You know, some surgeons are total assholes. Sorry about that.
let MD wages plummet from $400k down to around $100k where they ought to be, end hazing practices in residency programs, regulate their hours worked just the same as we regulate truck drivers' hours and for the same reasons too, and a lot of these problems will solve themselves.
Who wants to work the 11p-7a shift for $100k? Hint: it's not the same caliber of person you get for $400k, and they're going to be a lot less tolerant of going into $300k of debt to do it. Medicine is like any other engineering discipline: cheap, good, fast, pick two.
"Premed" is not a major at most universities. You major in biology, or chemistry, or physics, or music, or whatever. Being premed is almost orthogonal to that. I was a straight-up chemistry major who decided to go to med school during my senior year of college. As it turned out, I didn't need any additional classes to go to med school - I had taken freshman bio as a distributional requirement.
My experience as a chemistry major was that all chem majors are into fire, drugs, or both, with the exception of my organic chemistry lab partner and one of my P-chem lab partners. Don't know about the first one. The second was that rarest of rare things: someone who wanted to teach high school science but actually majored in science and took a few education courses rather than majoring in education and taking a few science courses. If you have Mrs. Raybould, count yourself lucky. She knows her stuff and took the hard classes like a big girl.
There are shortages in some areas because some areas are bad places to live. Depends on what field you're talking about. For general practice, you're going to have to be somewhere that you can make a living off the number of people in the area. Poor, thinly populated areas don't have doctors because they can't support one.
It's not that it's all memorization, so much as that you have to memorize an enormous body of work before you can even begin to understand the basic questions. It's difficult to explain the hard parts of any given field to other doctors who did a different residency.
I met up with my lab partners for drinks before our last P chem class, the one where the professor summarized an entire semester of quantum in one lecture. It actually made more sense when I was slightly buzzed.
You've got to weed them out at some point, and you're a heartless ass to let them go through an entire program if they really don't have a chance. Weed early and often.
That said, as a chemistry major who decided to go to med school when I was a senior, I think it would be better still if we went to British-style medical education. The needs of physicians and chemists are different enough that they should be taught in separate classes. As a trivial example, doctors don't need to know that Grignard reagents exist. As others point out, spending that time on a rigorous education in statistics would serve them much better.
can't figure out basic statistics to save somebody's life.
To be fair, most non-statisticians can't figure out basic statistics to save their life. It's a deceptively hard field.
I wrote a one-page stats bible for my residency program called "How to Get Every Stats Question Right on the Anesthesiology Boards". Last I heard, they were still making copies of it six years later.
You're quite correct about it being courts rather than cops, but they're equally fine with it. I can't think of a plausible case of defensive gun use that has even gone before a grand jury around here - a few years ago, an older gentleman shot some thieves trying to break into his business, and the district attorney praised him the next day.
I did figure out part of the problem we've had so far - you work under very different standards of self defense. I live in a "castle doctrine" state, which means that my rights inside my home and on my own property are extremely broad - no duty to warn, no duty to retreat, no duty to use minimum force. If you're in my house and not actively running away from me, I can kill you.
if they see you have a gun when they are kicking you on the ground, they might pick it up and kill you with it.
Maybe, but if they're the type who would kill someone they've just mugged, I'm guessing that whether or not I carry one is really beside the point. Besides, I carry concealed - not open.
The problem is, how do you know that the people using weapons to defend aren't actually the type of people who may end up getting so angry that they use it in an offensive manner?
Angry? What does angry have to do with anything? Angry people will kill with whatever's at hand. Crazy people shoot up groups. Criminals kill people because they're rivals, or because they're in the way, or because they want something.
If you can explain some reasons why semi-automatic guns are more effective that non-lethal alternatives, then feel free to let me know.
Sure: dead men don't fight any more. How much more effective do you want to get? And what mistakes are you talking about? As the saying goes: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away (and in a lot of places, that's 15-20 minutes, not 3-5 - a long time to sit around with a pissed-off criminal in your house). BTW, the Taser is a less-lethal weapon, not a nonlethal.
