Anonymous reporting isn't as easy as you might think in the UK.
I once called in to report a particularly gruesome fight that was happening right outside my building. It took 5 minutes of them collecting information on *ME* (that was in no way particularly related to the call) before they would even start listening to the problem. And apparently that's protocol.
One other time, a friend and I saw someone walk into a house (he didn't spot us) and seconds later we heard glass smashing, so we called the police. Again, same line of personal questioning started before I could even start reporting the problem, so I tried to point out that I prefered this to be a simple 'anonymous tip' (just like the movies!) ... that only made the line of questioning a lot stricter, such as nationality, why was I walking in that particular neighbourhood away from my residence, etc.
There is *no* way I'm ever reporting anything to the police ever again. I'll only consider it (carefully) if it's my house they're breaking into
... Microsoft is perfectly free to write native import/export functionality into MS Office to enable ODF file support. If they did that though, their customers would find a seamless migration from MS Office products to competitors like Lotus Symphony, OpenOffice, etc.
MS Word (the latest version at least) does have full ODT support. You can open an.odt document and edit it using MS Word and you can save as.odt as well. I haven't had to use it yet personally, but it's there. It's not even in the 'other obscure formats' drop-down list, it's up there in the main 'save as...' window with.docx,.doc and.pdf.
Having said that, it's a mixed blessing. It just means M$ products support the odf. So if I wrote a paper in my open document processor and saved it as.odt, my M$ Windows colleague would be able to read it, after the initial shock of "you didn't send me a "document file" I recognise, what program do I open this with".
What it doesn't mean, however, it doesn't mean that it provides other open document processors the ability to support their.docx format. Which is still the 'default' format for most organisations which use the de-facto industry standard, which, for better or worse, is MS Office. (As an aside, even for businesses that haven't switched to the latest version,.doc support in openoffice is still not that great in my personal experience)
The conservatism in the medical sector is so extreme, that even when a new technology appears, the old technology is *still* retained, usually for legal purposes. An example from my hospital for instance, it used to be that blood results would arrive in small pieces of paper that a secretary would affix to a special page with in-built stickers on the back of the patient's notes, and the doctor would inspect and sign it there. Other than calling the lab in very urgent cases, that was the only system to check bloods, so the reports were delivered asap. Now the blood results are computerised instead, meaning you can look them up on a screen rather than wait for a secretary to affix them to patient notes when the reports arrive. As a result, the delivery of the paper reports is less urgent and takes days. However, the doctors are now responsible to MANUALLY COPY all results from the computer screen, into a page on the back of the notes, which can take several minutes. Then the old-style paper reports *still* arrive, and the doctors have to spend several minutes again signing them to prove that they have been inspected (even though they have already manually copied them in the notes as well). This is done for both legal reasons, and the pretext that the bloods need to be available in time for the ward round in the patient's notes. (ironically, a mobile workstation is used to view the Xrays through PACS though.)
I don't really blame doctors and nurses that much then, when they appear resistant to new technologies, because in the short term, they're introduced so clumsily that they only cause trouble, and their design isn't always ideal to predict if it will be worth it in the long term. I remember I did a project on the state of computerization of the NHS, and I came across doctors who were adamant computers should be banned from the workplace; except, apparently for "the dot-matrix printers which produce sticky labels with the patient's names on them. Those are a lifesaver!" (sigh)
The other reason, of course, is that, due to litigation on one hand, and blatant lack of clearly defined job responsibilities on the other, people adopt a 'it's not in my job description' attitude, and require formal training for every minor thing they do. Nurses in my hospital for instance only administer a drug if it's on their training list; any other drug they call a doctor (not that I've had training in administering that drug, but I'm the scapegoat; the patient needs the drug and I'm the last person in the chain.) This attitude makes it particularly difficult to introduce anything new in the workplace, and even such ridiculously "for-justification-purposes-only" training sessions, cost a lot time and money to a trust.
I am one of those rare breeds of doctors that have briefly gone into computing, in the hope of returning to the NHS and making a difference from the clinician's (rather than manager's) point of view. Alas, I now realise changes are more about politics than about actual progress. There is in fact a wealth of innovative ideas within the clinician collective, which will never see the light of day because applying them would involve inconveniencing certain vociferous individuals for a short period of time.
