This is typical of the bullshit doctors have to put up with these days - patients saying "I want X fixed and I don't want to take any personal responsibility for it".
You've torn some ligaments in your knee - thats terrible, it must hurt and you must be restricted in your movement.
Being obese means you put more weight on that knee - its going to take considerably longer to heal because you are going to struggle to exercise the knee while its healing, because you are fat and can't put your weight on it.
Being fat also raises the issue of cholesterol and similar issues, impacting your recovery.
Smoking has a similar effect - cholesterol, blood oxygenation issues etc etc.
For both of those things, your recovery is massively impacted. The doctor can't just "fix your damn knee", your body is going to do that - and you aren't helping it one little bit.
But don't worry, if you bitch long and hard enough about how you don't want to change your lifestyle, I'm sure the doctor will pull out a miracle drug, pop you a pill and you can carry on your day as if you were never asked to take personal responsibility for your healthcare.
Yeah, sounds like the typical Daily Mail bullshit.
There are plenty of ways for non-mobile people to lose weight - dieting, upper body exercise etc etc.
Your story sounds like the typical "the doctor said to do something impossible!!!!!!!!" bullshit the Daily Mail loves to push - manufacturing outrage because the patient didn't get what they wanted on the first consultation and actually had to *do* something.
Its not society - its the people who are taking onboard the *risk* of your surgery, in other words its the doctors and hospitals.
This is about *elective* surgery - non-essential. Which means that risk factors come into play considerably more - the CCG and the surgeons involved are improving their risk considerations by telling you to lose weight or stop smoking, as both of those things increase odds of complications during surgery.
Its quite simple - if you yourself are not willing to take action to reduce the odds of you dying or having complications, then why should the surgeon take the risk?
In the UK? Yes, we have private-funded healthcare as an option - go take out any one of the dozens of private healthcare plans and check yourself into a Spire hospital for whatever you want cut off, adjusted, added or fondled.
The NHS isn't the only option in the UK.
But be warned - if you arrest on the private hospitals operating table, they are 100% going to be calling an NHS ambulance to deal with it.
To hell with the camera, due to its memory limitations compared to the iPhone 4, there was already iOS software that simply wouldn't run on an iPad 1 at its launch.
Your best bet is to hit the Airliners.net or Pprune forum archives, lots of back story there.
The A380 issues were due to a mismatch between design software versions, resulting in wiring looms being the wrong size - the first few airframes built for development are always basically hand built with tonnes of design changes, but the production issues didn't become apparent until customer cabins were being installed as that meant a huge increase in wiring that needed to be installed. And that wiring simply didn't fit.
The 787 was pushed for a PR rollout on the 8th of July, 2007 - or 7/8/7 in US format. If you look at the photos taken at the time, the aircraft was a shell, despite it supposedly taking to the air later that year (you could see down the length of the cabin through the cockpit windows - there was *nothing* in there). The shell was also put together using fasteners from your local DIY store, not aviation grade ones - they all had to be removed and replaced prior to flight.
Then there was the aviation grade fasteners that were wrongly installed - this resulted in cracking, which had to be repaired, and those fasteners replaced.
And then the "side of body" issue, where the wing connection to the fuselage wasn't strong enough and had to be strengthened.
And the fire on the first aircraft which resulted in damage (specifically a hole in the fuselage).
And the fuselage barrels being delivered from suppliers which were misshapen and had to be reworked.
Boeing changed both the production method *and* technologies involved - moving from a "everything built in the factory on one location" to "fuselage barrels built in separate locations around the world, prestuffed with wiring and cabin outfittings, and simply joined by Boeing on an integration line", as well as moving from a normal aluminium based technology to a CFRP one. Boeing ended up having to buy most of the third party suppliers they had farmed work packages out to.
In terms of production, its revenue that is lost - specifically, the revenue from the shortfall in production is shifted to the right in terms of actual income.
But that doesn't mean the entire lifetime of the production run shifts to the right without penalty, as the technology and design lifetime doesn't get a free life extension, it will still need a refresh on much the same timescale as before.
