The main issue with the Israeli wall is the *massive* land grab that went with it - including the significant "no mans land" on the Palestinian side. The Palestinians lost a lot of arable land in that grab.
You can sell significant numbers of a product, beyond your wildest dreams, and still be losing money.
Boeing has sold 1287 of its 787 Dreamliner series aircraft, has delivered 625 and was still losing money overall (as in deferred program debt was still rising) until earlier this year (when they managed a slight reduction). Boeing isn't forecast to make any actual profit on its current order book.
In the commercial aviation world, 1000 sales of a large aircraft is a huge success, usually (see 777, 747, 767, A330). But then, usually, these programs have their production and R&D debt paid off in the first few hundred airframes....
Tesla is in the same boat - massive (relatively) up front costs, coupled with significant production issues which means debt is still rising rather than being recouped.
As much as the EU heads try to fake it, the EU is not a single, contiguous market - there is a *huge* variation in what pricing the markets will bear between the "senior" economies of the UK (not as much an issue shortly), France, Germany etc and the "junior" markets of the eastern states, Spain, Portugal etc. This is why there is significant economic migration to the former countries from the latter - a lot of the money earned is sent back to the "junior" states to support families etc.
Removing the geoblocking means that companies will migrate pricing toward the higher paying markets, which means the "junior" markets will lose out as Amazon etc will no longer be able to offer lower "market bearing" pricing specifically for them - which means its going to have an overall negative effect on the ability of those nations populations to buy online.
There is a *huge* thing going on in the UK at the moment to stop people skirting the system by being a "contractor" or run their own company while fulfilling services for a small group of employers.
It's called IR35, and is fundamentally changing a lot of relationships - significant numbers of IT contractors have had to switch to actually being employed, doctors are having to do the same etc etc.
Uber and its workers violate IR35 in a big way.
That's how far the U.K. takes the definition of "employed".
The BBCs news site has gone drastically down hill in recent years - it used to be my go-to site, but their recent design update basically reduced actual news content on the front page to around 30% of content. The rest of the space is taken up with "most read", "most watched" lists (both 10 item lists, which are styled to take up the same space as the news content blocks around them), "Full Story" magazine style human interest, which has an equal space dedicated to it as the top news block, "Must See" content promotion, again given equal space etc etc.
The amount of actual *news* on the front page has been reduced from 100% to less than a third.
Their new design has also pushed the "breaking news" ticker to a 10% overlay at the bottom of the screen, which requires interaction to dismiss and nearly always links to a story stub which just consists of the story title.
Also, a lot of the magazine content they push doesn't actually work on mobile due to the fancy page designs - a lot of the Travel and Future articles have their centrepiece content missing with just the lead in article stub showing - an example here , just view it on an iPad or something: http://www.bbc.com/travel/stor...
Oh, and the fucking survey overlay, which I get (and dismiss) multiple times a day. I've answered the survey multiple times, and yet there is no way to dismiss it permanently.
The BBC News site *sucks* these days - I'm gradually moving to other sites, it's only habit which makes me load the BBC site.
Im a SpaceX fan, but... SpaceX have yet to re-launch a spacecraft with "relatively minimal refurbishment".... the boosters and Dragon relaunches have been of *heavily* refurbished units.
While it might have been his time in space which caused his cancer, the odds are vastly against him anyway with age being an extreme risk factor in terms of cancer.
It's a statement that can be photographed and noticed - putting your ballistic missile force on high alert has few physical signs as potent as bombers sitting on ready alert at the end of a runway.
ICBMs don't have to carry their full design compliment - the British Trident nuclear weapons delivery system only carries 3 warheads per missile rather than the Trident missiles capability of 12 warheads per missile.
It's also strongly suspected that some British Trident missiles carry as few as a single missile for a single target strike in a "tactical" deployment.
Oh, Im sorry, I wasn't aware you wanted a detailed medical paper written up in a fucking Slashdot comment - if I had know you were going to be an arsehole with nit picking then I wouldn't have bothered you.
