g. in a broadband + TV package, we say you're paying for the TV only, the broadband is a 'free extra' so you get a shitty broadband service with no customer support, you can't complain as it's 'free', and by the way we're the only provider in your area... see the potential problem?). I would also take issue with your definition of free - by using Google services you're providing to Google a payment in kind by displaying their adverts on your computer screen and viewing them. If it makes you happier, imagine that Google pays Germans 0.01 Euro for each advert imprint, and then demands that in payment for the internet service provided.
"But does the law require the use of any specific technological method?" Yes. UK law, which is based on EU law, states "The email address of the service provider must be given. It is not sufficient to include a 'contact us' form without also providing an email address."
You doubt wrongly. The GP poster even provided a link. "The email address of the service provider must be given. It is not sufficient to include a 'contact us' form without also providing an email address."
Agreed. You could reframe the debate this way: Google has many millions of paying customers, who make payment _in kind_ by reading and displaying (on their computer screen) adverts that Google provides. You can't sidestep consumer protection law by providing a service at a financial discount, even if that discount is 100%.
PRIOR TO THE iPHONE'S RELEASE!! Man, there's some major reading fails here. Apple was first to market with a wildly popular truly smart smartphone, way before there was any sort of industry standard for anything.
I got a battery pack from eBay for £30 which can charge my iPhone at least 3 times from empty, and charges overnight in about 7-8 hours. Works great, and I don't have to do a reboot to swap the battery out. I also don't have the issue of having to swap batteries around to charge them on the phone, which is a major inconvenience of proprietary phone batteries that usually don't come with a battery-only charger.
At risk of stating the obvious... an online bot crawls well-known webmail interfaces trying obvious names and passwords. When it gets a hit, it pulls a few names from the address book, and sends an email to that account appearing to come _from_ that email address. That mail contains a link to download malware that then infects the PC. All of this effort is to bypass the now well-known advice not to click a link in a message when you know the sender.
No, familiarity means prior knowledge or understanding. Intuitive means your instincts (intuition) are usually right. For example, back in the day (10 years ago), I would regularly recommend people try out non-Nokia cellphones. The usual response was "the menus are unintuitive". What they meant was, they had invested so much time in learning to use their Nokia that they couldn't cope with trying anything else. It used to be said often that putting "shut down" on the "start" menu in Windows is ridiculous (which it is) and unintuitive (which it clearly is), but because it's familiar this has become the standard. OSX would definitely be unfamiliar to a Windows user, but there is little that is clearly unintuitive.
By what you're describing, he's on a pretty outdated version of the OS, and has it configured stupidly. And, by the way, unintuitive is not the same as unfamiliar.
Bollocks to you too. If it hadn't been noticed at the time, then it's highly unlikely to be on the recorded image. The recorded image only shows where the sonographer pointed the probe and therefore what they noticed. You've very unlikely to see something new 8 years later that has any clinical relevance. Ultrasound is a dynamic imaging modality that is very much operator dependent.
Slashdot Mirror
None of the NHS trusts I've worked for are using Windows 3.1 or CRT monitors, except for maybe esoteric lab equipment which isn't worth upgrading. I agree that NHS informatics is generally a mess, but the hardware isn't generally as bad as you're making out.
No, because the point is that the false positive results lead to more invasive tests (which in themselves may do harm), over-interpretation of other physical signs, worry etc.. The parallel with terrorism is that people end up on no-fly lists, get invasively searched and questioned, might get turned down for jobs or credit etc.. The uselessness of screening tests for low prevalence diseases is well known in the medical world, which is why tests need to be targeted to a high-risk population to have any value.
Microsoft's main competitor is themselves, and their best strategy right now would be pushing and incentivising the replacement of XP with Win 7 in the corporate environment to drive sales of updated Office and server software.
I've used various iDevices for years, including all models of iPhone bar the 5, iPods and iPads. None of them sync by replacing the entire contents of the device. All of them will sync a single file. None of them will break Windows' features relating to third-party cameras and USB sticks. You either have a seriously messed up Windows installation, or iDevice, or probably both - or you're just deluded.
Wow phones are so expensive in the US. In the UK I'm paying GBP40/month (about 30 dollars I think) for "free" iPhone 4S, unlimited data including tethering, 500 talk minutes to any network and 1000 SMS. I didn't pay any upfront fee.
