That didn't bother me as much as saying that it "clocks in" at 200 pounds. I know, I know, it's just a metaphor, but I really don't like the idea of measuring weight with a clock, given NASA's past unit conversion problems...
Hm, I saw a neat calculator for this a while back. The Wikipedia article on 401(k) references it but doesn't say further. I'll dig up more substantiation in the future.
(Worst comes to worst, you can borrow from it and flee the country...)
Whatever. I'm just telling you how it is from the clinician's side of the fence.
No. From the clinician's side of the fence it has always been "guy regularly seeing you for treatment has had pain with no alleviation that severely impedes everyday life, complains about pain in back. And neck and shoulders and arms and front of thigh." What you "TOLD ME HOW IT IS" was "guys runs into ER demanding morphine", which never happened.
Why my theories don't fit the data, I change them. What do you do, Bayesian?
What's interesting about your case is the early age of onset.
Okay, in the sense that children born without legs are "interesting".
Have you had workup done for spondyloarthropathies?
No, the 12 highly-trained highly qualified physicians that have treated me as a long-term patient never mentioned, ergo it must not be possible that that would help, right?
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The moment you give the waiter your order at a restaurant you are in debt. Now, you may well pay that debt off when they give you the bill. However, that is a side issue.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The moment a cashier rings up your order at the supermarket you are in debt. Now, you may well pay that debt off within the next three seconds. However, that is a side issue.
Pay your full CC bill when it arrives, before the deadlines, and it costs you nothing beyond your purchase price. Plus, it (somehow) gives conclusive evidence you are creditworthy. (Don't ask me how their system works, I haven't sold my soul.)
Yes, this means not dumping all the money into retirement accounts, as you're going to need a chunk of it earlier.
You can withdraw early from retirement accounts without penality as long as you take "substantially equal distributions" as calculted by various IRS formulas. There are sites that can guide you through it. The relevant term is "42(t) withdrawl", 42(t) being the part of the tax code that allows it.
Well, sad to say, but you go into an emergency room demanding morphine, and everyone in there thinks they've got themselves a drug abuser, never mind that you might be actually sick. One of the easiest ways to get a physician to stop listening to you is to start talking about pain meds.
That would be a neat trick, considering I've never been to an emergency room, nor have I initiated discussion of any back pain drug. You are right though, how much it would compromise medicine if someone could get effective pain medication after complaining about debilitating back pain for ten years starting at age 16 and for whom physical therapy (x3), chiropracty (sp), steroidal injection in the lumbar region, electrotherapy, massage therapy, and various anti-inflammatories were ineffective, and who has no history of drug abuse and for whom all blood tests have shown no illegal or unprescribed drugs.
Keep the insulting, baseless, false theories coming! (You know, if you're anything like all the other people who have tried armchair diagnoses of my problems, I'll offer to cede personal privacy and send you documentation to back all of that up, at which point you'll fumble out an excuse like, "Oh, I don't know how to read those reports.")
But, as crass as it sounds, no one ever died of pain. Oh, you may die because of the underlying condition/disease/mechanical trauma/torture that's causing your pain, but pain itself is not fatal.
I hadn't realized they could even make your grade of asshole.
-You're missing the point. The GGP claimed that doctors are trained in scientific methodology. If true, that would imply a much better ability to apply Bayesian inference. Not just "better than laymen". -It certainly matters to the patient whether they're suffering, even if it doesn't kill them. Why doesn't the doctor know enough to mention the latest treatments? -While I'm not familiar with the specifics of this recertification, it's again hard to reconcile with the effectiveness of "talk to your doctor about [new treatment he's too ignorant to stay current on]" ads. -No, I haven't noticed such standardization. What I have noticed is that doctors fiercely resist rote protocols that are provably more accurate than their "judgment". What I've noticed is one doctor considering my debilitating pain enough to prescribe morphine, while another says to "deal with it".
You know, anyone who's read my posts will know I'm the greediest capitalist out there. I don't have any love for people who get into debt without thinking about the consequences. Esp. the mortgage idiots who are surprised to see an adjustable rate adjust. So on any other issue, I'd be on your side.
