Nope, not true. If you've got a life-threatening disease, you can be SOL and not treated. Happens all the time. You're deluding yourself. Happens lots to people who don't have coverage, and to those who do -- just google "coverage denied".
Information can certainly help patients make better choices. But we don't even know what information is really valuable. And there will be plenty of providers who don't want to put the information out precisely because it is valuable. So unless you want to regulate.....
"Depression is horribly overreported. Being bummed out because your life is not going as you wish is not depression. It's just being sad."
No medical professional counts someone as depressed simply because they're bummed out. Instead, they use tools like the Beck Depression Inventory, and devote considerable thought to whether the diagnosis is meaningful or not (i.e., represents something real).
Now, separate from that is the question of whether environmental factors (such as being abused by your spouse, losing a child, having poor economic prospects etc) can cause depression, and whether you can have effective treatment for depression while those environmental (non-health) factors persist.
The plural of anecdotes are not data. 100% (in principle; in practice, 98%) of the British population have a GP that they can see as the need arises. Sometimes it can take too long -- four out of five patients are broadly satisfied with access, though. But there is nowhere *near* the same level of coverage of the population in the US -- a substantial minority of patients have no primary care doctor. British general practice is considered world-leading by experts in the field.
While you're right that incentivisation screws things up in the US, a blanket statement that "[British] doctors are government employees" is not true. Primary care physicians in the UK are typically small business people, just as they are in the US. Their income comes from a complex mix of schemes: some pay-for-performance, some capitation, and some fee-for-service (plus rental passthrough and seniority payments, as well). The result is that there is less incentive to over-investigate than in the US, hence why your core point still holds. Government-funded hospitals employ their doctors directly, but the hospitals are incentivised to treat as much as possible, because of the fee-for-service payment system that is in place ("payment by results"). The coding wars aren't as bad as in the US, but there is still an unhelpful incentive to pump up volumes.
You have this old-fashioned view that the non-mobile website is the "gold standard" and everything gets measured against it. Not so. There are features that are specific to mobile sites that are not present in the non-mobile site and vice-versa, and there is no gold standard any more -- because sites are optimised for the different experiences offered by mobile and non-mobile GUIs. Do try to keep up with the interwebs.
Are you deliberately trying to appear like an ignoramus? Surely you must know that Google and Facebook have mobile-optimised sites that work perfectly well without flash?
Corking quote from TFA: "The Verge noted that these apps can be up to *five times bigger*. A dramatic example of an app getting fatter is Tweetbot, which grew from under *10 MB to 25 MB* in its Retina-ready update."
Glad to see the LA Times thinks the best illustration of "5 times fatter" is "2.5 times fatter"
I know of no-one who has a protector for their iPad screen. I'm sure such people exist, but they're pretty few and far between. Most people have cases that double up as screen protectors. Mine cost me 25 quid. It's very nice, too.
What a bizarre thing to say. The company must answer to its customers, or they'll not buy what it makes. No-one is forcing them to do so. Good luck overturning value-based pricing, by the way....
Touch sensitive screens on laptops make no sense, as Apple already knows and has said
Oh boy, is this ever true. I have a ThinkPad x220 touch for work. The touchscreen *only* gets in the way. Excel and powerpoint can't work nicely with it, they require too finegrained resolution. And every time I'm working with someone and need to show them something on screen, you can guarantee one of us is going to point at the spot on the screen they're talking about...and trigger some unwanted action via the touchscreen.
The modes do not mix well. Metro is another example of the same general principle
France isn't that small. Paris to marseille is about 800 klicks. New York to Orlando is about 1000.
The crossing point you raise is weird. It is inconceivable you'd build an hsr line with crossings!
Similarly, tunnels or elevated tracks are hardly a requirement for a complete track, a Though both are likely needed at points. Cuttings are a much cheaper way of reducing noise etc.
The issues aren't about engineering, they're about politics and will
While there are real defeats for these security measures, the ones are pretty ineffectual. You don't have the option to leave airside and come back repeatedly, at least here in the UK. You certainly can't leave material on one side. You'd have to secrete it somewhere, 9 times, without being spotted. And each pass through security has a risk attached to it -- 10 people passing through in the same airport is a substantive increase in risk, both at the time of pass through and in all the prep. While it clearly can be done, it's an operational risk that presumably terrorists will seek to avoid if at all possible.
Understood, but that just pushes the problem back one more time: why is road wear more important than environmental impact? Both cause use to incur major tax costs.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod this up! That is the wittiest black humour pun I've seen in ages
RAH rules!
If you don't like his 10 words to describe Ron Paul's views on abortion, try these 8 instead:
"Anti-abortion, but believes only the states can ban"
It's not an especially nuanced view. It's readily available on his website. It can stated in very few words.
Nope, not true. If you've got a life-threatening disease, you can be SOL and not treated. Happens all the time. You're deluding yourself. Happens lots to people who don't have coverage, and to those who do -- just google "coverage denied".
Information can certainly help patients make better choices. But we don't even know what information is really valuable. And there will be plenty of providers who don't want to put the information out precisely because it is valuable. So unless you want to regulate.....