Boeing is running into the same issue with the 787 - a production delay of nearly half a decade, shifting much of the expected revenue from those years to the right, and yet here we are a decade on from intended EIS (several years prior to actual EIS) and the company is already looking at a refresh... Boeing lost about 5 years there.
Take a look at Boeings woes with the 787 production, or Airbuses with the A380 - highly trained, experienced workforces on both sides, but significant production issues in both cases.
In the case of the A380, the production models suffered from issues that weren't apparent in CADCAM phases, and in the case of the 787 it was a company fuck up top to bottom (when your fastener supplier says "12 months lead time" 18 months before you need them, you don't leave your order for another 15 months and expect them to deliver in 3...)
Even established companies with serious experience behind them can have issues with a new products ramp up - Tesla isn't unique.
"Europe" is a continent made up of many countries - many European countries ban guns.
Many non-Europeans seem to have a problem understanding that Europe is not a single political entity - not even the European Union spans the entirety of Europe, and the EU doesn't regulate guns, that's down to member states at an individual level.
To be fair, the AC also said "in a futile effort to stop the shooter" which kind of indicates they know it's a ridiculous reaction and that's the point they were making - I don't read the original ACs post as anything other than sarcastic and perhaps lightly trolling.
The London Underground is a mass of interconnecting lines, and you can literally enter into the system at 7am and exit at 7pm, having travelled the entire network without exiting the system once - the point of capturing this data is not to see where they get on and get off, its to see what routings they take between those points - that is a wealth of data TfL can use to improve the service.
There are multiple ways to get from A to B once through the barriers, which means the actual routings taken aren't captured, just the duration and the entry and exit points.
I can see why TfL want to do this. They do a lot of trickery with signage at peak times to force people flows between platforms etc for better crowd management etc (there are routes between certain platforms at certain underground stations where the "advertised" routes at peak take you on a 3 or 4 minute walk, when actually you can go a slightly different route and be at the other platform in a few seconds - TfL do this to avoid overcrowding on the second platform, by introducing a delay in connecting passengers).
Interesting idea - convert the oil tankers to carry charged batteries instead... I wonder what the MWh rating of a super tanker fully loaded with such storage would be.
Dock it in a port and offload the power to the local grid over a period of time (or use it to recharge other stored energy systems, such as pumped storage), then send it back for charging.
The problem with such guarantees is that you can't guarantee anything - if a woman takes a year long maternity break, and her equal-job male coworker does not, the male coworker ends up being a year ahead on advancement, experience etc, so any equal-pay guarantee made on any basis other than raw time-with-company will end up with women who choose to bear children being paid less.
Is that fair? Is anything that attempts to modify that "discrimination" fair?
Then there are loads of things on which there can never be a consensus, because the dissenter will always win - even if they are 1% of the body and the rest voted in favour.
Hence why "consensus" is a stupid concept in these things - put it to a vote.
There's a world of difference between defamatory and just plain negative - he won the case to remove defamatory reviews, and almost certainly wouldn't have a case for removing simply negative reviews.
So he didn't bother with the case.
The judge said "delete 54", not "delete all", and there was a reason for that - a reason this guy obviously disagreed with.
I do think it's telling of Slashdots history that the immediate thought on many people's minds with these sorts of stories is "wait a minute, there's nothing to be outraged about here, why is this story here?!"
It shows that Slashdot had pushed the outrage stance significantly in the past - with many of its readership conditioned as a result.
There is no outrage to be had here - it's posted because it has a Google connection most likely. The guy did bad, is going to jail for it, not sure anyone can dispute that. Oh, Google, perhaps that's on topic - posted.
But the reactions to the story here tell a story all of their own...
Slashdot Mirror
You make the mistake in thinking that all non-urgent issues eventually become urgent - they do not.
This is typical of the bullshit doctors have to put up with these days - patients saying "I want X fixed and I don't want to take any personal responsibility for it".
You've torn some ligaments in your knee - thats terrible, it must hurt and you must be restricted in your movement.
Being obese means you put more weight on that knee - its going to take considerably longer to heal because you are going to struggle to exercise the knee while its healing, because you are fat and can't put your weight on it.