But most of what credit card companies do is too much, even for me.
For example, look at this. Bank of America gave this guy a big credit limit at a "fixed" rate of 6.9%. Then he borrowed on that for wedding expenses, at which point it immediately shot up to 20%. Now, we can debate the merits of going that far into debt for that purpose. And certainly, the fine print allowed that. But advertising a 7% rate that becomes 20% if you have the audacity to actually take the offer? It's legalized fraud.
And on top of that, you have to get a credit card to exist in the financial system, even if you don't borrow against it.
(And then there's the whole issue of why the risk-free rate is so low despite the non-existent savings rate for Americans...)
Yep, exactly my point: you don't want the tax code to be simplified because then you couldn't punish the rich as easily. And next you're going to complain about how much tax accountants and tax attorneys make, and how programmers are teh oppressed! Go fig. Just, go fig.
But wouldn't you agree the made-up support team's response was about what I got from the forums?
-Ask to do stuff I already tried? Check. -Pretend like a download/burn failure could cause this specific problem? Check. -Give inconsistent story about which CD is needed to fix boot errors? Check. -Ignore information about error message? Check. -Focus on irrelevant Windows usage? Check. -Feigning surprise that someone would run Ubuntu in a completely anticipated, common environment? Check.
I know a lot of what I've said about Ubuntu has cost me a lot of fans and gained me some freaks. (How mature!) Comments on other issues have been well-respected. Even after the revenge modding I still have excellent karma.
The reason I keep bringing this up is that people make my exact same design criticisms (that I made on Ubuntu) in many, many other contexts, and then get modded to 5. You'd almost think there was a sacred cow here...
I see your point, but the architect would be more analagous to a physician's assistant or pharmacist, while the final client (owner of the building when completed) would be the counterpart to the patient. And when the client requests a change, it's because that change applies directly to the functionality he wants (appearance, capacity, etc.), even if he doesn't understand that it will undermine the functionality in some other critical way (at which point the engineer will stop him).
In contrast, when a patient requests a change, it is because he *believes* it will have the effect of improving the functionality along a critical dimension, based on a neat-o ad. But if this is a viable alternative, why didn't the doctor bring it up first? In my experience (and everyone I've talked to), it's more like:
"Um... try to eat right... and get more sleep... just try to learn to cope with your problem, don't let it get you down." "What about Neophil [thinking about TV ad]?" "Uh... sure, that'll work too... if that's what you want."
That's a very passionately-argued position you hold, but it's kind of hard to reconcile with how
-Doctors routinely get Bayesian inference horribly wrong. -Doctors routinely change their treatment regimens based on an ignorant patient's suggestion. (else why would pharmas invest so much in TV ads and drug bimbos?) -Doctors are more than happy to mandate strict entry requirements, but not require that they be routinely re-tested based on the latest science. -Why there's so much subjectivity in medicine (why doctors can disagree on treatment).
Yeah, I assumed it meant Virginia too, specifically VA Tech's "meltdown". My first assumption was that it was referring to some IT failure related to the shooting (I know, I know, *smacks head*), e.g. some kid not able to upload his cell phone video of the shooting to YouTube quickly enough.
Hey -- I didn't design my brain's pattern recognition systems.
-Um, we can't access any data for some reason. "Are you using the latest version, Hairy Hardon?" -No, but... "I guess your CD must not have been burned properly." -No, it says, quite clearly, GRUB error 25 at Stage 1.5. What does that mean? "What you need to do is go download the Live CD." -But you said the Install CD *is* the Live CD! "Can't you just wait till tomorrow or something? Asking for Ubuntu to work in a hospital is totally non-standard, you should have said so at the beginning, I mean, who the hell expects it work in such an unusual environment?" -Can you just tell me what GRUB error 25 is? "What version of Windows did you use before switching? LOL, Windows users..."
I didn't know you could buy off such a major official for only $5500. "Oh, sure, I'll risk public shame and losing all my influence in exchange for a week's pay."
Let me get this straight, if I want to sell a product, I have to follow the law? You're right, that's horrible, no wonder Germany is such a third-world country known for hating modern technology.
