You should see how EasyJet is solving #1 in Europe, where they have huge numbers of leisure travellers flying from Gatwick, typically as families for two weeks in the sun and thus almost all with luggage.
That's because US domestic "first class" is nothing of the sort. International first class means you turn left, not right. So you get to board first, but once you're onboard and are getting seated, the process doesn't block the economy passengers from boarding.
It's as though people don't read the article. The point is, airlines aren't trying to optimise for speed alone; they balance speed against other factors including profitability, which means providing priority boarding options for a fee (eg flying club or sometimes a straight-up fee).
Your use of degrees is kinda inappropriate in your first sentence because C is larger than F. I knew what you meant but...
Anyway, for me, F works better for cool to warm, C works better for cool to cold. eg -20 to -10 C is insanely cold -10 to -5 C is absolutely freezing - 5 to 0 C is freezing 0 to 10 C is cold 10 to 20 C is cool Then we switch to F and it reads like your list.
Many Brits of my vintage think this way. Cultural quirk, I guess
You're missing the point I was making. CPAC believes free citizens should not be disarmed. Why would it choose a venue where its delegates are required to be disarmed. Why should its delegates disarm just because the President attends? Does 2A include a qualifier along these lines? Quite the opposite: the NRA explains that the right to bear arms is explicitly to protect against government tyranny. What are all these 2A defenders *doing*, allowing themselves to be disarmed in the presence of the person who above all embodies the government? That is a symbolic strike against 2A, and ought to be morally unconscionable to them. "But they support Trump", you may say. "Why would they want to carry guns when they support the government". That is precisely the kind of woolly-minded thinking that's got us into this mess. No government ought to get a pass just because a voter happens to agree with its ideology. Voters are supposed to be continuously cautious about *any and every* government, not matter its political complexion (if you'll forgive the indelicate allusion). And that continuous caution is supposed to be expressed in the form of open and concealed carry.
CPAC could have chosen another venue, couldn't they? I'm not sure why you're giving them a free pass, especially given how it puts their delegates at risk per the article you linked to.
The good news is that most gun-owners are strongly authoritarian. That's pretty much their motivating essence. So it's possible to get them to do stuff by appealing to authority effectively. It's what the NRA et al have been doing for the past thirty years. It just needs a ju jitsu move to use the same tricks in the other direction.
Sure. In many countries and health systems, this kind of routine work is moved to less qualified practitioners. It's the entire basis of the concept of "practising at the top of your licence"
For sure, some stuff that PCPs (and other physicians) do can be done by NPs. But don't underestimate the complexity and sophistication of the knowledge requirements for a PCP. There are four major tasks that are particularly difficult: - Differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with a new disease - Management of patients with multiple chronic diseases with co-morbidities - Risk segmentation of the practice list to ensure that time is spent with the patients who need it most - Population health management NPs can do bits and pieces of all of this, but I'd strongly prefer to have it done by a PCP.
To bring this back to the original article, I would certainly want any individual whose job involves these tasks to be trained to be functionally competent, and to risk the loss of their professional standards and earning power if they fuck up. So I'd want the barrier to entry to continue to exist, even if the people doing the job began as nurses rather than GPs. And indeed there's a barrier to entry to the nursing profession too, and that also exists for good reasons of patient safety.
The content requirements for a medical degree are *much* more rigorous than for a nursing degree. The academic requirements are also much more rigorous. And the complete training requirements are much much more rigorous: NP residencies are not yet a requirement and typically last a year; by contrast, physician residency requirements take between three and seven years. I have a very high regard for NPs, but there's a massive gulf between what they have learned and what a doctor is required to learn. This new notion of equivalence is frankly pernicious, in my view.
By "well-kept secret", you appear to mean "well-kept from me". There are literally millions of people around the world who've not only figured this out, but actively use custom numeric and alphanumeric passcodes. In addition, of course, there's plenty of protection against brute-forcing, and the approach you describe for Apple to trivially circumvent their security is not possible, as is perfectly clear if you took the time to read what Apple actually writes about its security model. But never mind. You've got an arrow in the wall, and for damn sure you'll be painting a target round it, no matter what the naysayers tell you.
Why state such horse-shit with such authority? "the largest PIN you can have on an iPhone is six digits" -- what kind of crap is that? You can have a custom numeric or alphanumeric passcode. They can be much longer than six digits.
I appreciate that you're trying to be reasonable and all, but the problem in the US really really isn't about mentally unstable people acquiring guns. The evidence is unequivocal on this: many mentally stable people acquire guns in the US and use them to kill people -- themselves, other individuals, mass shootings.
