Well actually 2 copies would lock 96% of starting available memory. I believe the key word is available, unless of course you're trying to make a funny and it somewhat overshot the mods of course.
Just as long as this also applies to Halliburton and all the other subcontractors from around the world who also fell asleep on the job (and imo BP did, massively- not that I'm an oil exploration expert). Oh and don't forget that the effect of a criminal case on any further deepwater drilling exploration by any oil company would be chilling to say the least. Did you want to keep using your cars then?
They are the only people competent to judge the cost/benefit of the tests/treatments they want. The alternative is to have accountants with no medical knowledge making this decision.
As opposed to medical staff who have not great understanding of fincancial matters? It's a difficult paradox to solve
NHS funds are not a bottomless bucket. Yes, care is free at the point of use. But the total care available is finite. If money is wasted on unnecessary treatments, then other, more necessary, treatments will get cut.
A little background, i live not far from the hospital in question, i used to live in the town the hospital is based in. There was a plan to cut the number of hospitals/care facilities in our local area due to budget constraints. 3 hospitals were under threat of at least partial closure. Thanks to the inevitable local outcry in all 3 areas all 3 hospitals remained open, when honestly there is scant funding for this. The administration of this hospital is handling things poorly however if their criterion for rationing what could be vital patient care is based on a doctor's grammar.
Since the demand for medical services is infinite but the supply is finite, there will always be rationing in the NHS. You may not like it, but, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you cannot avoid it. What you can change is where rationing appears. If you hide it in one place it will pop up in another. Much better to have it out in the open than to have it done by secret conclaves of consultants or the blind workings of an administrative machine not designed for the purpose.
Sorry but this is just nonsensical, risking lives and health by implementing daft policies is not how the NHS controls the fincancial constrains upon it, your analogy is utterly irrelevant to the case!
There's plenty of problems like this in hospitals. Doctors don't know what things cost, so they tick all the boxes without considering the cost-benefits.
The Doctors are the people directing the medical care of patients, why should they become accountants?
This is the NHS, care is free at the point of use, no medical insurance or patients' money issues are meant to be cosidered by the medical staff. If there is an issue with funding for services that is up to the hospital management to deal with, not the administration department.
It's an obvious attempt at rationing care services, and yes if overnight bloods haven't been done when a doctor has stipulated needing them done for specific patients due to a clinical need for that patient then patient welfare is put at risk!
offtopic indeed, sorry but i wasn't aware of an ontopic/offtopic police force around these parts.
I could take the original post of yours that I replied to and merrily dismantle it line by line, but why should I waste my time when it's a poorly written mess that doesn't really deserve proper reading? Not so much a wall of text as a wall of text thats had a dumptruck driven through it. If you want people to take your points seriously, write them in such a manner that people can actually follow the flow of your post easily.
I wasn't the one getting all shirty because people on slashdot can see straight through the bullshit you've posted there, and aren't bothered about your precious internet feelings. Nerdrage much?
Capitalising words puts the emphasis on how poorly you are doing at putting your point across, it does not add emphasis to the point you are making.
other examples of radiation exposure. ..of ionizing radiation maybe. microwave radio is not ionizing, it may have warmed the hive ever so slightly though? (seriously)
Because it is the first stage of enabling turning people into sheep even more than they are now. In a decent society children should be taught to ask 'why?' to authority, not just expect to follow orders like sheep. People are supposed to be citizens, not serfs in a feudal system.
This is about conditioning people to trust the state just 'because' instead of being able, as in any democracy, to question things. Dictatorships and tyrannies implement systems like this, and whilst we're already in a financial tyranny (money as debt. look it up), I'd rather not see our society turn into a 'social' one as well.
I decline to play your game of a 'list' of things because it is purely a straw man.
Using all caps in such an arbitrary manner doesn't add emphasis to your post, it just makes you look unprofessional, and as if you can only get your point across by yelling louder than the other guy. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but using it with such force blunts the nib:)
Flaming respondants also makes you look idiotic. Sorry but there it is.
If you're so sure of your position, how about losing the anonymity.
The point here isnt really this system, the point is that telling 6 year olds that it's ok in life to have to use your unchangeable personally identifiable biometric data to get anything is totally wrong.
My concerns are that this is teaching children that it is ok to hand over personally identifiable biometric data, that cannot be altered during their lifetime, to do innocuous things when they have done nothing wrong. What next? Voluntary fingerprinting while you wait at, a desk set up in your local shopping mall by policemen? It's the first step in creating an Orwellian society.
not sure whom exactly this shill is 'turfing for, but pretty obviously astroturfing. By ignoring all of the nuances of the 'statistics' used, and pimping guides to follow steps to do what should be done by default, our friend here has tipped his hand. Poor attempt, want another try?
It's certainly not all that hard to disable the administrative shares, but it's alot harder than it should be, totally undocumented until it became a problem, and the pertinent point should be why the hell were they on in the first place???