Yeah, I hear IBM followed German law pretty much to the letter since running operations there. I don't remember it slowing them down any.
(I know, I know, Godwin... but when you reduce someone's complaint about the kafkaesqueness of law to a criticism of all law, in a discussion about Germany, I think I'm justified in saying that.)
"Yes, the evidence establishes that the defendant's IP address was used to download a Britney Spears album on a P2P network. However, it still allows for the possibility that the *person* who downloaded it was a catburglar who snuck in at night without the defendant knowing, downloaded the files, and left. Therefore, IP logs should have no probative value in computer crime cases."
Yep, welcome to the modern world: where people deny the obvious to avoid legal liability.
-The further you are from retirement, the greater the fraction of your portfolio should be in stocks. This is not investment advice. -I can feel, deep inside me, your later husband's presence, it's like he's talking to me, and he's telling me that he wants you to move on. This is for entertainment purposes only. -For an upset stomach, drink a solution of baking soda, roughly 1 teaspoon diluted in one cup. This is not medical advice.
Flamebait? Sheesh, that was a valid point, although it could have been "nicer".
The function of insurance, as such, is to spread a risk across a pool, where you don't know who will get what, except in a probabilistic sense.
We all surely feel for those who are stuck with a genetic disease they had no control over, but if we collectively value health coverage for these diseases, we should be willing to pay for it collectively, NOT mandate that all insurance companies act as hybrid insurer-charities, which would just force them to try to avoid the uninsurable diseases in more insidious ways. That means: having the government pay for treatment of these diseases, rather than making insurance companies our whipping boys.
On a side note, this concern for equality many express here is not very general. Maleness is genetic, but I don't see any outrage over insurers (car, life, etc.) charging males more. Why is that?
Slashdot Mirror
That didn't bother me as much as saying that it "clocks in" at 200 pounds. I know, I know, it's just a metaphor, but I really don't like the idea of measuring weight with a clock, given NASA's past unit conversion problems...
Hm, I saw a neat calculator for this a while back. The Wikipedia article on 401(k) references it but doesn't say further. I'll dig up more substantiation in the future.
(Worst comes to worst, you can borrow from it and flee the country...)
Okay, I had an experience that directly contradicted this claim, but since evidence doesn't matter to you, there's not much point in discussing it.
Whatever. I'm just telling you how it is from the clinician's side of the fence.
No. From the clinician's side of the fence it has always been "guy regularly seeing you for treatment has had pain with no alleviation that severely impedes everyday life, complains about pain in back. And neck and shoulders and arms and front of thigh." What you "TOLD ME HOW IT IS" was "guys runs into ER demanding morphine", which never happened.
Why my theories don't fit the data, I change them. What do you do, Bayesian?
What's interesting about your case is the early age of onset.
Okay, in the sense that children born without legs are "interesting".
Have you had workup done for spondyloarthropathies?
No, the 12 highly-trained highly qualified physicians that have treated me as a long-term patient never mentioned, ergo it must not be possible that that would help, right?
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The moment you give the waiter your order at a restaurant you are in debt. Now, you may well pay that debt off when they give you the bill. However, that is a side issue.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The moment a cashier rings up your order at the supermarket you are in debt. Now, you may well pay that debt off within the next three seconds. However, that is a side issue.
Pay your full CC bill when it arrives, before the deadlines, and it costs you nothing beyond your purchase price. Plus, it (somehow) gives conclusive evidence you are creditworthy. (Don't ask me how their system works, I haven't sold my soul.)
Yes, this means not dumping all the money into retirement accounts, as you're going to need a chunk of it earlier.
You can withdraw early from retirement accounts without penality as long as you take "substantially equal distributions" as calculted by various IRS formulas. There are sites that can guide you through it. The relevant term is "42(t) withdrawl", 42(t) being the part of the tax code that allows it.
Well, sad to say, but you go into an emergency room demanding morphine, and everyone in there thinks they've got themselves a drug abuser, never mind that you might be actually sick. One of the easiest ways to get a physician to stop listening to you is to start talking about pain meds.