But congratulations on once again striving to take my comments well out of context and demanding a level of detail which isn't needed.
Next time I converse with you I will be sure to have my comment published in a medical journal and peer reviewed before posting it here. Just for you.
No, because their injuries are part of a healthy lifestyle.
In no way at all can you validly compare being obese or smoking to damage sustained from an active healthy lifestyle - thats the sort of damage the NHS would willingly fix for anyone.
As for weight gain - regardless of how it happens, its still the patients responsibility for controlling what they eat. There are *very* few actual illnesses which cause weight gain, its more often than not the reduction in activity coupled with no reduction in lifestyle consumption and the patient still needs to take responsibility for it. You can't weasel out of that one...
Restrict yourself calorie wise to a 1000 calories a day and you will lose weight, even if you just lay in bed all day.
People simply don't want to do it.
Yeah, because many times they have to go to WORK every day so they can pay to have a house with that bed in it.
Ok, so stick to 2000 calories (for an average male adult) then, go to work and the weight will come off.
Its not rocket science. Your body needs X number of calories to *maintain*, consume less than that and it will burn fat. Consume more than that and it will produce fat to store it.
I wonder, if NHS is using weight as a tool to ration care because of the cost, will they pay the dole for someone to take nine months off work so they can "lay in bed all day" while choosing your fantastically successful weight loss program?
Congratulations on finding some hyperbolic bullshit to spout there.
I'm guessing you are *deliberately* misconstruing the point, because you really can't be that stupid. Or are you trying to fixate on a single point, blow it out of all proportion and attempt to make an argument from it?
Ok, just incase you really are dumb as shit, let me explain.
I said "restrict yourself calorie wise to a 1000 calories a day and you will lose weight, even if you just lay in bed all day".
Thats an observation. Note the use of the term "even" just after the comma. Its an observation that you can lose weight even if you lay in bed all day, simply by reducing your calorific intake in comparison to its maintenance requirement.
Get up, run around, sit down all day, become an olympic swimmer and eat 6000 calories a day - it doesn't matter. Just consume fewer calories than your body needs.
And thats what people don't want to do - reduce their calorific intake compared to the calorific requirement for the body to maintain.
Exercise isn't *needed* for weight loss, your body can lose weight at rest. Exercise just increases the calorie deficit and burns fat quicker.
I've found that the people who propose such radical diet methods and call others lazy because they cannot stick to them to be medically challenged (i.e. not doctors) as well as socially so. I know what my doctor would say were I to tell him I'm taking nine months off work to eat almost nothing and lay in bed all day. He'd tell me I'm doing it wrong. He'd got the license. Do you?
My wifes a doctor, and she completely agrees with me - consume fewer calories than your body needs to maintain itself and you will lose weight.
If you do that by eating 2000 calories and continuing your average day, you will lose weight.
If you are bed ridden and eat 1000 calories a day, you will lose weight.
If you want to misconstrue my point, you are going to have to do better than that.
Once again, the government was not involved in this case - it was the hospital against the parents.
There is an overriding "right" beyond the "right to live", and that is "the right to not suffer at the hands of others", and that was the right being protected here.
The child was already brain dead - he had been since January 2017. He had no prospect of recovery, no prospect of any quality of life and yet the parents wanted to keep him alive artificially and subject him to unproven, untested treatments (which is illegal in the UK) by a doctor with a significant financial interest who hadn't actually taken any *medical* interest in the child.
You have complications, it goes against their statistics.
The NHS largely runs a "choose and book" service these days - gone are the days when you are booked into the local hospital and get operated on by whichever surgeon is on rotation on that day. You get your referral from your GP, and you get to pick from most NHS hospitals in the UK and most surgeons at that hospital. You get access to that surgeons statistics.
Poor statistics from higher risk taking means fewer people will pick you, because patients aren't willing to look into the actual data behind the raw statistics.
Lower statistics also mean much more scrutiny during annual appraisals (every UK doctor is required to have an annual appraisal by an independent reviewer) and during their five year revalidation (every doctor has a significant appraisal every five years, with real risk that their license is rescinded).
