At the moment, Ofcom in the UK is trying to sell off more bandwidth in the gigahertz range which includes some secondary amateur allocation. Meanwhile hams are appreciating the infrastructure-free advantages of HF as always, and using 2m/70cm repeaters as usual, but perhaps less enthusiastic to experiment further up, partly because it's harder to build equipment, and partly because here it would be about relying on third party infrastructure or creating your own points of presence everywhere if you wanted to build a longer range network. Yet this is precisely the sort of challenge we perhaps should spend more time on, if we want to keep ham radio "innovative and relevant".
Or maybe I'm just annoyed because the local club now runs a D-STAR repeater without a second thought that following some third party proprietary (and not even entirely openly specified!) protocol is missing the point entirely. That's not pioneering:(.
Yup, and this is why I'm a ham fighting to keep shortwave clear of RFI.
And why I would encourage all hams to experiment with UHF, with a view to taking back centralised private ownership of the modern popular internetwork.
No, I was pointing out that 1) the article's headline was incorrectly using quote marks to quote its own language; and 2) that the subheading was misleading, as clarified by Keogh in the article proper. I was not giving any conclusion whatever, but showing that the journalist was engaging in non sequitur.
The final report did not indicate "in excess of 14,000 needless deaths" - instead, it identified where Trusts with above-average mortality rates also need extra supervision. Again, you are misinterpreting statistics, perhaps the same way the Telegraph did in its article. It did, however, identify various problems with patient care, and choose to apply stringent monitoring on 11 of the most outlying Trusts as far as mortality rate.
This is the review system working as it should, paying special attention to a small proportion of the many NHS Trusts, marching on despite the offensive difficulties created by Thatcher's competing Trusts system, even as things get worse with the advent of CCGs.
What are you talking about? Linux isn't immune to viruses and worms.
And your vigorous handwaving didn't actually address the main point: nobody gives 13 year consumer support cycles except Microsoft. Trying to get stuff working on non-contemporaneous versions of Linux is way harder than on Windows - it may be possible in principle if you have the source, but that's an open vs closed source software argument which rarely applies in practice except among cadres of geeks.
MS isn't stopping you from supporting SIM cards or GPRS, and it's only imposing hardware restrictions if you want to re-sell discounted licences, which is sorta what Apple does except that Apple says, "You can't sell it at all because fuck you."
3. Still not immune from viruses and worms - needs continuous stream of patches;
Yeah, that utopia really is proving hard to reach.
customer remains at the mercy of Microsoft; like the forced ditching of XP which works perfectly fine.
Yeah, fuck Microsoft with its 12 year support cycle. Versions of OS X and Linux from 2001 are still in mainstream support.
5. Still no native support in the OS for cameras; SIM cards, etc. even Android is better in that respect despite being minuscule in size compared to 8.1.
Eh, my webcam works fine in Windows 8 without extra support. I assume Android has SIM card drivers because of u no it's used for 'phones a lot.
To reply to myself, there are of course very specialist procedures only done by specific doctors in specific countries, which means that nationals will be subject to the local system and foreigners must pay privately whatever. But these cases are in such a tiny minority, clouded by the fact that some people assume that their condition is much more special and complex than it really is (which makes sense - you've only one body and you want them to get it right the first time - and you assume that the most exclusive specialist is the best, and that might be so, but it might also make no difference at all).
For my condition, when it came to a recent medical trial at the same hospital, there was frustration that they couldn't get more than maybe ~30 people attending with relevant symptoms - yeah, it's partly because people don't like to travel regularly to one place (even if they're paid expenses) but partly because my issue isn't exactly common. But this particular researcher's work is publicly funded, and he was part of the same team above.
Put in business-speak: comprehensive public healthcare isn't just about delivering - it's about innovating.
Eh, I have mild neurological difficulties and the relevant academic team at the best research hospital in the UK sees people on an NHS and private basis. I've had all my appointments there on an NHS basis, waiting a few months for the first appointment, with others scheduled as needed.
All I had to do was to ask my NHS GP to make an NHS referral to this team.
Ooh, an article from a Conservative rag about the NHS - I wonder whether that'll be biased!
1) Organisations involved in medical care are "under investigation" all the time, as well they should be - this doesn't imply any sort of guilt;
3) Even though the Torygraph has used the phrase "died needlessly" in quotes in the headline, it's actually quoting its own subheading ("may have died needlessly"), which is turn is merely its own misleading interpretation of the data;
3) Though the paper may argue that they used the phrasing "up to 3,000", which is strictly correct - being the propagandist's way of saying "between 0 and 3,000" - your "about 3,000" is deliberately intellectually dishonest.
