You aren't making the webserver do anything other than its normal activity. It sends you the file. You not only view the file and save it in your cache like normal visitors, but manually save it as a jpeg. That action happens only on your computer in the US. You then upload the file to en.wikipedia in the US. None of the infringing actions take place in the UK. Legally, the UK has no jurisdiction. Practically, though, judges do whatever they like.
No, the UK copying is done by all visitors to the NG's website, so unless they are claiming that all visitors to their site are infringing, the alleged infringement did not occur in the UK. The non-evanescent copies that could potentially be infringing were only on the user's computer and on Wikipedia's servers, which if located in the US are not under UK jurisdiction.
I don't think we here in the US have a terrible problem of people dropping dead in the streets, nor fleeing to other countries to get treated....?
The mortality rate is higher in the US than France for nearly every age group, esp. the younger groups. The infant mortality rate in particular is nealy 50% higher in France than in the US (4.2 vs. 6.4/1000) Medical costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US. If you don't have enough money in the US you often won't get treated and may die.
.
Many people in the US are going to Mexico or Thailand to get surgeries that would cost hundreds of % more in the US.
Yes, if you mean incandescent bulbs. Long life = thicker filament = higher conductivity = moe current. CFLs, however are a different story. Cheap CFLs are often shorter life and lower efficiency than ones with better quality and higher price. The OP was talking about CFLs.
The OP is wrong about CFLs being closer to sunlight in color than incandescents. CFLs are said to have a higher color temperature, but this is not realy accurate - they have a huge spike in the blue end of the spectrum, but the spectrum is not a thermal spectrum. All efficient fluorescents have low color accuracy and are less similar to sunlight's spectrum than incandescents, particularly halogens which have both a true thermal spectrum and a high color temperature. Fluorescents also have overstated lives - output declines dramatically over time and at the end of their lives even electronically-ballasted ones flicker, causing serious negative psychological effects in many people. Also throwing away ballasts with each bulb as happens with CFLs is extremely wasteful.
With such a light weight, huge wing area and flying at low altitude this plane will get tossed about like a leaf in a hurricane in the slightest turbulence. I don't think autopilots can cope with that.
In Clifford / Geometric Algebras, which are the correct type of algebras for physics, if there are n dimensions (orthogonal vectors) then there are 2^n degrees of freedom. The grades of the degrees of freedom go by the rows of Pascal's triangle.
For 3-D that is 1 scalar (for real number coefficients), 3 vectors (x,y,z), 3 bivectors (xy, yz, zx - planes of rotation) and 1 pseudoscalar (xyz - volume). (xy = outer product of x and y, often written x^y. x^y = -y^x)
In 4-D space-time: 1 scalar (n) - 4 vectors (x,y,z,t) - 6 bivectors (xy, yz, zx, xt, yt, zt -the latter 3 are velocities revealed as rotations)- 4 trivectors - (xyz, xyt, yzt, zxt - the latter 3 are spins) - 1 pseudoscalar (xyzt). ("t" will have a square (inner product, x^2=x.x) opposite in sign to the other three dimensions, usually t^2=1 x^2=-1.)
Google "geometric algebra tutorial" for more about the physical meaning. It beats the hell out of cross products, quaternions, and many applications of linear algebra and tensors.
God damn, not this shit again. How do you tell people what they think tastes good and tastes bad? It's all up to the individual. I can't stand the taste of beer, any beer and I've tried my fair share, yet that's an absolutely huge industry so surely there are just a lot of people out there that just have bad taste right?
Yes, you have bad taste. Anyone who can stand the taste of artificial sweeteners is less perceptive than those who find the stuff absolutely loathsome. There is no evidence of bad taste that even comes close to that of a tolerance for artificial sweeteners. Hummel figurines, black velvet paintings, Pleather, vans with sunsets painted on the sides, avocado shag carpet and wearing polyester Quiana shirt knockoffs with gold chains are all less bad taste than preference for artificially sweetened drinks over water or plain iced tea.
However, anyone who thinks diet soda tastes better than beer should be encouraged to drink the diet chemical poison, leaving more beer for those of us who aren't so perceptually impaired.
It should be noted that sleep deprivation in humans for similar periods of time has not let to death or ill health.