You really need to look the evidence in the eye, and the evidence is: two things differentiate the US from other countries -- a disproportionately high rate of gun violence compared to everywhere else, and a disproportionately high number of guns in the country.
Let's be clear: many gun proponents *have* looked the evidence in the eye. The NRA certainly has. They know exactly what it says, they understand the truth of it, and -- like Big Tobacco before them, and many other allied causes -- they've decided "fuck it, we'll conspire, and obscure, and lie, and tug at constitutional heart strings, and shift the Overton window, and do many many other things besides". And they've been very successful in bringing a chunk of the American public and a larger chunk of American politicians along with them for the ride.
There are lots of sad stories of people being abused and neglected by their parents in France, Germany, the UK, etc. Some of those people grow up bad and do bad things. But they don't take a rifle and shoot kids at their former school, because they can't get their hands on a rifle.
Only in America would this argument be considered logical. Have you not noticed that no other country in the world has reported a mass school shooting this year? Do you know how many mass school shootings there have been in the UK, ever? 1. In 1996.
[my emphasis] What now? How could you possibly think the anti-gun lobby is powerful? Powerful lobbies change policy! The anti-gun lobby has got nowhere for years. Are you confusing them in your head with the NRA?
Aren't you even a tiny bit embarrassed that you can't, off the top of your head, come up with a single example to substantiate an argument you made? I mean, it's like saying "French people are fat" and then not being able to find a single picture of a fat French person. I'm not even asking you to demonstrate the general case, just provide a single example.
Mate, your entire answer consists of ad hominem and an assertion that you could do it but it would be a lot of work. Given that your original post implies that Germany does this stuff all the time, it's a pretty poor excuse for a riposte, is it not?
I believe I asked you for a single *policy change* -- not an example of the UN calling on the US to enact a policy change. Is the difference between calling for someone to stop being a twat and that person actually stopping being a twat really not clear to you?
No European country opened up to refugees in the way Germany did... much less the US. In case you hadn't noticed, US immigration policy has tightened, not relaxed, since Trump's election.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe a refurbished iphone SE? I think that would be cheaper, and a smaller form factor
You're entitled to your opinion. I certainly have one about you
I didn't start the thread
You also don't seem to know what "authoritarian" means. Hint: it's not a desire to exercise authority over others.
I don't feel any sense of obligation to provide you with evidence, especially not to meet your standards as to what constitutes an acceptable source.
And you mentioned Nazis -- not me.
You should see how EasyJet is solving #1 in Europe, where they have huge numbers of leisure travellers flying from Gatwick, typically as families for two weeks in the sun and thus almost all with luggage.
http://www.futuretravelexperie...
Having done this, I can attest there is essentially zero waiting in line. It's genuinely a massive step forward.
That's because US domestic "first class" is nothing of the sort. International first class means you turn left, not right. So you get to board first, but once you're onboard and are getting seated, the process doesn't block the economy passengers from boarding.
It's as though people don't read the article. The point is, airlines aren't trying to optimise for speed alone; they balance speed against other factors including profitability, which means providing priority boarding options for a fee (eg flying club or sometimes a straight-up fee).
Your use of degrees is kinda inappropriate in your first sentence because C is larger than F. I knew what you meant but...
Anyway, for me, F works better for cool to warm, C works better for cool to cold.
eg
-20 to -10 C is insanely cold
-10 to -5 C is absolutely freezing
- 5 to 0 C is freezing
0 to 10 C is cold
10 to 20 C is cool
Then we switch to F and it reads like your list.
Many Brits of my vintage think this way. Cultural quirk, I guess
You're missing the point I was making. CPAC believes free citizens should not be disarmed. Why would it choose a venue where its delegates are required to be disarmed. Why should its delegates disarm just because the President attends? Does 2A include a qualifier along these lines? Quite the opposite: the NRA explains that the right to bear arms is explicitly to protect against government tyranny. What are all these 2A defenders *doing*, allowing themselves to be disarmed in the presence of the person who above all embodies the government? That is a symbolic strike against 2A, and ought to be morally unconscionable to them. "But they support Trump", you may say. "Why would they want to carry guns when they support the government". That is precisely the kind of woolly-minded thinking that's got us into this mess. No government ought to get a pass just because a voter happens to agree with its ideology. Voters are supposed to be continuously cautious about *any and every* government, not matter its political complexion (if you'll forgive the indelicate allusion). And that continuous caution is supposed to be expressed in the form of open and concealed carry.
CPAC could have chosen another venue, couldn't they? I'm not sure why you're giving them a free pass, especially given how it puts their delegates at risk per the article you linked to.