What was actually revealed is almost 3,000 more deaths across ten Trusts "than would have been expected", IOW than would have been calculated if they'd had an average number of deaths per Trust, which is a statistic, not a revelation that these deaths were somehow avoidable. It is especially not evidence that these deaths happened due to something systematically wrong with the NHS.
To quote Keogh:
A higher than expected mortality rate does not in itself tell us that a hospital is unsafe, for example, units delivering highly complex and specialist care could legitimately have higher mortality rates.
Speaking as a mathematician, I ask you please to attend as many introductory statistics classes as possible before going into a numerate field.
Any anecdote that you saw some good private doctors yet not-so-good NHS ones is plausible, especially if it's just for minor issues where people from the US tend to be surprised by the British, "Don't panic / Keep calm!" attitude.
It's also true that junior doctors will rarely be found in private practice, and that the common thing to find is more senior doctors working in both private and NHS practice, if they choose to work privately. A private practitioner is, after all, usually doing routine work for more money - rarely esoteric (if they are, it's often in NHS hospitals) and almost never emergency work - so would do better professionally to keep a foot in the NHS. And the NHS historically (dunno if this has changed recently) expected anyone doing NHS work to put in more than a token effort, IOW to do a certain number of hours if they want any NHS work at all.
Afaict, when you are starting out, you go w/ the NHS to repay schooling and build a client base.
A client base? What?
There are some rather unethical NHS doctors who set up private practice then offer to speed up work as long as the patient moves to their private list - the house I'm living in right now used to belong to a competent (but not particularly brilliant) neurologist who was well-known in local medical circles for doing this, and became rather more wealthy for doing so. So, if you mean that some use their NHS work to poach patients who may be profitable (i.e. low risk, elective procedures) - then, yes, some doctors do this. And other doctors despise them for it, and yet others speak out loudly about it.
"like a sausage machine" "frequently" "pumping out dead bodies"
My observations:
1) One scandal in one hospital managed by one Trust;
2) Based on applying private sector style compartmentalisation and management to public service;
3) Fully identified and admitted to by the service;
4) Resulting in widespread recommendations and a degree of return to pre-Thatcher management of the service as a whole, IOW with the ability to easily study mortality rates across the country rather than delegating essentially cooperative work to competing Trusts.
Having experienced Western continental European healthcare, the NHS is one of several fine models to recommend to the US - but then so is almost every first world model when contrasted with the US one. And if a US healthcare provider fails in its duty, it's just a failed business dealt with by "the market" - if any NHS subsystem fails, it's (rightly) regarded as a big deal by the whole country, and the whole country will learn lessons from it.
The consensus in London once was that the doctors who couldn't hack it in the NHS went to Harley Street.
You might get quicker non-urgent and more hotel-style care privately in the UK, but you'll rarely if ever get better medical treatment. And why would you?
In almost all cases, your problem has been seen ten thousand times before, and a doctor is either competent to fix it or they are not; researchers and advanced specialists are treated well by the NHS and academia, and if they're going to go private, they're more likely to work for pharmaceutical companies, where private industry actually does something that the NHS is not equipped to do already.
The NHS shows that "to each according to his need", where each person is human and "need" can be well defined medically, is entirely workable.
So, you agree that it is absurd to proscribe a particular action simply because "from a purely technological standpoint" that action can come with good or evil intentions and/or results. IOW, you have as much problem with my absurd consequence as I do.
Yet you say, "Seriously, did you even think this through at all before posting?" Maybe your sarcasm detector is broken.
I don't know what tiny elite bubble of academia you're living in, but most published journal articles are uninsightful blabbering. I've read more intellectual theological arguments about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
The explosion in number of academics or number of articles they publish does not amount to a marked increase in scholarship, but to a willingness to turn any remotely original observation into an academic article. And this remark isn't specific to China or America - it applies across the world.
From a technological standpoint, shooting someone who is about to rape your daughter is the same as shooting someone because you want to drive the car they're in: the bullet punctures the skin and causes internal damage, temporarily (or permanently) disabling the person being shot. Therefore ban all guns.
OK I've no idea what you're talking about now. 12th century England, pre-Emancipation southern US States, and today's North Korea come close to "game over" vis-a-vis human rights, and I'm not sure what sort of perspective can cause someone to feel they might as well live under one of those regimes.
Well, obviously reason is a balance between the two: on the one hand, "one person, one vote" stops minorities from lording it over everyone else - on the other, individuals deserve a degree of autonomy to flourish. Different cultures draw different lines, but things only get awful when some zealot decides to draw the line too far in one direction or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
At the moment, Ofcom in the UK is trying to sell off more bandwidth in the gigahertz range which includes some secondary amateur allocation. Meanwhile hams are appreciating the infrastructure-free advantages of HF as always, and using 2m/70cm repeaters as usual, but perhaps less enthusiastic to experiment further up, partly because it's harder to build equipment, and partly because here it would be about relying on third party infrastructure or creating your own points of presence everywhere if you wanted to build a longer range network. Yet this is precisely the sort of challenge we perhaps should spend more time on, if we want to keep ham radio "innovative and relevant".