You mean other than reducing mental health, memory, judgment, executive function, pattern recognition, reaction speed, visual acuity, strength, stamina, productivity and essentially every test of mental and physical function? Lack of sleep is often fatal when treating patients, driving, piloting or operating machinery.
Well, they used to believe that your blood pressure would naturally go up as you aged and your arteries would naturally harden as you aged. It turned out that it isn't so - these conditions are disease processes more commonly found after years of eating an unhealthy diet.
I think that the increase in insomnia among the elderly is also likely to be the result of disease processes, and that insomnia is a large part of the reason why the elderly are usually markedly less creative, mentally adaptable and able than they were when they were younger, and if such people got a decent week's sleep, they would show dramatically improved mood and mental ability.
True,there are some people who need only 6 hours of sleep, and modern societies try to make everybody believe that they should be like that, but assuming a symmetrical distribution with an 8hr. average there will be just as many people who really need 10 hours of sleep and for whom getting 7 hours will have the same effects as an average person getting 5 hours. The people who need more sleep are screwed when it comes to college or typical work schedules, let alone professions that traditionally haze new members with sleep deprivation. MD internships are impossible for people who need 10 hours sleep to complete without severe effects on their health, and the certainty of misjudgments, often fatal for their patients.
Touche. Perhaps I also shouldn't criticize opium smokers' and MUMPS programmers' antique pastimes when oxycontin, Java, and Oracle are so much more popular senseless wastes of life.
But my argument was that the price is high compared to the development costs, leaving plenty of money for training, at least if the design of the program is explicable. Illogical designs are hard to explain, and companies that make bad designs aren't likely to be good at training, either.
The linked article seemed to be a disconnected stream of poorly-sourced assertions and decontextualized distortions from a retired community college professor of philosophy who presents standard experimental analysis as "resorting to complex statistics", claims that all minds are illusory and makes totally unsupported claims in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence that "magical thinking", covert communications channels and bad random number generators are responsible for the repeatedly independently demonstrated results. (D-)
Well there is plenty of evidence, actually, you should read up on it if you are interested in being informed. Start with Dean Radin's talks and bibliographies.
Actually the evidence for near-term precognition and telepathy is quite strong and repeatable even with experiments carefully designed to eliminate all potential confounding effects. See Dean Radin's review of the published, peer reviewed evidence in his talk at Google..
Possible physical mechanisms have been proposed as well. It's not really woo anymore for those interested in science and evidence rather than dogmatic pack scientism.
WTF? Did you mean to post this somewhere else? The GP post brought up many good first-hand obsevations about the problems caused by insurance companies and the lack of standardization of billing procedures. There was no Obama bashing at all, let alone racism. To suggest that the administration (that includes more people than just Obama) has an undisclosed agenda is hardly bashing, considering there are so many of the usual suspects in the cabinet and other high-level positions and the administration's plan to a forgo single-payer or Edwards-type health-care plan and instead keep the insurance parasites in the system, but now with guaranteed profits in addition to their existing legal immunity.
I'm sorry but I just have to say this. Couldn't all these issues be cleared up by simply typing the notes into the record yourself? Properly trained, a person can type as fast or faster than they can comfortably speak so it wouldn't be losing much if any time at that step. It would save the hospital the cost of the transcription service.
No, most people can't type anything like as fast as they can speak, many, even most most doctors can't type as fast as they can write and many people cannot type at more than 20 wpm no matter how much time they take from more important things to practice typing. Inability to type quickly should not be a bar to being a doctor. Also, using a $150,000 / yr. doctor to do the work of a $30,000 / yr. transcriptionist is just not economically sound. And yes, they did go to school too long and get paid too much to be their own secretaries, their pride is often not misplaced, and it is the computer, administrative, governmental, insurance and financial systems designs that are broken rather than doctors being too lazy to type.
The program should usually not dictate the workflow. The program is a tool, not a master. Furthermore, there are infinite variations that come up in the real world that make nonsense of any fixed workflow or flowchart. Any fixed workflow or database structure will cause unending stupidity, aggravation and worse when applied to the real world of complex situations, imperfect, freeform data, tentative diagnoses, and unforeseen situations.
Doctors should not be typing, nor should they be waiting much more than twice as long as it took them to record the words for dictation to be in the records. Text-to speech with live, trained transcriptionist correction could speed things up, but taking hours for notes to be entered is mostly an administrative failure.
