The problem with doctors' "appointments" is you can only estimate how long a particular patient will take. With the advent of insane cost-cutting measures, we're under enormous pressure to see as many patients as possible, so we have to make best-guesses. And know what? Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes, a patient has a more complicated or time-consuming case, and we have to go a bit "over". Yeah, that's built into an average day, but you never quite know. And if you don't like it, you're welcome to go to fee-for-service doctors who will clear their schedule for you... but leave you with a very high bill.
To rebut the ridiculous (and barely coherent) comparison to a doctor and "someone that makes up mnemonic rhymes to monty python songs for 4 years": you're a fricken' idiot. If you think rote memorization is all the skill it takes to be a good clinician and to pass all the hurdles involved in Allopathic (M.D.) or Osteopathic (D.O.) training, you're welcome to try yourself. You'll quickly find out you can't get through medical training on memory.
And there's nobody stopping you from being your own physician.
I welcome morons like you making insulting arguments about a profession you apparently can't comprehend. To me, they are basically big bags of hot air that shoot off their mouths without thinking.
Speaking as a resident, I can tell you that "cutting down" on the hours is now an *80* hour work-week. And that's considered an improvement. And, when you're on some rotations, like in the ICU, you regularly come up against or go over that limit. Older docs tell us how "good" we have it, and how "soft" the regulations are now. Whatever.
Oddly enough, the Emergency Department is one of the easiest places to work. Why? Shifts are scheduled -- when time's up, time's up. When you work on the wards, however, you can easily be dealing with something for HOURS past your supposed "sign-out" time if you have a complicated patient (or more than one).
At risk of getting facetious replies from all the Trekkies/Trekkers out there, does anyone know anything more about this "Constellation" class ship they mention in the article?
I may be hypothesizing, but I have very little doubt that there will be interference irrespective of any planning done to avoid impact to bystanders.
The general pattern has been to use "safety" as a red herring for a host of different restrictive legislation (all to the benefit of an entirely different group than the electorate these law makers are supposed to be serving).
I suppose we can hope that Congress will make laws that only restrict space flight on the basis of legitimate environmental and public safety concerns. I am more of a pessimist to think that will be the case, though.
Thank heavens we have a government that is taking rapid action to protect us from ourselves! So what if progress is impeded, or if this bolsters a poorly-run, short-sighted government space monopoly... At least we're SAFER this way. I mean, after all, someone needs to think of the children!
I think Franklin was right about the whole "liberty for security" tradeoff. Unfortunately, the US has become the land of Sheep.
While I'd agree with you that the thing is damn ugly, I'd take exception about the issue of Apple's dominance.
The iPod is beautiful and it has a killer interface. Anyone can use it, and it is very intuitive. Each iteration seems to get incrementally more user-friendly and marginally better-looking, too.
This monstrosity that is a so-called "iPod-slayer" looks hideously cumbersome to use.
Raw grass and leaves contain an enzyme that prevents you from extracting the protein in it. Unless you have the _very_ specialized digestive system of a herbivore, _or_ can boil those plants (high temperature destroys that enzyme), you can't survive on leaves.
Really? Now, what enzyme would that be? I was never taught this, and I find it fascinating.
Despite your post, there's nothing invalid or wrong with making a choice based on the "lesser of two evils" concept. I suspect that many of Kerry's votes will come from people choosing to pick the "not-so-great" option over the "really-really-terribly-horribly-bad" option... And that's OK.
You hit the nail on the head when you said you're paying for the appointment -- you're not paying for a prescription. I'm a doctor, not a dispensary. Patients come to me for my interpretation skills, and my ability to "realign" their body. Sorta like a good mechanic. The customer comes in and says "something needs fixing, and I don't know what it is or how to fix it", not "I need oral doxycycline, 100 mg doses, enough for 7 days of twice-a-day dosage".