The good news is that most gun-owners are strongly authoritarian. That's pretty much their motivating essence. So it's possible to get them to do stuff by appealing to authority effectively. It's what the NRA et al have been doing for the past thirty years. It just needs a ju jitsu move to use the same tricks in the other direction.
Sure. In many countries and health systems, this kind of routine work is moved to less qualified practitioners. It's the entire basis of the concept of "practising at the top of your licence"
For sure, some stuff that PCPs (and other physicians) do can be done by NPs. But don't underestimate the complexity and sophistication of the knowledge requirements for a PCP. There are four major tasks that are particularly difficult:
- Differential diagnosis of a patient presenting with a new disease
- Management of patients with multiple chronic diseases with co-morbidities
- Risk segmentation of the practice list to ensure that time is spent with the patients who need it most
- Population health management
NPs can do bits and pieces of all of this, but I'd strongly prefer to have it done by a PCP.
To bring this back to the original article, I would certainly want any individual whose job involves these tasks to be trained to be functionally competent, and to risk the loss of their professional standards and earning power if they fuck up. So I'd want the barrier to entry to continue to exist, even if the people doing the job began as nurses rather than GPs. And indeed there's a barrier to entry to the nursing profession too, and that also exists for good reasons of patient safety.
The content requirements for a medical degree are *much* more rigorous than for a nursing degree. The academic requirements are also much more rigorous. And the complete training requirements are much much more rigorous: NP residencies are not yet a requirement and typically last a year; by contrast, physician residency requirements take between three and seven years. I have a very high regard for NPs, but there's a massive gulf between what they have learned and what a doctor is required to learn. This new notion of equivalence is frankly pernicious, in my view.
By "well-kept secret", you appear to mean "well-kept from me". There are literally millions of people around the world who've not only figured this out, but actively use custom numeric and alphanumeric passcodes. In addition, of course, there's plenty of protection against brute-forcing, and the approach you describe for Apple to trivially circumvent their security is not possible, as is perfectly clear if you took the time to read what Apple actually writes about its security model. But never mind. You've got an arrow in the wall, and for damn sure you'll be painting a target round it, no matter what the naysayers tell you.
Why state such horse-shit with such authority? "the largest PIN you can have on an iPhone is six digits" -- what kind of crap is that? You can have a custom numeric or alphanumeric passcode. They can be much longer than six digits.
How can you not know this?
I appreciate that you're trying to be reasonable and all, but the problem in the US really really isn't about mentally unstable people acquiring guns. The evidence is unequivocal on this: many mentally stable people acquire guns in the US and use them to kill people -- themselves, other individuals, mass shootings.
You really need to look the evidence in the eye, and the evidence is: two things differentiate the US from other countries -- a disproportionately high rate of gun violence compared to everywhere else, and a disproportionately high number of guns in the country.
Let's be clear: many gun proponents *have* looked the evidence in the eye. The NRA certainly has. They know exactly what it says, they understand the truth of it, and -- like Big Tobacco before them, and many other allied causes -- they've decided "fuck it, we'll conspire, and obscure, and lie, and tug at constitutional heart strings, and shift the Overton window, and do many many other things besides". And they've been very successful in bringing a chunk of the American public and a larger chunk of American politicians along with them for the ride.
It really is about people and guns.
There are lots of sad stories of people being abused and neglected by their parents in France, Germany, the UK, etc. Some of those people grow up bad and do bad things. But they don't take a rifle and shoot kids at their former school, because they can't get their hands on a rifle.
Only in America would this argument be considered logical. Have you not noticed that no other country in the world has reported a mass school shooting this year? Do you know how many mass school shootings there have been in the UK, ever? 1. In 1996.
Unconscious incompetence...
Why is the anti-gun lobby so powerful and loud?
[my emphasis]
What now? How could you possibly think the anti-gun lobby is powerful? Powerful lobbies change policy! The anti-gun lobby has got nowhere for years. Are you confusing them in your head with the NRA?
Aren't you even a tiny bit embarrassed that you can't, off the top of your head, come up with a single example to substantiate an argument you made? I mean, it's like saying "French people are fat" and then not being able to find a single picture of a fat French person. I'm not even asking you to demonstrate the general case, just provide a single example.
Mate, your entire answer consists of ad hominem and an assertion that you could do it but it would be a lot of work. Given that your original post implies that Germany does this stuff all the time, it's a pretty poor excuse for a riposte, is it not?
Huh. YMMV has never been more apt.
I believe I asked you for a single *policy change* -- not an example of the UN calling on the US to enact a policy change. Is the difference between calling for someone to stop being a twat and that person actually stopping being a twat really not clear to you?
No European country opened up to refugees in the way Germany did... much less the US. In case you hadn't noticed, US immigration policy has tightened, not relaxed, since Trump's election.