1.there is evidence in the article and its attached comments that the system was effectively unusable and substantial tacit evidence of the competence of the health professionals from their licensure requirements.
2.The software could not have been perfect, because there is no EHR software that in any way approximates perfection, and even if there were, a system that is hard to use by its intended users is imperfect by definition. If the staff was improperly trained, then that is the software company's fault - for thousands of dollars per seat-year for a copy of software that is mostly decades old that they never clean up, they can afford to train their customers. They probably did, in the same slipshod fashion they consructed their steaming pile of MUMPS.
3. Your point has no apparent relation to the post to which you replied. The GP described "typical IT projects" and "short-term gold rush" of the present multi-billion dollar initiative as ""an environment that doesn't lend itself to patience, thoroughness and careful consideration"; that description was not of hospitals. Perhaps you "watch way too much TV and need a reality check" yourself, but certainly you could use some practice in reading.
On the other hand, the government says they don't have to pay you for tests unless they think that the test was either likely to have abnormal results beforehand or actually did have abnormal results, and those results determined treatment. Negative results that determined (lack of) treatment may not be reimbursable. So quite often potentially crucial tests aren't run and doctors just try one guesswork treatment after another, which isn't supposed to be reimbursed either, but usually is anyway based on the weight of paperwork that no one usually wants to look at too closely and the idea that the doctor was actually doing something (even if ineffective or even counterproductive) rather than sitting around running up the bill with tests, even useful ones. That's my imperfect understanding, anyway.
Doctors never order tests with costs and odds like you describe unless the patient is rich and paying cash, and usually not even then.
But it doesn't count as a leak if someone from or properly authorized by a government agency asks for the information. Or your insurance company, which may be your employer. A prospective insurance company could deny coverage if you won't give access to old records. There is no effective privacy given by HIPAA against many of the people who might actually want to look at your records that you would want to keep out. What protections there are are rarely enforced, and exist mostly as one more threat that the government can use if it ever needs to whip anyone involved in healthcare into line.
Slashdot Mirror
You aren't making the webserver do anything other than its normal activity. It sends you the file. You not only view the file and save it in your cache like normal visitors, but manually save it as a jpeg. That action happens only on your computer in the US. You then upload the file to en.wikipedia in the US. None of the infringing actions take place in the UK. Legally, the UK has no jurisdiction. Practically, though, judges do whatever they like.
No, the UK copying is done by all visitors to the NG's website, so unless they are claiming that all visitors to their site are infringing, the alleged infringement did not occur in the UK. The non-evanescent copies that could potentially be infringing were only on the user's computer and on Wikipedia's servers, which if located in the US are not under UK jurisdiction.
oops - that should be: "the infant mortality rate.. is nearly 50% higher in the US than in France."
I don't think we here in the US have a terrible problem of people dropping dead in the streets, nor fleeing to other countries to get treated....?
The mortality rate is higher in the US than France for nearly every age group, esp. the younger groups. The infant mortality rate in particular is nealy 50% higher in France than in the US (4.2 vs. 6.4 /1000) Medical costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US. If you don't have enough money in the US you often won't get treated and may die.
.
Many people in the US are going to Mexico or Thailand to get surgeries that would cost hundreds of % more in the US.
Yes, if you mean incandescent bulbs. Long life = thicker filament = higher conductivity = moe current. CFLs, however are a different story. Cheap CFLs are often shorter life and lower efficiency than ones with better quality and higher price. The OP was talking about CFLs.
The OP is wrong about CFLs being closer to sunlight in color than incandescents. CFLs are said to have a higher color temperature, but this is not realy accurate - they have a huge spike in the blue end of the spectrum, but the spectrum is not a thermal spectrum. All efficient fluorescents have low color accuracy and are less similar to sunlight's spectrum than incandescents, particularly halogens which have both a true thermal spectrum and a high color temperature. Fluorescents also have overstated lives - output declines dramatically over time and at the end of their lives even electronically-ballasted ones flicker, causing serious negative psychological effects in many people. Also throwing away ballasts with each bulb as happens with CFLs is extremely wasteful.
With such a light weight, huge wing area and flying at low altitude this plane will get tossed about like a leaf in a hurricane in the slightest turbulence. I don't think autopilots can cope with that.
The commenter went to more trouble than the story submitter and shouldn't have to. Furthermore, this story is stupid and boring, as is your post.