It's one thing to defend yourself with a pistol. It's another proving that you were acting in self defense, and its another entirely different case to prove why it wasn't manslaughter.
There is so much wrong with this statement that I can't even wrap my mind around it. If it's self-defense, it's not manslaughter. It's self-defense. A criminal who enters people's homes doesn't advertise "I'm only here for the TV", after all. The presumption must be that he is there to visit bodily harm - rape or murder - on the inhabitants. Someone who breaks into my home invites summary execution, and the local police are perfectly fine with that.
The United States of America isn't like any other country. It's sort of defined by not being every other country on earth. And if it sometimes falls very far short of everything that it could and should be, that doesn't make the whole thing wrong.
Wake me up when American gun ownership has killed as many people as the political ideologies of Europe killed between 1914 and 1945.
Look up "Mississippi enhanced carry". I can carry a gun anywhere except a courtroom that's in session (unless judge permits), a police station/jail/detention facility, or where prohibited by federal law (e.g., the post office). Anywhere else is perfectly legal. Even if there's a sign saying "No weapons", it's only trespassing if they ask me to leave and I refuse.
This happened in a state that doesn't have a shall-issue concealed carry law.
My permit, OTOH, allows me to carry a weapon inside the passenger terminal of an airport. The TSA wouldn't let me past security with it, but I can carry it loaded until I check it for the flight, and if I forget it's on me and accidentally carry it in, it's not a violation of state law.
Not invalid, I suppose, but consider it this way: by outsourcing primary defense to the USA, Canada has been able to position itself as the Luxembourg of North America.
Slashdot Mirror
let MD wages plummet from $400k down to around $100k where they ought to be, end hazing practices in residency programs, regulate their hours worked just the same as we regulate truck drivers' hours and for the same reasons too, and a lot of these problems will solve themselves.
Who wants to work the 11p-7a shift for $100k? Hint: it's not the same caliber of person you get for $400k, and they're going to be a lot less tolerant of going into $300k of debt to do it. Medicine is like any other engineering discipline: cheap, good, fast, pick two.
"Premed" is not a major at most universities. You major in biology, or chemistry, or physics, or music, or whatever. Being premed is almost orthogonal to that. I was a straight-up chemistry major who decided to go to med school during my senior year of college. As it turned out, I didn't need any additional classes to go to med school - I had taken freshman bio as a distributional requirement.
My experience as a chemistry major was that all chem majors are into fire, drugs, or both, with the exception of my organic chemistry lab partner and one of my P-chem lab partners. Don't know about the first one. The second was that rarest of rare things: someone who wanted to teach high school science but actually majored in science and took a few education courses rather than majoring in education and taking a few science courses. If you have Mrs. Raybould, count yourself lucky. She knows her stuff and took the hard classes like a big girl.
Depends on the school. I've at least heard it called orgo before.
There are shortages in some areas because some areas are bad places to live. Depends on what field you're talking about. For general practice, you're going to have to be somewhere that you can make a living off the number of people in the area. Poor, thinly populated areas don't have doctors because they can't support one.
It's not that it's all memorization, so much as that you have to memorize an enormous body of work before you can even begin to understand the basic questions. It's difficult to explain the hard parts of any given field to other doctors who did a different residency.
I met up with my lab partners for drinks before our last P chem class, the one where the professor summarized an entire semester of quantum in one lecture. It actually made more sense when I was slightly buzzed.
You've got to weed them out at some point, and you're a heartless ass to let them go through an entire program if they really don't have a chance. Weed early and often.
That said, as a chemistry major who decided to go to med school when I was a senior, I think it would be better still if we went to British-style medical education. The needs of physicians and chemists are different enough that they should be taught in separate classes. As a trivial example, doctors don't need to know that Grignard reagents exist. As others point out, spending that time on a rigorous education in statistics would serve them much better.
can't figure out basic statistics to save somebody's life.