It wasn't a strawman, it's a hypothetical illustration of the problem with providing an exception for free services. Businesses in the EU, that provide a service to consumers/citizens, are required to meet certain criteria in order to prevent abuse. The fact that a business funds a service by means other than direct billing doesn't entitle it to ignore its legal obligations. You questioned why those obligations exist - the answer is, if they didn't, then consumers would be exploited and businesses would inevitably find means to have their services categorised as 'free' in order to avoid their obligations. It's interesting to note that it's not unique to consumer rights - if I walk into a business premises and injure myself, I can still sue them if they were negligent, whether I bought anything or not. These consumer protection laws are an extension of that logic. There is a certain cost involved in doing business in any given region, and in the EU that cost involves fulfilling consumer protection obligations.
What?
The logic is, that if you provide a service to consumers (as much as I hate that term), you are required to provide a minimum level of service. Financially discounting that service (even a 100% discount) doesn't change that situation. It's done to prevent abuse of the little guy. If there was an exception for free services, businesses would use all sorts of means to exploit that loophole (e.g. in a broadband + TV package, we say you're paying for the TV only, the broadband is a 'free extra' so you get a shitty broadband service with no customer support, you can't complain as it's 'free', and by the way we're the only provider in your area... see the potential problem?). I would also take issue with your definition of free - by using Google services you're providing to Google a payment in kind by displaying their adverts on your computer screen and viewing them. If it makes you happier, imagine that Google pays Germans 0.01 Euro for each advert imprint, and then demands that in payment for the internet service provided.
"But does the law require the use of any specific technological method?" Yes. UK law, which is based on EU law, states "The email address of the service provider must be given. It is not sufficient to include a 'contact us' form without also providing an email address."
You doubt wrongly. The GP poster even provided a link. "The email address of the service provider must be given. It is not sufficient to include a 'contact us' form without also providing an email address."
Yes... the problem is that they don't reply - or at least don't think they have an obligation to do so.
Agreed. You could reframe the debate this way: Google has many millions of paying customers, who make payment _in kind_ by reading and displaying (on their computer screen) adverts that Google provides. You can't sidestep consumer protection law by providing a service at a financial discount, even if that discount is 100%.
PRIOR TO THE iPHONE'S RELEASE!! Man, there's some major reading fails here. Apple was first to market with a wildly popular truly smart smartphone, way before there was any sort of industry standard for anything.
In the minds of people who see switching off a System Preferences option to only install signed packages a major obstacle.
Bad summary. Enough said.
You do know it's possible to have security breaches without being connected to the Internet, right?
That's nonsense. If you're interested, read his biography - lots that's quintessentially Apple came from Jobs, good and bad.
Yeah... you undo two screws and snap the new battery in. Big deal.
I got a battery pack from eBay for £30 which can charge my iPhone at least 3 times from empty, and charges overnight in about 7-8 hours. Works great, and I don't have to do a reboot to swap the battery out. I also don't have the issue of having to swap batteries around to charge them on the phone, which is a major inconvenience of proprietary phone batteries that usually don't come with a battery-only charger.
Jobs is well known to have loved Braun products, it's not a secret.
At risk of stating the obvious... an online bot crawls well-known webmail interfaces trying obvious names and passwords. When it gets a hit, it pulls a few names from the address book, and sends an email to that account appearing to come _from_ that email address. That mail contains a link to download malware that then infects the PC. All of this effort is to bypass the now well-known advice not to click a link in a message when you know the sender.
No, familiarity means prior knowledge or understanding. Intuitive means your instincts (intuition) are usually right. For example, back in the day (10 years ago), I would regularly recommend people try out non-Nokia cellphones. The usual response was "the menus are unintuitive". What they meant was, they had invested so much time in learning to use their Nokia that they couldn't cope with trying anything else. It used to be said often that putting "shut down" on the "start" menu in Windows is ridiculous (which it is) and unintuitive (which it clearly is), but because it's familiar this has become the standard. OSX would definitely be unfamiliar to a Windows user, but there is little that is clearly unintuitive.
By what you're describing, he's on a pretty outdated version of the OS, and has it configured stupidly. And, by the way, unintuitive is not the same as unfamiliar.
Sad story. But THIS story is about ultrasound (echocardiogram) so my point stands.
Bollocks to you too. If it hadn't been noticed at the time, then it's highly unlikely to be on the recorded image. The recorded image only shows where the sonographer pointed the probe and therefore what they noticed. You've very unlikely to see something new 8 years later that has any clinical relevance. Ultrasound is a dynamic imaging modality that is very much operator dependent.