In Clifford / Geometric Algebras, which are the correct type of algebras for physics, if there are n dimensions (orthogonal vectors) then there are 2^n degrees of freedom. The grades of the degrees of freedom go by the rows of Pascal's triangle.
For 3-D that is 1 scalar (for real number coefficients), 3 vectors (x,y,z), 3 bivectors (xy, yz, zx - planes of rotation) and 1 pseudoscalar (xyz - volume). (xy = outer product of x and y, often written x^y. x^y = -y^x)
In 4-D space-time: 1 scalar (n) - 4 vectors (x,y,z,t) - 6 bivectors (xy, yz, zx, xt, yt, zt -the latter 3 are velocities revealed as rotations)- 4 trivectors - (xyz, xyt, yzt, zxt - the latter 3 are spins) - 1 pseudoscalar (xyzt). ("t" will have a square (inner product, x^2=x.x) opposite in sign to the other three dimensions, usually t^2=1 x^2=-1.)
Google "geometric algebra tutorial" for more about the physical meaning. It beats the hell out of cross products, quaternions, and many applications of linear algebra and tensors.
Orangina uses glucose.
And it tastes really bad.
God damn, not this shit again. How do you tell people what they think tastes good and tastes bad? It's all up to the individual. I can't stand the taste of beer, any beer and I've tried my fair share, yet that's an absolutely huge industry so surely there are just a lot of people out there that just have bad taste right?
Yes, you have bad taste. Anyone who can stand the taste of artificial sweeteners is less perceptive than those who find the stuff absolutely loathsome. There is no evidence of bad taste that even comes close to that of a tolerance for artificial sweeteners. Hummel figurines, black velvet paintings, Pleather, vans with sunsets painted on the sides, avocado shag carpet and wearing polyester Quiana shirt knockoffs with gold chains are all less bad taste than preference for artificially sweetened drinks over water or plain iced tea.
However, anyone who thinks diet soda tastes better than beer should be encouraged to drink the diet chemical poison, leaving more beer for those of us who aren't so perceptually impaired.
It should be noted that sleep deprivation in humans for similar periods of time has not let to death or ill health.
You mean other than reducing mental health, memory, judgment, executive function, pattern recognition, reaction speed, visual acuity, strength, stamina, productivity and essentially every test of mental and physical function? Lack of sleep is often fatal when treating patients, driving, piloting or operating machinery.
Well, they used to believe that your blood pressure would naturally go up as you aged and your arteries would naturally harden as you aged. It turned out that it isn't so - these conditions are disease processes more commonly found after years of eating an unhealthy diet.
I think that the increase in insomnia among the elderly is also likely to be the result of disease processes, and that insomnia is a large part of the reason why the elderly are usually markedly less creative, mentally adaptable and able than they were when they were younger, and if such people got a decent week's sleep, they would show dramatically improved mood and mental ability.
True,there are some people who need only 6 hours of sleep, and modern societies try to make everybody believe that they should be like that, but assuming a symmetrical distribution with an 8hr. average there will be just as many people who really need 10 hours of sleep and for whom getting 7 hours will have the same effects as an average person getting 5 hours. The people who need more sleep are screwed when it comes to college or typical work schedules, let alone professions that traditionally haze new members with sleep deprivation. MD internships are impossible for people who need 10 hours sleep to complete without severe effects on their health, and the certainty of misjudgments, often fatal for their patients.
Touche. Perhaps I also shouldn't criticize opium smokers' and MUMPS programmers' antique pastimes when oxycontin, Java, and Oracle are so much more popular senseless wastes of life.
But my argument was that the price is high compared to the development costs, leaving plenty of money for training, at least if the design of the program is explicable. Illogical designs are hard to explain, and companies that make bad designs aren't likely to be good at training, either.
The linked article seemed to be a disconnected stream of poorly-sourced assertions and decontextualized distortions from a retired community college professor of philosophy who presents standard experimental analysis as "resorting to complex statistics", claims that all minds are illusory and makes totally unsupported claims in the face of overwhelming counter-evidence that "magical thinking", covert communications channels and bad random number generators are responsible for the repeatedly independently demonstrated results. (D-)
Well there is plenty of evidence, actually, you should read up on it if you are interested in being informed. Start with Dean Radin's talks and bibliographies.