"Depression is horribly overreported. Being bummed out because your life is not going as you wish is not depression. It's just being sad."
No medical professional counts someone as depressed simply because they're bummed out. Instead, they use tools like the Beck Depression Inventory, and devote considerable thought to whether the diagnosis is meaningful or not (i.e., represents something real).
Now, separate from that is the question of whether environmental factors (such as being abused by your spouse, losing a child, having poor economic prospects etc) can cause depression, and whether you can have effective treatment for depression while those environmental (non-health) factors persist.
They do not ask how you are going to pay till after they save your life.
Nope, that ain't true. It's true for accidents, but it's *not* true for many many illnesses.
The plural of anecdotes are not data. 100% (in principle; in practice, 98%) of the British population have a GP that they can see as the need arises. Sometimes it can take too long -- four out of five patients are broadly satisfied with access, though. But there is nowhere *near* the same level of coverage of the population in the US -- a substantial minority of patients have no primary care doctor. British general practice is considered world-leading by experts in the field.
Go look up QALY.
While you're right that incentivisation screws things up in the US, a blanket statement that "[British] doctors are government employees" is not true. Primary care physicians in the UK are typically small business people, just as they are in the US. Their income comes from a complex mix of schemes: some pay-for-performance, some capitation, and some fee-for-service (plus rental passthrough and seniority payments, as well). The result is that there is less incentive to over-investigate than in the US, hence why your core point still holds. Government-funded hospitals employ their doctors directly, but the hospitals are incentivised to treat as much as possible, because of the fee-for-service payment system that is in place ("payment by results"). The coding wars aren't as bad as in the US, but there is still an unhelpful incentive to pump up volumes.
digg or reddit aren't even close in vileness to the mail. the mail is a pustulent discharge from the thin-lipped mouth of its editor
You have this old-fashioned view that the non-mobile website is the "gold standard" and everything gets measured against it. Not so. There are features that are specific to mobile sites that are not present in the non-mobile site and vice-versa, and there is no gold standard any more -- because sites are optimised for the different experiences offered by mobile and non-mobile GUIs. Do try to keep up with the interwebs.
Are you deliberately trying to appear like an ignoramus? Surely you must know that Google and Facebook have mobile-optimised sites that work perfectly well without flash?
Corking quote from TFA: "The Verge noted that these apps can be up to *five times bigger*. A dramatic example of an app getting fatter is Tweetbot, which grew from under *10 MB to 25 MB* in its Retina-ready update."
Glad to see the LA Times thinks the best illustration of "5 times fatter" is "2.5 times fatter"
I know of no-one who has a protector for their iPad screen. I'm sure such people exist, but they're pretty few and far between. Most people have cases that double up as screen protectors. Mine cost me 25 quid. It's very nice, too.
... if the BEST TECH DESIGN company in the world can't design a way for us to change the battery more easily, the world is doomed.
tremendous statement!
i'll stop worrying about climate change, iran and global carrying capacity
What a bizarre thing to say. The company must answer to its customers, or they'll not buy what it makes. No-one is forcing them to do so. Good luck overturning value-based pricing, by the way....
Touch sensitive screens on laptops make no sense, as Apple already knows and has said
Oh boy, is this ever true. I have a ThinkPad x220 touch for work. The touchscreen *only* gets in the way. Excel and powerpoint can't work nicely with it, they require too finegrained resolution. And every time I'm working with someone and need to show them something on screen, you can guarantee one of us is going to point at the spot on the screen they're talking about...and trigger some unwanted action via the touchscreen.
The modes do not mix well. Metro is another example of the same general principle
You don't really know what a cutting is, do you? Hint: it's not a solution to track crossing, it's an alternative to tunnels and bridges.
Maybe you should have a look on the interwebs.
France isn't that small. Paris to marseille is about 800 klicks. New York to Orlando is about 1000.
The crossing point you raise is weird. It is inconceivable you'd build an hsr line with crossings!
Similarly, tunnels or elevated tracks are hardly a requirement for a complete track, a
Though both are likely needed at points. Cuttings are a much cheaper way of reducing noise etc.
The issues aren't about engineering, they're about politics and will
No-one, once. It's the repeat pattern that is susceptible to being spotted. It can be done, but it's an unnecessary operational risk
Erm, he didn't say "everyone". That's you misreading what he wrote.
There *are* differences between an Apple and a Dell or Compaq or Lenovo. Just not ones you value enough to spend the extra cash.
While there are real defeats for these security measures, the ones are pretty ineffectual. You don't have the option to leave airside and come back repeatedly, at least here in the UK. You certainly can't leave material on one side. You'd have to secrete it somewhere, 9 times, without being spotted. And each pass through security has a risk attached to it -- 10 people passing through in the same airport is a substantive increase in risk, both at the time of pass through and in all the prep. While it clearly can be done, it's an operational risk that presumably terrorists will seek to avoid if at all possible.
Understood, but that just pushes the problem back one more time: why is road wear more important than environmental impact? Both cause use to incur major tax costs.