Or maybe I'm just annoyed because the local club now runs a D-STAR repeater without a second thought that following some third party proprietary (and not even entirely openly specified!) protocol is missing the point entirely. That's not pioneering :(.
Yup, and this is why I'm a ham fighting to keep shortwave clear of RFI.
And why I would encourage all hams to experiment with UHF, with a view to taking back centralised private ownership of the modern popular internetwork.
Why can't SIM cards and cameras be directly integrated to the PC hardware instead of going the USB route?
What the fuck?
No, I was pointing out that 1) the article's headline was incorrectly using quote marks to quote its own language; and 2) that the subheading was misleading, as clarified by Keogh in the article proper. I was not giving any conclusion whatever, but showing that the journalist was engaging in non sequitur.
The final report did not indicate "in excess of 14,000 needless deaths" - instead, it identified where Trusts with above-average mortality rates also need extra supervision. Again, you are misinterpreting statistics, perhaps the same way the Telegraph did in its article. It did, however, identify various problems with patient care, and choose to apply stringent monitoring on 11 of the most outlying Trusts as far as mortality rate.
This is the review system working as it should, paying special attention to a small proportion of the many NHS Trusts, marching on despite the offensive difficulties created by Thatcher's competing Trusts system, even as things get worse with the advent of CCGs.
What are you talking about? Linux isn't immune to viruses and worms.
And your vigorous handwaving didn't actually address the main point: nobody gives 13 year consumer support cycles except Microsoft. Trying to get stuff working on non-contemporaneous versions of Linux is way harder than on Windows - it may be possible in principle if you have the source, but that's an open vs closed source software argument which rarely applies in practice except among cadres of geeks.
MS isn't stopping you from supporting SIM cards or GPRS, and it's only imposing hardware restrictions if you want to re-sell discounted licences, which is sorta what Apple does except that Apple says, "You can't sell it at all because fuck you."
3. Still not immune from viruses and worms - needs continuous stream of patches;
Yeah, that utopia really is proving hard to reach.
customer remains at the mercy of Microsoft; like the forced ditching of XP which works perfectly fine.
Yeah, fuck Microsoft with its 12 year support cycle. Versions of OS X and Linux from 2001 are still in mainstream support.
5. Still no native support in the OS for cameras; SIM cards, etc. even Android is better in that respect despite being minuscule in size compared to 8.1.
Eh, my webcam works fine in Windows 8 without extra support. I assume Android has SIM card drivers because of u no it's used for 'phones a lot.
To reply to myself, there are of course very specialist procedures only done by specific doctors in specific countries, which means that nationals will be subject to the local system and foreigners must pay privately whatever. But these cases are in such a tiny minority, clouded by the fact that some people assume that their condition is much more special and complex than it really is (which makes sense - you've only one body and you want them to get it right the first time - and you assume that the most exclusive specialist is the best, and that might be so, but it might also make no difference at all).
For my condition, when it came to a recent medical trial at the same hospital, there was frustration that they couldn't get more than maybe ~30 people attending with relevant symptoms - yeah, it's partly because people don't like to travel regularly to one place (even if they're paid expenses) but partly because my issue isn't exactly common. But this particular researcher's work is publicly funded, and he was part of the same team above.
Put in business-speak: comprehensive public healthcare isn't just about delivering - it's about innovating.
Eh, I have mild neurological difficulties and the relevant academic team at the best research hospital in the UK sees people on an NHS and private basis. I've had all my appointments there on an NHS basis, waiting a few months for the first appointment, with others scheduled as needed.
All I had to do was to ask my NHS GP to make an NHS referral to this team.
Ooh, an article from a Conservative rag about the NHS - I wonder whether that'll be biased!
1) Organisations involved in medical care are "under investigation" all the time, as well they should be - this doesn't imply any sort of guilt;
3) Even though the Torygraph has used the phrase "died needlessly" in quotes in the headline, it's actually quoting its own subheading ("may have died needlessly"), which is turn is merely its own misleading interpretation of the data;
3) Though the paper may argue that they used the phrasing "up to 3,000", which is strictly correct - being the propagandist's way of saying "between 0 and 3,000" - your "about 3,000" is deliberately intellectually dishonest.
What was actually revealed is almost 3,000 more deaths across ten Trusts "than would have been expected", IOW than would have been calculated if they'd had an average number of deaths per Trust, which is a statistic, not a revelation that these deaths were somehow avoidable. It is especially not evidence that these deaths happened due to something systematically wrong with the NHS.