I'd disagree about the 'go into medicine' bit from personal experience. Medicine is one profession which you should only go into if you're primarily passionate about medicine - everything else is secondary.
I became a doctor from a love of science - I thought medicine somehow was a glorious mix of all scientific disciplines put together. I learnt this couldn't be further from the truth the hard way. Being a doctor doesn't even come close to using your creative mind and scientific curiosity; all you do is follow protocols and advice invented by the real scientists behind it.
Which is why now after a couple of years later I've ditched the whole thing and enrolled myself in an advanced computing Masters:)
I'm not saying medicine isn't a necessarily a respectable profession anymore, but one should really know why they want to be a doctor before they apply. Doing it 'just because medicine needs more people with analytical minds' is bound to end up yielding nothing more than just another miserable doctor who's wasting his creative mind on people who don't want to listen (i.e. hospital managers and other doctors)
I'd imagine similar concepts apply for things like law and politics too. Applying without being passionate about it "because you're a brainy person and we could use more brainy people in the field" is doomed to fail. Besides, nobody likes a smartass in any line of work. To reply to the authors post, your daughter should choose a profession where she'd be surrounded by fellow lovable smartasses with similar interests:)
I'm sure she'll find a way to use her other talents thenceforth anyway.
No no! Sue the company that makes the shovels the ore miners use to produce the steel tha makes the guns that kill people!
That will teach those bastards...
What's that movie called which, along the same lines, someone kidnapped a relative and the guy offered the ransom money to anybody who would give info which would help capture the kidnapper, instead of giving it to the kidnapper?
Wow! How do you make a BSOD on demand!?
I mean, I guess it's probably a very straightforward thing to do (:p ) but I guess I'd never given much thought on it, just in case I needed to demonstrate or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous reporting isn't as easy as you might think in the UK.
I once called in to report a particularly gruesome fight that was happening right outside my building. It took 5 minutes of them collecting information on *ME* (that was in no way particularly related to the call) before they would even start listening to the problem. And apparently that's protocol.
One other time, a friend and I saw someone walk into a house (he didn't spot us) and seconds later we heard glass smashing, so we called the police. Again, same line of personal questioning started before I could even start reporting the problem, so I tried to point out that I prefered this to be a simple 'anonymous tip' (just like the movies!)
... that only made the line of questioning a lot stricter, such as nationality, why was I walking in that particular neighbourhood away from my residence, etc.
There is *no* way I'm ever reporting anything to the police ever again. I'll only consider it (carefully) if it's my house they're breaking into
MS Word (the latest version at least) does have full ODT support. You can open an .odt document and edit it using MS Word and you can save as .odt as well. I haven't had to use it yet personally, but it's there. It's not even in the 'other obscure formats' drop-down list, it's up there in the main 'save as...' window with .docx, .doc and .pdf.
.odt, my M$ Windows colleague would be able to read it, after the initial shock of "you didn't send me a "document file" I recognise, what program do I open this with".
What it doesn't mean, however, it doesn't mean that it provides other open document processors the ability to support their .docx format. Which is still the 'default' format for most organisations which use the de-facto industry standard, which, for better or worse, is MS Office. (As an aside, even for businesses that haven't switched to the latest version, .doc support in openoffice is still not that great in my personal experience)
Having said that, it's a mixed blessing. It just means M$ products support the odf. So if I wrote a paper in my open document processor and saved it as
actually, you're almost there.
The conservatism in the medical sector is so extreme, that even when a new technology appears, the old technology is *still* retained, usually for legal purposes. An example from my hospital for instance, it used to be that blood results would arrive in small pieces of paper that a secretary would affix to a special page with in-built stickers on the back of the patient's notes, and the doctor would inspect and sign it there. Other than calling the lab in very urgent cases, that was the only system to check bloods, so the reports were delivered asap. Now the blood results are computerised instead, meaning you can look them up on a screen rather than wait for a secretary to affix them to patient notes when the reports arrive. As a result, the delivery of the paper reports is less urgent and takes days. However, the doctors are now responsible to MANUALLY COPY all results from the computer screen, into a page on the back of the notes, which can take several minutes. Then the old-style paper reports *still* arrive, and the doctors have to spend several minutes again signing them to prove that they have been inspected (even though they have already manually copied them in the notes as well). This is done for both legal reasons, and the pretext that the bloods need to be available in time for the ward round in the patient's notes. (ironically, a mobile workstation is used to view the Xrays through PACS though.)