That would be a neat trick, considering I've never been to an emergency room, nor have I initiated discussion of any back pain drug. You are right though, how much it would compromise medicine if someone could get effective pain medication after complaining about debilitating back pain for ten years starting at age 16 and for whom physical therapy (x3), chiropracty (sp), steroidal injection in the lumbar region, electrotherapy, massage therapy, and various anti-inflammatories were ineffective, and who has no history of drug abuse and for whom all blood tests have shown no illegal or unprescribed drugs.
Keep the insulting, baseless, false theories coming! (You know, if you're anything like all the other people who have tried armchair diagnoses of my problems, I'll offer to cede personal privacy and send you documentation to back all of that up, at which point you'll fumble out an excuse like, "Oh, I don't know how to read those reports.")
I was going to respond in full, but ...
But, as crass as it sounds, no one ever died of pain. Oh, you may die because of the underlying condition/disease/mechanical trauma/torture that's causing your pain, but pain itself is not fatal.
I hadn't realized they could even make your grade of asshole.
-You're missing the point. The GGP claimed that doctors are trained in scientific methodology. If true, that would imply a much better ability to apply Bayesian inference. Not just "better than laymen".
-It certainly matters to the patient whether they're suffering, even if it doesn't kill them. Why doesn't the doctor know enough to mention the latest treatments?
-While I'm not familiar with the specifics of this recertification, it's again hard to reconcile with the effectiveness of "talk to your doctor about [new treatment he's too ignorant to stay current on]" ads.
-No, I haven't noticed such standardization. What I have noticed is that doctors fiercely resist rote protocols that are provably more accurate than their "judgment". What I've noticed is one doctor considering my debilitating pain enough to prescribe morphine, while another says to "deal with it".
You know, anyone who's read my posts will know I'm the greediest capitalist out there. I don't have any love for people who get into debt without thinking about the consequences. Esp. the mortgage idiots who are surprised to see an adjustable rate adjust. So on any other issue, I'd be on your side.
But most of what credit card companies do is too much, even for me.
For example, look at this. Bank of America gave this guy a big credit limit at a "fixed" rate of 6.9%. Then he borrowed on that for wedding expenses, at which point it immediately shot up to 20%. Now, we can debate the merits of going that far into debt for that purpose. And certainly, the fine print allowed that. But advertising a 7% rate that becomes 20% if you have the audacity to actually take the offer? It's legalized fraud.
And on top of that, you have to get a credit card to exist in the financial system, even if you don't borrow against it.
(And then there's the whole issue of why the risk-free rate is so low despite the non-existent savings rate for Americans...)
Yep, exactly my point: you don't want the tax code to be simplified because then you couldn't punish the rich as easily. And next you're going to complain about how much tax accountants and tax attorneys make, and how programmers are teh oppressed! Go fig. Just, go fig.
But if we simplify the tax code, that would benefit the rich! --- Actual barrier to reform.
But wouldn't you agree the made-up support team's response was about what I got from the forums?
-Ask to do stuff I already tried? Check.
-Pretend like a download/burn failure could cause this specific problem? Check.
-Give inconsistent story about which CD is needed to fix boot errors? Check.
-Ignore information about error message? Check.
-Focus on irrelevant Windows usage? Check.
-Feigning surprise that someone would run Ubuntu in a completely anticipated, common environment? Check.
I know a lot of what I've said about Ubuntu has cost me a lot of fans and gained me some freaks. (How mature!) Comments on other issues have been well-respected. Even after the revenge modding I still have excellent karma.
The reason I keep bringing this up is that people make my exact same design criticisms (that I made on Ubuntu) in many, many other contexts, and then get modded to 5. You'd almost think there was a sacred cow here...
I see your point, but the architect would be more analagous to a physician's assistant or pharmacist, while the final client (owner of the building when completed) would be the counterpart to the patient. And when the client requests a change, it's because that change applies directly to the functionality he wants (appearance, capacity, etc.), even if he doesn't understand that it will undermine the functionality in some other critical way (at which point the engineer will stop him).
... try to eat right ... and get more sleep ... just try to learn to cope with your problem, don't let it get you down." ... sure, that'll work too ... if that's what you want."