Complications also mean compensation claims that the hospital has to deal with. And you would be stupid if you thought that the only compensation claims made were valid and proper.
The surgeon sees you a *lot* once they take their gloves off. You are part of their lives for years after the surgery has finished. You just don't know it.
quires major life changes for most people, often changes including changes to friendships or careers and/or psychological care, and only the smallest percent of people who attempt to lose significant weight will actually succeed.
Sorry, but those are just the usual excuses - "weight loss is hard". No, it actually isn't. Restrict yourself calorie wise to a 1000 calories a day and you will lose weight, even if you just lay in bed all day.
People simply don't want to do it.
So why should they have non-urgent care on their own terms?
You can submit anything you like, but a surgeons license isn't beholden to budgets or funding, and risk taking can and will open a surgeon up to GMC investigation.
Society has changed massively in the past 20 years - people have largely stopped taking responsibility for their own bodies and have started treating the medical profession as a quick-fix you-work-for-me solution.
In the UK, GPs have a hard time denying antibiotics to patients with viral infections - if the patient doesn't get the antibiotics during the consultation, a complaint to the practice is fairly common. And complaints are something that need to be reported to the GMC, regardless of whether they are bullshit.
A friend of my wifes had a complaint issued against her by a patient that said "they smelled alcohol on her" after a bad consultation when they were denied antibiotics for a viral illness. A single letter, no evidence. That took 3 years and £300,000 in legal fees to resolve - the doctor in question had to retain a lawyer, attend multiple GMC hearings and was restricted in practice.
The kicker? That doctor didn't drink, had an allergy against alcohol. Still took three years to resolve.
Another friend of my wifes had a complaint issued against her because she "missed" pancreatic cancer in a 95 year old who had come in asking about something completely different - it was only sheer luck that the referral for that thing involved a particular test which showed early onset pancreatic cancer, too early for any other signs to show so it wouldn't have presented itself for diagnosis for another few months.
That took a year and £100,000 in legal fees to resolve. The man died of old age in the mean time and the family got a pay out.
One thing people don't realise is that the UK has become massively anti-doctor in recent times, which is why record number of doctors are leaving. And its only going to get worse...
No, they aren't paid to take the risk, they are paid to perform successful surgeries.
Risk taking surgeons are people that the GMC love to smack down - no surgeon is going to risk their doctoring license simply because you think you have more of a right to demand treatment rather than take personal responsibility for destroying your own body.
No - you are voluntarily choosing not to use the NHS, thats your choice. The NHS will always be there to scrape you off the road after a car accident, to treat your cardiac arrest when you fall over in a shopping mall, to reset your broken leg when you fall down stairs after a boozy night out.
It will always give you treatment - just not on *your* terms alone. And thats perfectly fine.
The child had rights independent of its parents - the doctors and hospitals are required to protect the patients rights, especially when they are being violated by the parents.
It was the hospital that went to court to fight the issue - not the government.
The government had no involvement in the case.
Of course, you do know all about the case, right? A few points for you to consider:
1. The US doctor, Professor Hirano, pushing the treatment had massive financial interest in his own treatment
2. He had never actually tested his treatment on the condition Charlie Gard had, not even in animals
3. International experts were consulted for second opinions by the hospital all the way through the case
4. Professor Hirano was invited to consult on the case in January 2016, but did not take up the invitation until July 2017
5. Professor Hirano stated in court that he had supplied opinions to the court without examining the patient, reading his notes or studying any scans taken of the patient. He basically admitted to the court to "guessing" without being in possession of any medical facts about the patient.
Slashdot Mirror
The main issue with the Israeli wall is the *massive* land grab that went with it - including the significant "no mans land" on the Palestinian side. The Palestinians lost a lot of arable land in that grab.
You can sell significant numbers of a product, beyond your wildest dreams, and still be losing money.
Boeing has sold 1287 of its 787 Dreamliner series aircraft, has delivered 625 and was still losing money overall (as in deferred program debt was still rising) until earlier this year (when they managed a slight reduction). Boeing isn't forecast to make any actual profit on its current order book.