The reason installing applications on linux takes root priv is because the installation requires modifications within non user filesystem space (/usr/bin,/usr/local,/usr/share), typically installing applications in *nix requires installation in far more than just a user's &home directory, not least because the ability to execute applications from a user's home dir may be disabled without root privs. I believe this is called having a decent security model.
it's not that they're trying to display more information than is already there, they're just trying to produce a more accurate representation of the signal, for more clarification, try comparing a crt screen's colour rendition to any lcd, the lcd has nothing like the colour depth!
I'm married, and this situation never came up where I needed to get into a girlfriend's house without her being there. I can understand an occassional "Oops, could you run to my house and pick something up for me? I'm at work and I need it, and you're inexplicably at your house watching TV during a work day!" but that's an exception to the rule.
It's not just about covering each others backs in this situation (which you would normally want to be doing in a serious relationship), its also about trust, and being more than just 2 ships in the night, unless your girlfriends before getting married weren't ever serious relationships? Heres a thought: did you cohabit with your better half prior to marriage, and if not would you have considered it? Maybe its a boundaries issue for you personally?
I didn't give her the keys to my apartment and she didn't give me the keys to her apartment because we weren't retarded. It is also why I never had to change my locks when I broke up with someone.
Well you just ensure that you are mature about these things and dont break up with someone in such a fractious traumatic way that needing to worry about changing locks/checking brakelines/being careful with unexpected parcels arriving, or anything else like that, ever becomes an issue
It's NOT normal to have the keys to someone else's house unless you're just trying to show off that you HAVE the keys to their house -- it's an amateur move made by attention whores.
Utter poppycock. See above about trust. If 2 people in a relationship are serious about things then giving keys to their home to each other is a logical further step even if they are never used. I think your view of what a relationship is meant to be seriously diverges from mine. By a huge delta.
they illegally obtained or attempted to legally obtain banned weapons, and were prosecuted for doing so, so whilst it may be less difficult for them to get hold of them, they then get imprisoned for doing so
Slashdot Mirror
The reason we don't all die of tumors shortly after birth is because the immune system identifies them and eliminates them.
not exactly correct, there's the little matter of cell death
is it keeping the bears away?
And how do you propose we use them while driving?
This may sound like an alien concept but you could _stop_your_vehicle_ to check your map?
Well actually 2 copies would lock 96% of starting available memory. I believe the key word is available,
unless of course you're trying to make a funny and it somewhat overshot the mods of course.
Just as long as this also applies to Halliburton and all the other subcontractors from around the world who also fell asleep on the job (and imo BP did, massively- not that I'm an oil exploration expert). Oh and don't forget that the effect of a criminal case on any further deepwater drilling exploration by any oil company would be chilling to say the least. Did you want to keep using your cars then?
Neither does putting Java in your computer supposedly
They are the only people competent to judge the cost/benefit of the tests/treatments they want. The alternative is to have accountants with no medical knowledge making this decision.
As opposed to medical staff who have not great understanding of fincancial matters? It's a difficult paradox to solve
NHS funds are not a bottomless bucket. Yes, care is free at the point of use. But the total care available is finite. If money is wasted on unnecessary treatments, then other, more necessary, treatments will get cut.
A little background, i live not far from the hospital in question, i used to live in the town the hospital is based in. There was a plan to cut the number of hospitals/care facilities in our local area due to budget constraints. 3 hospitals were under threat of at least partial closure. Thanks to the inevitable local outcry in all 3 areas all 3 hospitals remained open, when honestly there is scant funding for this.
The administration of this hospital is handling things poorly however if their criterion for rationing what could be vital patient care is based on a doctor's grammar.
Since the demand for medical services is infinite but the supply is finite, there will always be rationing in the NHS. You may not like it, but, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you cannot avoid it. What you can change is where rationing appears. If you hide it in one place it will pop up in another. Much better to have it out in the open than to have it done by secret conclaves of consultants or the blind workings of an administrative machine not designed for the purpose.
Sorry but this is just nonsensical, risking lives and health by implementing daft policies is not how the NHS controls the fincancial constrains upon it, your analogy is utterly irrelevant to the case!
here we go with the rightwing antiprovidingdecenthealthcaretothosethatcannotaffordit slant!
do not use this to politicise the us situation (like it needs any more of that!) The situation is chalk and cheese.
There's plenty of problems like this in hospitals. Doctors don't know what things cost, so they tick all the boxes without considering the cost-benefits.
The Doctors are the people directing the medical care of patients, why should they become accountants?
This is the NHS, care is free at the point of use, no medical insurance or patients' money issues are meant to be cosidered by the medical staff. If there is an issue with funding for services that is up to the hospital management to deal with, not the administration department.
It's an obvious attempt at rationing care services, and yes if overnight bloods haven't been done when a doctor has stipulated needing them done for specific patients due to a clinical need for that patient then patient welfare is put at risk!
offtopic indeed, sorry but i wasn't aware of an ontopic/offtopic police force around these parts.