Web design is similar, in that you have a customer who doesn't know how to "make it happen", but they're certainly entitled to say what they want in the first place. Its up to the vendor (in this case the designer) to make sure they understand what the customer wants. And if designer thinks they know better, they better make sure that the customer understands and agrees.
A good analogy would be if you ordered something at a restaurant... you wouldn't want the waiter/waitress changing what you ordered or adding extra items without discussing it with you, would you?
Or, to return to the medical arena, if a patient came to me complaining about a sore throat, it would be wrong of me to do a gynecological exam, a CAT scan of their head, or anything not related to the throat issue -- unless I've expressly explained to the patient why I need to do additional procedures, and they've expressly consented. In fact, if I did, I'd expect to be censured, or possibly sued.
There's a strong argument on how that "important part" is supposed to be parsed. I'm of the ilk that it is entirely a supportive clause, and not the main thrust of the sentence. There are drafts of the BoR, as well as other documents of the time, that suggest the "important part" is actually the part that goes "shall not be..."
See my post below -- I agree that the way that the 2nd amendment is ignored or distorted is unconscionable. In spite of this, I'll gladly support a group that defends 95% of my enumerated rights, and work on the other 5% through different channels and organizations.
I am a huge supporter of the ACLU, and I have to agree that they pay only lip-service to this part of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the whole nonesense about the National Guard being the "militia" mentioned is just a convenient gloss-over for those who don't think a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is feasible.
But, I ask you this -- isn't it better to support an organization that does protect the majority of the Bill of Rights vigorously than to let all our rights fall into oblivion? Let's get behind protecting as much as we can -- not tearing down those who don't match up to every one of our expectations.
Sometimes, you have to choose the half-full glass to get anything at all, or choose the lesser of two evils...
I'm always amazed at Americans who consider being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU a bad thing.
Sure, you may not agree with some of the individuals they protect, but it is comforting to know that there is an organization that will protect the rights of anyone, irrespective of personal opinions/feelings/politics.
The USA is supposed to be a country based on the Constitution, and was founded with the belief that every individual has natural rights that need to be protected -- against the government, against the majority, against those in power. These ACLU folks are every bit as patriotic as the folks in the armed forces doing their duty overseas that the current presidential administration loves to trumpet about. To see true patriots go up against the so-called "PATRIOT Act" warms my heart.
I *am* a doctor, and I'll tell you, we *don't* use cell phones for anything "life-or-death". In fact, we're supposed to turn *OFF* our cell phones in the critical/intensive care units (where things are the MOST life-or-death), since they theoretically can interfere with the telemetry. Furthermore, if I am currently responsible for patients that may need my care at a moment's notice, for life-threatening situations, I can tell you I would *NOT* be taking in a movie, or out at a restaurant. I only go out when I'm off-service, or my pager's signed out to someone else in/by the hospital.
Clearly you've done a lot of homework on this subject, and I'll have to spend some more time investigating. I'll readily admit that these are compelling arguments for wind-turbines -- and that my initial reservations may be less sound that I thought. Thanks for all the data.
Incidentally, I'm especially upset (embarassed?) about falling for the false quotation attributed to the Sierra club. I'm even more disturbed that I bit at something thrown out by the Cato people.
Just goes to show you, you can't always believe what you read...
And I was an HR guy at one of these firms -- the one that rhymes with "poopers". Have you looked at where these folks are now? I left shortly before the industry tanked, but I kept in touch enough to know those days are over...
Unfortunately, I have entered the medical field, where it seems the same hours and effort are expect of doctors, for far less compensation.
Guess what ?-- seems like the field is unionizing.
To summarize: nobody likes being worked into the ground, and it rarely pays off in the long run.
For some reason, this got posted below as an AC, but I didn't want it to seem like I was trying to hide from flaming, hence the repost. Sorry about that.
Anyway, here's my points: First of all, relax -- I wasn't attacking anyone, and I think things got really angry really fast. I absolutely admit I'm not an expert in this area, but, here:
1) The islands in question are quite densely populated. Nantucket island has a substantial year-round population which mushrooms in the summer.