Being fat also raises the issue of cholesterol and similar issues, impacting your recovery.
Smoking has a similar effect - cholesterol, blood oxygenation issues etc etc.
For both of those things, your recovery is massively impacted. The doctor can't just "fix your damn knee", your body is going to do that - and you aren't helping it one little bit.
But don't worry, if you bitch long and hard enough about how you don't want to change your lifestyle, I'm sure the doctor will pull out a miracle drug, pop you a pill and you can carry on your day as if you were never asked to take personal responsibility for your healthcare.
Yeah, sounds like the typical Daily Mail bullshit.
There are plenty of ways for non-mobile people to lose weight - dieting, upper body exercise etc etc.
Your story sounds like the typical "the doctor said to do something impossible!!!!!!!!" bullshit the Daily Mail loves to push - manufacturing outrage because the patient didn't get what they wanted on the first consultation and actually had to *do* something.
Liposuction isn't available on the NHS for weight loss - its used for reconstructive purposes, but you can't get it for free for weight loss.
So the situation remains - if the person is unwilling to diet, they go to a private clinic and pay £2000+ for liposuction.
Do you have any proof of that?
Because my wife is a GP - and she disagrees with you. She successfully referred a 90 year old for cancer treatment just a few weeks ago.
Its not society - its the people who are taking onboard the *risk* of your surgery, in other words its the doctors and hospitals.
This is about *elective* surgery - non-essential. Which means that risk factors come into play considerably more - the CCG and the surgeons involved are improving their risk considerations by telling you to lose weight or stop smoking, as both of those things increase odds of complications during surgery.
Its quite simple - if you yourself are not willing to take action to reduce the odds of you dying or having complications, then why should the surgeon take the risk?
In the UK? Yes, we have private-funded healthcare as an option - go take out any one of the dozens of private healthcare plans and check yourself into a Spire hospital for whatever you want cut off, adjusted, added or fondled.
The NHS isn't the only option in the UK.
But be warned - if you arrest on the private hospitals operating table, they are 100% going to be calling an NHS ambulance to deal with it.
To hell with the camera, due to its memory limitations compared to the iPhone 4, there was already iOS software that simply wouldn't run on an iPad 1 at its launch.
Your opinion has even less value than his guess, and yet you still posted it - both of you have the same right to do so.
See this article from Flightblogger at the time detailing some of the issues - Flightblogger went on to be a journalist at Flight Global.
http://flightblogger.blogspot....
Your best bet is to hit the Airliners.net or Pprune forum archives, lots of back story there.
The A380 issues were due to a mismatch between design software versions, resulting in wiring looms being the wrong size - the first few airframes built for development are always basically hand built with tonnes of design changes, but the production issues didn't become apparent until customer cabins were being installed as that meant a huge increase in wiring that needed to be installed. And that wiring simply didn't fit.
The 787 was pushed for a PR rollout on the 8th of July, 2007 - or 7/8/7 in US format. If you look at the photos taken at the time, the aircraft was a shell, despite it supposedly taking to the air later that year (you could see down the length of the cabin through the cockpit windows - there was *nothing* in there). The shell was also put together using fasteners from your local DIY store, not aviation grade ones - they all had to be removed and replaced prior to flight.
Then there was the aviation grade fasteners that were wrongly installed - this resulted in cracking, which had to be repaired, and those fasteners replaced.
And then the "side of body" issue, where the wing connection to the fuselage wasn't strong enough and had to be strengthened.
And the fire on the first aircraft which resulted in damage (specifically a hole in the fuselage).
And the fuselage barrels being delivered from suppliers which were misshapen and had to be reworked.
Boeing changed both the production method *and* technologies involved - moving from a "everything built in the factory on one location" to "fuselage barrels built in separate locations around the world, prestuffed with wiring and cabin outfittings, and simply joined by Boeing on an integration line", as well as moving from a normal aluminium based technology to a CFRP one. Boeing ended up having to buy most of the third party suppliers they had farmed work packages out to.
In terms of production, its revenue that is lost - specifically, the revenue from the shortfall in production is shifted to the right in terms of actual income.