To be fair, most non-statisticians can't figure out basic statistics to save their life. It's a deceptively hard field.
I wrote a one-page stats bible for my residency program called "How to Get Every Stats Question Right on the Anesthesiology Boards". Last I heard, they were still making copies of it six years later.
I did figure out part of the problem we've had so far - you work under very different standards of self defense. I live in a "castle doctrine" state, which means that my rights inside my home and on my own property are extremely broad - no duty to warn, no duty to retreat, no duty to use minimum force. If you're in my house and not actively running away from me, I can kill you.
if they see you have a gun when they are kicking you on the ground, they might pick it up and kill you with it.
Maybe, but if they're the type who would kill someone they've just mugged, I'm guessing that whether or not I carry one is really beside the point. Besides, I carry concealed - not open.
He moved east, not west. Earlier.
Why on earth would you want the sun out until midnight?
The problem is, how do you know that the people using weapons to defend aren't actually the type of people who may end up getting so angry that they use it in an offensive manner?
Angry? What does angry have to do with anything? Angry people will kill with whatever's at hand. Crazy people shoot up groups. Criminals kill people because they're rivals, or because they're in the way, or because they want something.
If you can explain some reasons why semi-automatic guns are more effective that non-lethal alternatives, then feel free to let me know.
Sure: dead men don't fight any more. How much more effective do you want to get? And what mistakes are you talking about? As the saying goes: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away (and in a lot of places, that's 15-20 minutes, not 3-5 - a long time to sit around with a pissed-off criminal in your house). BTW, the Taser is a less-lethal weapon, not a nonlethal.
It's one thing to defend yourself with a pistol. It's another proving that you were acting in self defense, and its another entirely different case to prove why it wasn't manslaughter.
There is so much wrong with this statement that I can't even wrap my mind around it. If it's self-defense, it's not manslaughter. It's self-defense. A criminal who enters people's homes doesn't advertise "I'm only here for the TV", after all. The presumption must be that he is there to visit bodily harm - rape or murder - on the inhabitants. Someone who breaks into my home invites summary execution, and the local police are perfectly fine with that.
And, of course, this subreddit wouldn't exist. Guns are used for good far more than for bad.
Which is to say, it would have been useless.
The United States of America isn't like any other country. It's sort of defined by not being every other country on earth. And if it sometimes falls very far short of everything that it could and should be, that doesn't make the whole thing wrong.
Wake me up when American gun ownership has killed as many people as the political ideologies of Europe killed between 1914 and 1945.
You can't take a gun into an airport in California, either. Didn't stop this guy.
... and surrender your 4A rights.
Airports are not full of armed guards. Security, yes, but not armed guards. And we're in favor of citizens carrying weapons, not just cops.
permit a carbine in .25 ACP for taking elk, while forbidding .220 Swift for elk or .17 Remington for deer
But that's safe, because a .25 isn't even going to get through the elk's skin except at point-blank range.
Look up "Mississippi enhanced carry". I can carry a gun anywhere except a courtroom that's in session (unless judge permits), a police station/jail/detention facility, or where prohibited by federal law (e.g., the post office). Anywhere else is perfectly legal. Even if there's a sign saying "No weapons", it's only trespassing if they ask me to leave and I refuse.
I bet you they'd call a .22 LR a high-powered rifle. I mean, it shoots supersonic bullets!
This happened in a state that doesn't have a shall-issue concealed carry law.
My permit, OTOH, allows me to carry a weapon inside the passenger terminal of an airport. The TSA wouldn't let me past security with it, but I can carry it loaded until I check it for the flight, and if I forget it's on me and accidentally carry it in, it's not a violation of state law.
Not invalid, I suppose, but consider it this way: by outsourcing primary defense to the USA, Canada has been able to position itself as the Luxembourg of North America.
That might have something to do with the fact that the USA and Australia are on the Pacific, and the UK isn't.