Actually the evidence for near-term precognition and telepathy is quite strong and repeatable even with experiments carefully designed to eliminate all potential confounding effects. See Dean Radin's review of the published, peer reviewed evidence in his talk at Google..
Possible physical mechanisms have been proposed as well. It's not really woo anymore for those interested in science and evidence rather than dogmatic pack scientism.
WTF? Did you mean to post this somewhere else? The GP post brought up many good first-hand obsevations about the problems caused by insurance companies and the lack of standardization of billing procedures. There was no Obama bashing at all, let alone racism. To suggest that the administration (that includes more people than just Obama) has an undisclosed agenda is hardly bashing, considering there are so many of the usual suspects in the cabinet and other high-level positions and the administration's plan to a forgo single-payer or Edwards-type health-care plan and instead keep the insurance parasites in the system, but now with guaranteed profits in addition to their existing legal immunity.
Unfortunately, that would be a huge improvement over the current systems.
I'm sorry but I just have to say this. Couldn't all these issues be cleared up by simply typing the notes into the record yourself? Properly trained, a person can type as fast or faster than they can comfortably speak so it wouldn't be losing much if any time at that step. It would save the hospital the cost of the transcription service.
No, most people can't type anything like as fast as they can speak, many, even most most doctors can't type as fast as they can write and many people cannot type at more than 20 wpm no matter how much time they take from more important things to practice typing. Inability to type quickly should not be a bar to being a doctor. Also, using a $150,000 / yr. doctor to do the work of a $30,000 / yr. transcriptionist is just not economically sound. And yes, they did go to school too long and get paid too much to be their own secretaries, their pride is often not misplaced, and it is the computer, administrative, governmental, insurance and financial systems designs that are broken rather than doctors being too lazy to type.
The program should usually not dictate the workflow. The program is a tool, not a master. Furthermore, there are infinite variations that come up in the real world that make nonsense of any fixed workflow or flowchart. Any fixed workflow or database structure will cause unending stupidity, aggravation and worse when applied to the real world of complex situations, imperfect, freeform data, tentative diagnoses, and unforeseen situations.
Doctors should not be typing, nor should they be waiting much more than twice as long as it took them to record the words for dictation to be in the records. Text-to speech with live, trained transcriptionist correction could speed things up, but taking hours for notes to be entered is mostly an administrative failure.
Your post should not have been modded up -
1.there is evidence in the article and its attached comments that the system was effectively unusable and substantial tacit evidence of the competence of the health professionals from their licensure requirements.
2.The software could not have been perfect, because there is no EHR software that in any way approximates perfection, and even if there were, a system that is hard to use by its intended users is imperfect by definition. If the staff was improperly trained, then that is the software company's fault - for thousands of dollars per seat-year for a copy of software that is mostly decades old that they never clean up, they can afford to train their customers. They probably did, in the same slipshod fashion they consructed their steaming pile of MUMPS.
3. Your point has no apparent relation to the post to which you replied. The GP described "typical IT projects" and "short-term gold rush" of the present multi-billion dollar initiative as ""an environment that doesn't lend itself to patience, thoroughness and careful consideration"; that description was not of hospitals. Perhaps you "watch way too much TV and need a reality check" yourself, but certainly you could use some practice in reading.
A bad system is worse than none. If the professionals can't use the system because of its bad design, the problem is not with the professionals.
On the other hand, the government says they don't have to pay you for tests unless they think that the test was either likely to have abnormal results beforehand or actually did have abnormal results, and those results determined treatment. Negative results that determined (lack of) treatment may not be reimbursable. So quite often potentially crucial tests aren't run and doctors just try one guesswork treatment after another, which isn't supposed to be reimbursed either, but usually is anyway based on the weight of paperwork that no one usually wants to look at too closely and the idea that the doctor was actually doing something (even if ineffective or even counterproductive) rather than sitting around running up the bill with tests, even useful ones. That's my imperfect understanding, anyway.
Doctors never order tests with costs and odds like you describe unless the patient is rich and paying cash, and usually not even then.
But it doesn't count as a leak if someone from or properly authorized by a government agency asks for the information. Or your insurance company, which may be your employer. A prospective insurance company could deny coverage if you won't give access to old records. There is no effective privacy given by HIPAA against many of the people who might actually want to look at your records that you would want to keep out. What protections there are are rarely enforced, and exist mostly as one more threat that the government can use if it ever needs to whip anyone involved in healthcare into line.