In the commercial aviation world, 1000 sales of a large aircraft is a huge success, usually (see 777, 747, 767, A330). But then, usually, these programs have their production and R&D debt paid off in the first few hundred airframes....
Tesla is in the same boat - massive (relatively) up front costs, coupled with significant production issues which means debt is still rising rather than being recouped.
They will get there, but they aren't there yet.
Ironic considering Apple charge app developers a variable exorbitant fee for a fixed cost service for each app sale...
There's a big market in New Zealand importing "baches" (static caravans or mobile homes of the same type as discussed here) from Europe...
Because only Go uses the Go math/big package, and the issue is with how the math is done in that package?
As much as the EU heads try to fake it, the EU is not a single, contiguous market - there is a *huge* variation in what pricing the markets will bear between the "senior" economies of the UK (not as much an issue shortly), France, Germany etc and the "junior" markets of the eastern states, Spain, Portugal etc. This is why there is significant economic migration to the former countries from the latter - a lot of the money earned is sent back to the "junior" states to support families etc.
Removing the geoblocking means that companies will migrate pricing toward the higher paying markets, which means the "junior" markets will lose out as Amazon etc will no longer be able to offer lower "market bearing" pricing specifically for them - which means its going to have an overall negative effect on the ability of those nations populations to buy online.
There is a *huge* thing going on in the UK at the moment to stop people skirting the system by being a "contractor" or run their own company while fulfilling services for a small group of employers.
It's called IR35, and is fundamentally changing a lot of relationships - significant numbers of IT contractors have had to switch to actually being employed, doctors are having to do the same etc etc.
Uber and its workers violate IR35 in a big way.
That's how far the U.K. takes the definition of "employed".
The BBCs news site has gone drastically down hill in recent years - it used to be my go-to site, but their recent design update basically reduced actual news content on the front page to around 30% of content. The rest of the space is taken up with "most read", "most watched" lists (both 10 item lists, which are styled to take up the same space as the news content blocks around them), "Full Story" magazine style human interest, which has an equal space dedicated to it as the top news block, "Must See" content promotion, again given equal space etc etc.
The amount of actual *news* on the front page has been reduced from 100% to less than a third.
Their new design has also pushed the "breaking news" ticker to a 10% overlay at the bottom of the screen, which requires interaction to dismiss and nearly always links to a story stub which just consists of the story title.
Also, a lot of the magazine content they push doesn't actually work on mobile due to the fancy page designs - a lot of the Travel and Future articles have their centrepiece content missing with just the lead in article stub showing - an example here , just view it on an iPad or something: http://www.bbc.com/travel/stor...
Oh, and the fucking survey overlay, which I get (and dismiss) multiple times a day. I've answered the survey multiple times, and yet there is no way to dismiss it permanently.
The BBC News site *sucks* these days - I'm gradually moving to other sites, it's only habit which makes me load the BBC site.
Im a SpaceX fan, but ... SpaceX have yet to re-launch a spacecraft with "relatively minimal refurbishment".... the boosters and Dragon relaunches have been of *heavily* refurbished units.
Can you not request the cheque be returned to you after you cash it? You can here in the U.K...
Can you sell alcohol indiscriminately in this theoretical bar...? Can you decide to sell it to 15 year olds?
Perform an autopsy on a group of 65+ year olds and you can pretty much be sure to find some sort of cancer in most of them, with people over the age of 65 accounting for 60% of newly diagnosed malignant cancers and 70% of cancer related deaths in the US.
While it might have been his time in space which caused his cancer, the odds are vastly against him anyway with age being an extreme risk factor in terms of cancer.
It's a statement that can be photographed and noticed - putting your ballistic missile force on high alert has few physical signs as potent as bombers sitting on ready alert at the end of a runway.
ICBMs don't have to carry their full design compliment - the British Trident nuclear weapons delivery system only carries 3 warheads per missile rather than the Trident missiles capability of 12 warheads per missile.