2) Not bullshit at all. For example, the Sierra Club referred to these things as "Cuisinarts of the air"... I suppose I should be more skeptical, but I'm not about to go out and do body counts of mangled birds across the world. That's what ecologists/field biologists do. And, in respect to office buildings being a greater killer of birds, well, sure -- in absolute numbers... But what types of birds are killed in cities (where there are office buildings) vs those in the rural/suburban areas wind farms tend to be in? I think the effect on biodiversity stands to be much greater with the windmills. A slaughter of 100,000 pigeons a year is ecologically insignificant when compared with the death of, say, 5 Californian condors.
3) I'm not so much "complaining" as suggesting that the best solution for energy generation is one that maximizes return. Hey, you're right -- these people are entitled to spend their money whatever way they want. And I'm entitled to ask myself if it is an efficient expenditure of captial if I want. Just because they're spending their own money doesn't mean I have to think it makes necessarily makes sense, right?
Â
4) Honestly, I don't remember where I heard about the cost-benefit analysis of windmills, but I could look it up again. It was a relatively recent source, though. To cut to the chase, what the article seemed to be saying was that at this juncture, wind power doesn't provide a compelling rate of return when compared with the drawbacks. Is it true? Damned if I know. Seemed to be relatively unbiased and even handed, although I suppose it could have been a planted article from a tainted source (something indirectly sponsored by the currently entrenched energy suppliers). My point was, at least some folks are saying that the ecological drawbacks to mass-scale wind-power right now are large -- and this should be clearly supported or debunked. And, AFAIK, that hasn't been done yet, and people who don't live near these things seem to not want to consider possible drawbacks.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with doctors' "appointments" is you can only estimate how long a particular patient will take. With the advent of insane cost-cutting measures, we're under enormous pressure to see as many patients as possible, so we have to make best-guesses. And know what? Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes, a patient has a more complicated or time-consuming case, and we have to go a bit "over". Yeah, that's built into an average day, but you never quite know. And if you don't like it, you're welcome to go to fee-for-service doctors who will clear their schedule for you... but leave you with a very high bill.
To rebut the ridiculous (and barely coherent) comparison to a doctor and "someone that makes up mnemonic rhymes to monty python songs for 4 years": you're a fricken' idiot. If you think rote memorization is all the skill it takes to be a good clinician and to pass all the hurdles involved in Allopathic (M.D.) or Osteopathic (D.O.) training, you're welcome to try yourself. You'll quickly find out you can't get through medical training on memory.
And there's nobody stopping you from being your own physician.
I welcome morons like you making insulting arguments about a profession you apparently can't comprehend. To me, they are basically big bags of hot air that shoot off their mouths without thinking.
Speaking as a resident, I can tell you that "cutting down" on the hours is now an *80* hour work-week. And that's considered an improvement. And, when you're on some rotations, like in the ICU, you regularly come up against or go over that limit. Older docs tell us how "good" we have it, and how "soft" the regulations are now. Whatever.
Oddly enough, the Emergency Department is one of the easiest places to work. Why? Shifts are scheduled -- when time's up, time's up. When you work on the wards, however, you can easily be dealing with something for HOURS past your supposed "sign-out" time if you have a complicated patient (or more than one).
At risk of getting facetious replies from all the Trekkies/Trekkers out there, does anyone know anything more about this "Constellation" class ship they mention in the article?
Stops TVs, Thumpmobiles, Watches, Pacemakers...
I somehow doubt there's many pacemaker-users who'd be the "target audience" of this item...
I may be hypothesizing, but I have very little doubt that there will be interference irrespective of any planning done to avoid impact to bystanders.
The general pattern has been to use "safety" as a red herring for a host of different restrictive legislation (all to the benefit of an entirely different group than the electorate these law makers are supposed to be serving).
I suppose we can hope that Congress will make laws that only restrict space flight on the basis of legitimate environmental and public safety concerns. I am more of a pessimist to think that will be the case, though.