In contrast, when a patient requests a change, it is because he *believes* it will have the effect of improving the functionality along a critical dimension, based on a neat-o ad. But if this is a viable alternative, why didn't the doctor bring it up first? In my experience (and everyone I've talked to), it's more like:
"Um
"What about Neophil [thinking about TV ad]?"
"Uh
That's a very passionately-argued position you hold, but it's kind of hard to reconcile with how
-Doctors routinely get Bayesian inference horribly wrong.
-Doctors routinely change their treatment regimens based on an ignorant patient's suggestion. (else why would pharmas invest so much in TV ads and drug bimbos?)
-Doctors are more than happy to mandate strict entry requirements, but not require that they be routinely re-tested based on the latest science.
-Why there's so much subjectivity in medicine (why doctors can disagree on treatment).
Yeah, I assumed it meant Virginia too, specifically VA Tech's "meltdown". My first assumption was that it was referring to some IT failure related to the shooting (I know, I know, *smacks head*), e.g. some kid not able to upload his cell phone video of the shooting to YouTube quickly enough.
Hey -- I didn't design my brain's pattern recognition systems.
-Um, we can't access any data for some reason.
"Are you using the latest version, Hairy Hardon?"
-No, but...
"I guess your CD must not have been burned properly."
-No, it says, quite clearly, GRUB error 25 at Stage 1.5. What does that mean?
"What you need to do is go download the Live CD."
-But you said the Install CD *is* the Live CD!
"Can't you just wait till tomorrow or something? Asking for Ubuntu to work in a hospital is totally non-standard, you should have said so at the beginning, I mean, who the hell expects it work in such an unusual environment?"
-Can you just tell me what GRUB error 25 is?
"What version of Windows did you use before switching? LOL, Windows users..."
I didn't know you could buy off such a major official for only $5500. "Oh, sure, I'll risk public shame and losing all my influence in exchange for a week's pay."
Let me get this straight, if I want to sell a product, I have to follow the law? You're right, that's horrible, no wonder Germany is such a third-world country known for hating modern technology.
... but when you reduce someone's complaint about the kafkaesqueness of law to a criticism of all law, in a discussion about Germany, I think I'm justified in saying that.)
Yeah, I hear IBM followed German law pretty much to the letter since running operations there. I don't remember it slowing them down any.
(I know, I know, Godwin
Hm, how much does it cost to get someone to say:
"Yes, the evidence establishes that the defendant's IP address was used to download a Britney Spears album on a P2P network. However, it still allows for the possibility that the *person* who downloaded it was a catburglar who snuck in at night without the defendant knowing, downloaded the files, and left. Therefore, IP logs should have no probative value in computer crime cases."
Surprise =/= non-consensual
That meme doesn't have enough truth in it to make it funny.
Wanna find a weasely term for rape? Try "pre-consensual".
Yep, welcome to the modern world: where people deny the obvious to avoid legal liability.
-The further you are from retirement, the greater the fraction of your portfolio should be in stocks. This is not investment advice.
-I can feel, deep inside me, your later husband's presence, it's like he's talking to me, and he's telling me that he wants you to move on. This is for entertainment purposes only.
-For an upset stomach, drink a solution of baking soda, roughly 1 teaspoon diluted in one cup. This is not medical advice.
When is SourceForge going to return slashdot.org to Bennett Haselton? And what can we do about unscrupulous domain squatters in the future?
Flamebait? Sheesh, that was a valid point, although it could have been "nicer".
The function of insurance, as such, is to spread a risk across a pool, where you don't know who will get what, except in a probabilistic sense.
We all surely feel for those who are stuck with a genetic disease they had no control over, but if we collectively value health coverage for these diseases, we should be willing to pay for it collectively, NOT mandate that all insurance companies act as hybrid insurer-charities, which would just force them to try to avoid the uninsurable diseases in more insidious ways. That means: having the government pay for treatment of these diseases, rather than making insurance companies our whipping boys.
On a side note, this concern for equality many express here is not very general. Maleness is genetic, but I don't see any outrage over insurers (car, life, etc.) charging males more. Why is that?
Oh, right...
No mater how secure a company claims to be, you can't expect them to not fallow the law.
Oh, but I *can* expect them not to render the law useless!