It's also strongly suspected that some British Trident missiles carry as few as a single missile for a single target strike in a "tactical" deployment.
Oh, Im sorry, I wasn't aware you wanted a detailed medical paper written up in a fucking Slashdot comment - if I had know you were going to be an arsehole with nit picking then I wouldn't have bothered you.
But congratulations on once again striving to take my comments well out of context and demanding a level of detail which isn't needed.
Next time I converse with you I will be sure to have my comment published in a medical journal and peer reviewed before posting it here. Just for you.
No, because their injuries are part of a healthy lifestyle.
In no way at all can you validly compare being obese or smoking to damage sustained from an active healthy lifestyle - thats the sort of damage the NHS would willingly fix for anyone.
As for weight gain - regardless of how it happens, its still the patients responsibility for controlling what they eat. There are *very* few actual illnesses which cause weight gain, its more often than not the reduction in activity coupled with no reduction in lifestyle consumption and the patient still needs to take responsibility for it. You can't weasel out of that one...
Nice argument.
Restrict yourself calorie wise to a 1000 calories a day and you will lose weight, even if you just lay in bed all day.
People simply don't want to do it.
Yeah, because many times they have to go to WORK every day so they can pay to have a house with that bed in it.
Ok, so stick to 2000 calories (for an average male adult) then, go to work and the weight will come off.
Its not rocket science. Your body needs X number of calories to *maintain*, consume less than that and it will burn fat. Consume more than that and it will produce fat to store it.
I wonder, if NHS is using weight as a tool to ration care because of the cost, will they pay the dole for someone to take nine months off work so they can "lay in bed all day" while choosing your fantastically successful weight loss program?
Congratulations on finding some hyperbolic bullshit to spout there.
I'm guessing you are *deliberately* misconstruing the point, because you really can't be that stupid. Or are you trying to fixate on a single point, blow it out of all proportion and attempt to make an argument from it?
Ok, just incase you really are dumb as shit, let me explain.
I said "restrict yourself calorie wise to a 1000 calories a day and you will lose weight, even if you just lay in bed all day".
Thats an observation. Note the use of the term "even" just after the comma. Its an observation that you can lose weight even if you lay in bed all day, simply by reducing your calorific intake in comparison to its maintenance requirement.
Get up, run around, sit down all day, become an olympic swimmer and eat 6000 calories a day - it doesn't matter. Just consume fewer calories than your body needs.
And thats what people don't want to do - reduce their calorific intake compared to the calorific requirement for the body to maintain.
Exercise isn't *needed* for weight loss, your body can lose weight at rest. Exercise just increases the calorie deficit and burns fat quicker.
I've found that the people who propose such radical diet methods and call others lazy because they cannot stick to them to be medically challenged (i.e. not doctors) as well as socially so. I know what my doctor would say were I to tell him I'm taking nine months off work to eat almost nothing and lay in bed all day. He'd tell me I'm doing it wrong. He'd got the license. Do you?
My wifes a doctor, and she completely agrees with me - consume fewer calories than your body needs to maintain itself and you will lose weight.
If you do that by eating 2000 calories and continuing your average day, you will lose weight.
If you are bed ridden and eat 1000 calories a day, you will lose weight.
If you want to misconstrue my point, you are going to have to do better than that.
Once again, the government was not involved in this case - it was the hospital against the parents.
There is an overriding "right" beyond the "right to live", and that is "the right to not suffer at the hands of others", and that was the right being protected here.
The child was already brain dead - he had been since January 2017. He had no prospect of recovery, no prospect of any quality of life and yet the parents wanted to keep him alive artificially and subject him to unproven, untested treatments (which is illegal in the UK) by a doctor with a significant financial interest who hadn't actually taken any *medical* interest in the child.
You die, it goes against their statistics.
You have complications, it goes against their statistics.
The NHS largely runs a "choose and book" service these days - gone are the days when you are booked into the local hospital and get operated on by whichever surgeon is on rotation on that day. You get your referral from your GP, and you get to pick from most NHS hospitals in the UK and most surgeons at that hospital. You get access to that surgeons statistics.