I don't really blame doctors and nurses that much then, when they appear resistant to new technologies, because in the short term, they're introduced so clumsily that they only cause trouble, and their design isn't always ideal to predict if it will be worth it in the long term. I remember I did a project on the state of computerization of the NHS, and I came across doctors who were adamant computers should be banned from the workplace; except, apparently for "the dot-matrix printers which produce sticky labels with the patient's names on them. Those are a lifesaver!" (sigh)
The other reason, of course, is that, due to litigation on one hand, and blatant lack of clearly defined job responsibilities on the other, people adopt a 'it's not in my job description' attitude, and require formal training for every minor thing they do. Nurses in my hospital for instance only administer a drug if it's on their training list; any other drug they call a doctor (not that I've had training in administering that drug, but I'm the scapegoat; the patient needs the drug and I'm the last person in the chain.) This attitude makes it particularly difficult to introduce anything new in the workplace, and even such ridiculously "for-justification-purposes-only" training sessions, cost a lot time and money to a trust.
I am one of those rare breeds of doctors that have briefly gone into computing, in the hope of returning to the NHS and making a difference from the clinician's (rather than manager's) point of view. Alas, I now realise changes are more about politics than about actual progress. There is in fact a wealth of innovative ideas within the clinician collective, which will never see the light of day because applying them would involve inconveniencing certain vociferous individuals for a short period of time.
hahahah! what a great and sobering response! I sure hope the man has tenure! :D
I for one welcome the increasing numbers of our feminine overlords.
Also, obligatory smbc comic
what is this font, please? :)
default: from the jamaican, "de fault widdis machine is yoo, man!"
I'd disagree about the 'go into medicine' bit from personal experience. Medicine is one profession which you should only go into if you're primarily passionate about medicine - everything else is secondary.
I became a doctor from a love of science - I thought medicine somehow was a glorious mix of all scientific disciplines put together. I learnt this couldn't be further from the truth the hard way. Being a doctor doesn't even come close to using your creative mind and scientific curiosity; all you do is follow protocols and advice invented by the real scientists behind it.
Which is why now after a couple of years later I've ditched the whole thing and enrolled myself in an advanced computing Masters :)
I'm not saying medicine isn't a necessarily a respectable profession anymore, but one should really know why they want to be a doctor before they apply. Doing it 'just because medicine needs more people with analytical minds' is bound to end up yielding nothing more than just another miserable doctor who's wasting his creative mind on people who don't want to listen (i.e. hospital managers and other doctors)
I'd imagine similar concepts apply for things like law and politics too. Applying without being passionate about it "because you're a brainy person and we could use more brainy people in the field" is doomed to fail. Besides, nobody likes a smartass in any line of work. To reply to the authors post, your daughter should choose a profession where she'd be surrounded by fellow lovable smartasses with similar interests :)
I'm sure she'll find a way to use her other talents thenceforth anyway.
No no! Sue the company that makes the shovels the ore miners use to produce the steel tha makes the guns that kill people! That will teach those bastards ...
don't you mean "Error 4004 - Site not not found"? :p
can't believe you resisted the temptation to say "First Post" ... kudos! :p
What's that movie called which, along the same lines, someone kidnapped a relative and the guy offered the ransom money to anybody who would give info which would help capture the kidnapper, instead of giving it to the kidnapper?
Heh, anyone else thought "Chell" from the Portal game as soon as they saw the picture in TFA?
Wow! How do you make a BSOD on demand!? I mean, I guess it's probably a very straightforward thing to do ( :p ) but I guess I'd never given much thought on it, just in case I needed to demonstrate or something.