But that doesn't mean the entire lifetime of the production run shifts to the right without penalty, as the technology and design lifetime doesn't get a free life extension, it will still need a refresh on much the same timescale as before.
Boeing is running into the same issue with the 787 - a production delay of nearly half a decade, shifting much of the expected revenue from those years to the right, and yet here we are a decade on from intended EIS (several years prior to actual EIS) and the company is already looking at a refresh... Boeing lost about 5 years there.
Take a look at Boeings woes with the 787 production, or Airbuses with the A380 - highly trained, experienced workforces on both sides, but significant production issues in both cases.
In the case of the A380, the production models suffered from issues that weren't apparent in CADCAM phases, and in the case of the 787 it was a company fuck up top to bottom (when your fastener supplier says "12 months lead time" 18 months before you need them, you don't leave your order for another 15 months and expect them to deliver in 3...)
Even established companies with serious experience behind them can have issues with a new products ramp up - Tesla isn't unique.
"Europe" is a continent made up of many countries - many European countries ban guns.
Many non-Europeans seem to have a problem understanding that Europe is not a single political entity - not even the European Union spans the entirety of Europe, and the EU doesn't regulate guns, that's down to member states at an individual level.
To be fair, the AC also said "in a futile effort to stop the shooter" which kind of indicates they know it's a ridiculous reaction and that's the point they were making - I don't read the original ACs post as anything other than sarcastic and perhaps lightly trolling.
Crews already man ships filled with liquid petroleum gas, which is much more dangerous than Li-ion if shit were to go south...
The London Underground is a mass of interconnecting lines, and you can literally enter into the system at 7am and exit at 7pm, having travelled the entire network without exiting the system once - the point of capturing this data is not to see where they get on and get off, its to see what routings they take between those points - that is a wealth of data TfL can use to improve the service.
There are multiple ways to get from A to B once through the barriers, which means the actual routings taken aren't captured, just the duration and the entry and exit points.
I can see why TfL want to do this. They do a lot of trickery with signage at peak times to force people flows between platforms etc for better crowd management etc (there are routes between certain platforms at certain underground stations where the "advertised" routes at peak take you on a 3 or 4 minute walk, when actually you can go a slightly different route and be at the other platform in a few seconds - TfL do this to avoid overcrowding on the second platform, by introducing a delay in connecting passengers).
Interesting idea - convert the oil tankers to carry charged batteries instead... I wonder what the MWh rating of a super tanker fully loaded with such storage would be.
Dock it in a port and offload the power to the local grid over a period of time (or use it to recharge other stored energy systems, such as pumped storage), then send it back for charging.
The problem with such guarantees is that you can't guarantee anything - if a woman takes a year long maternity break, and her equal-job male coworker does not, the male coworker ends up being a year ahead on advancement, experience etc, so any equal-pay guarantee made on any basis other than raw time-with-company will end up with women who choose to bear children being paid less.
Is that fair? Is anything that attempts to modify that "discrimination" fair?
That's the debate being had in some areas.
That all sounds like management rather than engineering...
Then there are loads of things on which there can never be a consensus, because the dissenter will always win - even if they are 1% of the body and the rest voted in favour.
Hence why "consensus" is a stupid concept in these things - put it to a vote.
There's a world of difference between defamatory and just plain negative - he won the case to remove defamatory reviews, and almost certainly wouldn't have a case for removing simply negative reviews.
So he didn't bother with the case.
The judge said "delete 54", not "delete all", and there was a reason for that - a reason this guy obviously disagreed with.
I do think it's telling of Slashdots history that the immediate thought on many people's minds with these sorts of stories is "wait a minute, there's nothing to be outraged about here, why is this story here?!"
It shows that Slashdot had pushed the outrage stance significantly in the past - with many of its readership conditioned as a result.
There is no outrage to be had here - it's posted because it has a Google connection most likely. The guy did bad, is going to jail for it, not sure anyone can dispute that. Oh, Google, perhaps that's on topic - posted.
But the reactions to the story here tell a story all of their own...
No US law is going to stop me ridiculing US politics.