I could take the original post of yours that I replied to and merrily dismantle it line by line, but why should I waste my time when it's a poorly written mess that doesn't really deserve proper reading? Not so much a wall of text as a wall of text thats had a dumptruck driven through it. If you want people to take your points seriously, write them in such a manner that people can actually follow the flow of your post easily.
I wasn't the one getting all shirty because people on slashdot can see straight through the bullshit you've posted there, and aren't bothered about your precious internet feelings. Nerdrage much?
Capitalising words puts the emphasis on how poorly you are doing at putting your point across, it does not add emphasis to the point you are making.
You couldn't enlighten me with a flaregun pal.
other examples of radiation exposure. . .of ionizing radiation maybe. microwave radio is not ionizing, it may have warmed the hive ever so slightly though? (seriously)
Because it is the first stage of enabling turning people into sheep even more than they are now. In a decent society children should be taught to ask 'why?' to authority, not just expect to follow orders like sheep. People are supposed to be citizens, not serfs in a feudal system.
This is about conditioning people to trust the state just 'because' instead of being able, as in any democracy, to question things. Dictatorships and tyrannies implement systems like this, and whilst we're already in a financial tyranny (money as debt. look it up), I'd rather not see our society turn into a 'social' one as well.
I decline to play your game of a 'list' of things because it is purely a straw man.
Using all caps in such an arbitrary manner doesn't add emphasis to your post, it just makes you look unprofessional, and as if you can only get your point across by yelling louder than the other guy. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but using it with such force blunts the nib :)
Flaming respondants also makes you look idiotic. Sorry but there it is.
If you're so sure of your position, how about losing the anonymity.
The point here isnt really this system, the point is that telling 6 year olds that it's ok in life to have to use your unchangeable personally identifiable biometric data to get anything is totally wrong.
Police state? No thankyou!
Also most infants at birth - hands and feet. So much for the "criminal" rhetoric.
really? never seen that here!
What are your concerns?
My concerns are that this is teaching children that it is ok to hand over personally identifiable biometric data, that cannot be altered during their lifetime, to do innocuous things when they have done nothing wrong. What next? Voluntary fingerprinting while you wait at, a desk set up in your local shopping mall by policemen? It's the first step in creating an Orwellian society.
"turned into a liability"
Windows has always been a shoddy liability. Unfortunately MS has an incredibly good marketing team, that can literally sell fridges to Eskimos.
Really???!??
How much does Microsoft Fridge 2010 cost, and what's it's energy efficiency rating? :)
not sure whom exactly this shill is 'turfing for, but pretty obviously astroturfing. By ignoring all of the nuances of the 'statistics' used, and pimping guides to follow steps to do what should be done by default, our friend here has tipped his hand. Poor attempt, want another try?
It's certainly not all that hard to disable the administrative shares, but it's alot harder than it should be, totally undocumented until it became a problem, and the pertinent point should be why the hell were they on in the first place???
and I can't imagine many people would have occasion to call the Antarctic.
i dunno, you may get a sudden urge to check if it's snowing there?
The reason installing applications on linux takes root priv is because the installation requires modifications within non user filesystem space (/usr/bin, /usr/local, /usr/share), typically installing applications in *nix requires installation in far more than just a user's &home directory, not least because the ability to execute applications from a user's home dir may be disabled without root privs. I believe this is called having a decent security model.
it's not that they're trying to display more information than is already there, they're just trying to produce a more accurate representation of the signal, for more clarification, try comparing a crt screen's colour rendition to any lcd, the lcd has nothing like the colour depth!
I'm married, and this situation never came up where I needed to get into a girlfriend's house without her being there. I can understand an occassional "Oops, could you run to my house and pick something up for me? I'm at work and I need it, and you're inexplicably at your house watching TV during a work day!" but that's an exception to the rule.
It's not just about covering each others backs in this situation (which you would normally want to be doing in a serious relationship), its also about trust, and being more than just 2 ships in the night, unless your girlfriends before getting married weren't ever serious relationships? Heres a thought: did you cohabit with your better half prior to marriage, and if not would you have considered it? Maybe its a boundaries issue for you personally?
I didn't give her the keys to my apartment and she didn't give me the keys to her apartment because we weren't retarded. It is also why I never had to change my locks when I broke up with someone.
Well you just ensure that you are mature about these things and dont break up with someone in such a fractious traumatic way that needing to worry about changing locks/checking brakelines/being careful with unexpected parcels arriving, or anything else like that, ever becomes an issue
It's NOT normal to have the keys to someone else's house unless you're just trying to show off that you HAVE the keys to their house -- it's an amateur move made by attention whores.
Utter poppycock. See above about trust. If 2 people in a relationship are serious about things then giving keys to their home to each other is a logical further step even if they are never used. I think your view of what a relationship is meant to be seriously diverges from mine. By a huge delta.
hey.... but you don't want users having to re-login just because your server rebooted do you?
one word.
YES!
holy quoting out of context batman!
they illegally obtained or attempted to legally obtain banned weapons, and were prosecuted for doing so, so whilst it may be less difficult for them to get hold of them, they then get imprisoned for doing so