Poor statistics from higher risk taking means fewer people will pick you, because patients aren't willing to look into the actual data behind the raw statistics.
Lower statistics also mean much more scrutiny during annual appraisals (every UK doctor is required to have an annual appraisal by an independent reviewer) and during their five year revalidation (every doctor has a significant appraisal every five years, with real risk that their license is rescinded).
Complications also mean compensation claims that the hospital has to deal with. And you would be stupid if you thought that the only compensation claims made were valid and proper.
The surgeon sees you a *lot* once they take their gloves off. You are part of their lives for years after the surgery has finished. You just don't know it.
quires major life changes for most people, often changes including changes to friendships or careers and/or psychological care, and only the smallest percent of people who attempt to lose significant weight will actually succeed.
Sorry, but those are just the usual excuses - "weight loss is hard". No, it actually isn't. Restrict yourself calorie wise to a 1000 calories a day and you will lose weight, even if you just lay in bed all day.
People simply don't want to do it.
So why should they have non-urgent care on their own terms?
You can submit anything you like, but a surgeons license isn't beholden to budgets or funding, and risk taking can and will open a surgeon up to GMC investigation.
Society has changed massively in the past 20 years - people have largely stopped taking responsibility for their own bodies and have started treating the medical profession as a quick-fix you-work-for-me solution.
In the UK, GPs have a hard time denying antibiotics to patients with viral infections - if the patient doesn't get the antibiotics during the consultation, a complaint to the practice is fairly common. And complaints are something that need to be reported to the GMC, regardless of whether they are bullshit.
A friend of my wifes had a complaint issued against her by a patient that said "they smelled alcohol on her" after a bad consultation when they were denied antibiotics for a viral illness. A single letter, no evidence. That took 3 years and £300,000 in legal fees to resolve - the doctor in question had to retain a lawyer, attend multiple GMC hearings and was restricted in practice.
The kicker? That doctor didn't drink, had an allergy against alcohol. Still took three years to resolve.
Another friend of my wifes had a complaint issued against her because she "missed" pancreatic cancer in a 95 year old who had come in asking about something completely different - it was only sheer luck that the referral for that thing involved a particular test which showed early onset pancreatic cancer, too early for any other signs to show so it wouldn't have presented itself for diagnosis for another few months.
That took a year and £100,000 in legal fees to resolve. The man died of old age in the mean time and the family got a pay out.
One thing people don't realise is that the UK has become massively anti-doctor in recent times, which is why record number of doctors are leaving. And its only going to get worse...
No, they aren't paid to take the risk, they are paid to perform successful surgeries.
Risk taking surgeons are people that the GMC love to smack down - no surgeon is going to risk their doctoring license simply because you think you have more of a right to demand treatment rather than take personal responsibility for destroying your own body.
No - you are voluntarily choosing not to use the NHS, thats your choice. The NHS will always be there to scrape you off the road after a car accident, to treat your cardiac arrest when you fall over in a shopping mall, to reset your broken leg when you fall down stairs after a boozy night out.
It will always give you treatment - just not on *your* terms alone. And thats perfectly fine.
It wasn't "up to the government".
The child had rights independent of its parents - the doctors and hospitals are required to protect the patients rights, especially when they are being violated by the parents.
It was the hospital that went to court to fight the issue - not the government.
The government had no involvement in the case.
Of course, you do know all about the case, right? A few points for you to consider:
1. The US doctor, Professor Hirano, pushing the treatment had massive financial interest in his own treatment
2. He had never actually tested his treatment on the condition Charlie Gard had, not even in animals
3. International experts were consulted for second opinions by the hospital all the way through the case
4. Professor Hirano was invited to consult on the case in January 2016, but did not take up the invitation until July 2017
5. Professor Hirano stated in court that he had supplied opinions to the court without examining the patient, reading his notes or studying any scans taken of the patient. He basically admitted to the court to "guessing" without being in possession of any medical facts about the patient.