Thank heavens we have a government that is taking rapid action to protect us from ourselves! So what if progress is impeded, or if this bolsters a poorly-run, short-sighted government space monopoly... At least we're SAFER this way. I mean, after all, someone needs to think of the children!
I think Franklin was right about the whole "liberty for security" tradeoff. Unfortunately, the US has become the land of Sheep.
It is very dark... You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.
You wish.
While I'd agree with you that the thing is damn ugly, I'd take exception about the issue of Apple's dominance.
The iPod is beautiful and it has a killer interface. Anyone can use it, and it is very intuitive. Each iteration seems to get incrementally more user-friendly and marginally better-looking, too.
This monstrosity that is a so-called "iPod-slayer" looks hideously cumbersome to use.
By almost every major metric, the Canadian standard of living is currently higher than the USA, and has been for a number of years.
Raw grass and leaves contain an enzyme that prevents you from extracting the protein in it. Unless you have the _very_ specialized digestive system of a herbivore, _or_ can boil those plants (high temperature destroys that enzyme), you can't survive on leaves.
Really? Now, what enzyme would that be? I was never taught this, and I find it fascinating.
Despite your post, there's nothing invalid or wrong with making a choice based on the "lesser of two evils" concept. I suspect that many of Kerry's votes will come from people choosing to pick the "not-so-great" option over the "really-really-terribly-horribly-bad" option... And that's OK.
Although I took more like 40 tries, I still hit pretty quickly.
And I, too, still haven't gotten a code... Hoax?
You hit the nail on the head when you said you're paying for the appointment -- you're not paying for a prescription. I'm a doctor, not a dispensary. Patients come to me for my interpretation skills, and my ability to "realign" their body. Sorta like a good mechanic. The customer comes in and says "something needs fixing, and I don't know what it is or how to fix it", not "I need oral doxycycline, 100 mg doses, enough for 7 days of twice-a-day dosage".
Web design is similar, in that you have a customer who doesn't know how to "make it happen", but they're certainly entitled to say what they want in the first place. Its up to the vendor (in this case the designer) to make sure they understand what the customer wants. And if designer thinks they know better, they better make sure that the customer understands and agrees.
A good analogy would be if you ordered something at a restaurant... you wouldn't want the waiter/waitress changing what you ordered or adding extra items without discussing it with you, would you?
Or, to return to the medical arena, if a patient came to me complaining about a sore throat, it would be wrong of me to do a gynecological exam, a CAT scan of their head, or anything not related to the throat issue -- unless I've expressly explained to the patient why I need to do additional procedures, and they've expressly consented. In fact, if I did, I'd expect to be censured, or possibly sued.
I wonder if the parent poster was referring to Portland, Maine?
Doesn't look like it, though...
Nah -- Hurling would be more appropriate. And bloody.
There's a strong argument on how that "important part" is supposed to be parsed. I'm of the ilk that it is entirely a supportive clause, and not the main thrust of the sentence. There are drafts of the BoR, as well as other documents of the time, that suggest the "important part" is actually the part that goes "shall not be..."
See my post below -- I agree that the way that the 2nd amendment is ignored or distorted is unconscionable. In spite of this, I'll gladly support a group that defends 95% of my enumerated rights, and work on the other 5% through different channels and organizations.
I am a huge supporter of the ACLU, and I have to agree that they pay only lip-service to this part of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the whole nonesense about the National Guard being the "militia" mentioned is just a convenient gloss-over for those who don't think a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is feasible.
But, I ask you this -- isn't it better to support an organization that does protect the majority of the Bill of Rights vigorously than to let all our rights fall into oblivion? Let's get behind protecting as much as we can -- not tearing down those who don't match up to every one of our expectations.
Sometimes, you have to choose the half-full glass to get anything at all, or choose the lesser of two evils...
And about time this is happening, too.
I'm always amazed at Americans who consider being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU a bad thing.