To quote Keogh:
Speaking as a mathematician, I ask you please to attend as many introductory statistics classes as possible before going into a numerate field.
CM only eat cookies. Swedish Chef & al. bake them.
Bingo.
Any anecdote that you saw some good private doctors yet not-so-good NHS ones is plausible, especially if it's just for minor issues where people from the US tend to be surprised by the British, "Don't panic / Keep calm!" attitude.
It's also true that junior doctors will rarely be found in private practice, and that the common thing to find is more senior doctors working in both private and NHS practice, if they choose to work privately. A private practitioner is, after all, usually doing routine work for more money - rarely esoteric (if they are, it's often in NHS hospitals) and almost never emergency work - so would do better professionally to keep a foot in the NHS. And the NHS historically (dunno if this has changed recently) expected anyone doing NHS work to put in more than a token effort, IOW to do a certain number of hours if they want any NHS work at all.
Afaict, when you are starting out, you go w/ the NHS to repay schooling and build a client base.
A client base? What?
There are some rather unethical NHS doctors who set up private practice then offer to speed up work as long as the patient moves to their private list - the house I'm living in right now used to belong to a competent (but not particularly brilliant) neurologist who was well-known in local medical circles for doing this, and became rather more wealthy for doing so. So, if you mean that some use their NHS work to poach patients who may be profitable (i.e. low risk, elective procedures) - then, yes, some doctors do this. And other doctors despise them for it, and yet others speak out loudly about it.
Your comments:
"like a sausage machine"
"frequently"
"pumping out dead bodies"
My observations:
1) One scandal in one hospital managed by one Trust;
2) Based on applying private sector style compartmentalisation and management to public service;
3) Fully identified and admitted to by the service;
4) Resulting in widespread recommendations and a degree of return to pre-Thatcher management of the service as a whole, IOW with the ability to easily study mortality rates across the country rather than delegating essentially cooperative work to competing Trusts.
Having experienced Western continental European healthcare, the NHS is one of several fine models to recommend to the US - but then so is almost every first world model when contrasted with the US one. And if a US healthcare provider fails in its duty, it's just a failed business dealt with by "the market" - if any NHS subsystem fails, it's (rightly) regarded as a big deal by the whole country, and the whole country will learn lessons from it.
Yeah, but, "The Mountain View, Calif., Web giant announced..." according to an "anonymous reader".
The consensus in London once was that the doctors who couldn't hack it in the NHS went to Harley Street.
You might get quicker non-urgent and more hotel-style care privately in the UK, but you'll rarely if ever get better medical treatment. And why would you?
In almost all cases, your problem has been seen ten thousand times before, and a doctor is either competent to fix it or they are not; researchers and advanced specialists are treated well by the NHS and academia, and if they're going to go private, they're more likely to work for pharmaceutical companies, where private industry actually does something that the NHS is not equipped to do already.
The NHS shows that "to each according to his need", where each person is human and "need" can be well defined medically, is entirely workable.
Eh it's fun for a day or two, like most things on the Internet that follow the same formula.
Thanks for all the money, folks!
So, you agree that it is absurd to proscribe a particular action simply because "from a purely technological standpoint" that action can come with good or evil intentions and/or results. IOW, you have as much problem with my absurd consequence as I do.
Yet you say, "Seriously, did you even think this through at all before posting?" Maybe your sarcasm detector is broken.
*No human
FTFY.
I don't know what tiny elite bubble of academia you're living in, but most published journal articles are uninsightful blabbering. I've read more intellectual theological arguments about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
The explosion in number of academics or number of articles they publish does not amount to a marked increase in scholarship, but to a willingness to turn any remotely original observation into an academic article. And this remark isn't specific to China or America - it applies across the world.
The slope is at a small angle from the horizontal.
By the slippery slope fallacy, you'll soon be living AT THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH.
QED.
From a technological standpoint, shooting someone who is about to rape your daughter is the same as shooting someone because you want to drive the car they're in: the bullet punctures the skin and causes internal damage, temporarily (or permanently) disabling the person being shot. Therefore ban all guns.
OK I've no idea what you're talking about now. 12th century England, pre-Emancipation southern US States, and today's North Korea come close to "game over" vis-a-vis human rights, and I'm not sure what sort of perspective can cause someone to feel they might as well live under one of those regimes.
Well, obviously reason is a balance between the two: on the one hand, "one person, one vote" stops minorities from lording it over everyone else - on the other, individuals deserve a degree of autonomy to flourish. Different cultures draw different lines, but things only get awful when some zealot decides to draw the line too far in one direction or the other.
Because businesses operate within society, and if they want their precious profits protected by that society, they damn well better cooperate with it.