Sure, you may not agree with some of the individuals they protect, but it is comforting to know that there is an organization that will protect the rights of anyone, irrespective of personal opinions/feelings/politics.
The USA is supposed to be a country based on the Constitution, and was founded with the belief that every individual has natural rights that need to be protected -- against the government, against the majority, against those in power. These ACLU folks are every bit as patriotic as the folks in the armed forces doing their duty overseas that the current presidential administration loves to trumpet about. To see true patriots go up against the so-called "PATRIOT Act" warms my heart.
I *am* a doctor, and I'll tell you, we *don't* use cell phones for anything "life-or-death". In fact, we're supposed to turn *OFF* our cell phones in the critical/intensive care units (where things are the MOST life-or-death), since they theoretically can interfere with the telemetry.
Furthermore, if I am currently responsible for patients that may need my care at a moment's notice, for life-threatening situations, I can tell you I would *NOT* be taking in a movie, or out at a restaurant. I only go out when I'm off-service, or my pager's signed out to someone else in/by the hospital.
OK -- now how stupid is a fugitive for giving his real name to anyone?
Feudalism
Clearly you've done a lot of homework on this subject, and I'll have to spend some more time investigating. I'll readily admit that these are compelling arguments for wind-turbines -- and that my initial reservations may be less sound that I thought. Thanks for all the data.
Incidentally, I'm especially upset (embarassed?) about falling for the false quotation attributed to the Sierra club. I'm even more disturbed that I bit at something thrown out by the Cato people.
Just goes to show you, you can't always believe what you read...
And I was an HR guy at one of these firms -- the one that rhymes with "poopers". Have you looked at where these folks are now? I left shortly before the industry tanked, but I kept in touch enough to know those days are over...
Unfortunately, I have entered the medical field, where it seems the same hours and effort are expect of doctors, for far less compensation.
Guess what ?-- seems like the field is unionizing.
To summarize: nobody likes being worked into the ground, and it rarely pays off in the long run.
For some reason, this got posted below as an AC, but I didn't want it to seem like I was trying to hide from flaming, hence the repost. Sorry about that.
Anyway, here's my points:
First of all, relax -- I wasn't attacking anyone, and I think things got really angry really fast. I absolutely admit I'm not an expert in this area, but, here: 1) The islands in question are quite densely populated. Nantucket island has a substantial year-round population which mushrooms in the summer. 2) Not bullshit at all. For example, the Sierra Club referred to these things as "Cuisinarts of the air"... I suppose I should be more skeptical, but I'm not about to go out and do body counts of mangled birds across the world. That's what ecologists/field biologists do. And, in respect to office buildings being a greater killer of birds, well, sure -- in absolute numbers... But what types of birds are killed in cities (where there are office buildings) vs those in the rural/suburban areas wind farms tend to be in? I think the effect on biodiversity stands to be much greater with the windmills. A slaughter of 100,000 pigeons a year is ecologically insignificant when compared with the death of, say, 5 Californian condors. 3) I'm not so much "complaining" as suggesting that the best solution for energy generation is one that maximizes return. Hey, you're right -- these people are entitled to spend their money whatever way they want. And I'm entitled to ask myself if it is an efficient expenditure of captial if I want. Just because they're spending their own money doesn't mean I have to think it makes necessarily makes sense, right? Â 4) Honestly, I don't remember where I heard about the cost-benefit analysis of windmills, but I could look it up again. It was a relatively recent source, though. To cut to the chase, what the article seemed to be saying was that at this juncture, wind power doesn't provide a compelling rate of return when compared with the drawbacks.
Is it true? Damned if I know. Seemed to be relatively unbiased and even handed, although I suppose it could have been a planted article from a tainted source (something indirectly sponsored by the currently entrenched energy suppliers). My point was, at least some folks are saying that the ecological drawbacks to mass-scale wind-power right now are large -- and this should be clearly supported or debunked. And, AFAIK, that hasn't been done yet, and people who don't live near these things seem to not want to consider possible drawbacks.