Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Nov 2006 08:31 In article <4569E7A3.48FF43B(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Thatcher was quite mad. >> > >> > I saw no evidence of madness in her book about her years in Downing >> > Street. >> >> That really doesnt surprise me. >> >> >>She reckoned you could run a country like a small high street shop. She >> > fancied >> >>herself as royalty of a type too. Quite barking mad, like an eccentric >> >>aunt perhaps. >> > >> > This is your conclusion because she stopped obeying union leaders >> > who were Communists and had a clear agenda of instilling this >> > political theory in all corners of your country? >> >> Incorrect. It is a conclusion because she dismantled the UK's industry and >> devastated the UK economy for the next decade. > >And used the income from North Sea oil to pay to keep 4 miilion was it ? on the >dole. Which is an example of her mindset still quite socialist. It is the duty of "royalty" to tend to his subjects. When that responsibility tranfers from an extended family to a political non-entity, it's socialism that quickly turns to some form of communism. > >As a result the UK never really benefitted from being an oil exporting nation. > >Yet more missed opportunities. Are they still on the dole? And do you not export oil yet? Thatcher has been out for two decades. Do you really want me to believe that it's her fault that your citizry still can't be self-sufficient without government handouts? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Nov 2006 08:57 In article <ekdeha$906$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <ekc862$8qk_001(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eka0ov$lag$14(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >[...] >>>>You are not understanding what I'm talking about. Each piece of >>>>paper was created to solve a problem. >>> >>>As you agree below, that problem may not exist anymore. It also may not >>>have existed on the day it was "solved". >> >>Sure it did. You don't understand how processes evolve. > >So, please explain how this special case of the human endeavour manages to >be free from the "fictional problem" problem. If it is, it is the only >example in the universe. > > >>>>step was created to solve a problem. >>> >>>You are assuming no "blockers" were involved. Blockers create extra >>>paperwork because they see paperwork as an ends not a means. >> >>No, they see it as a means of control. That is what processes need. > >No, blockers see paperwork as the end not a means. That is one of the >defining characteristics of a blocker. > > >>>>work flows, and knowledge flows change over time. Most of >>>>processes that change require a piece of paper to make sure >>>>the step was accomplished. Over time, the reason for some >>>>these steps may disappear. However, the step and its paper >>>>will never disappear until somebody vigourously weeds it out. >>> >>>So, you admit that there *is* needless paperwork. I would suspect there is. Identifying which pieces are needless takes long study and very careful tweaking. >> >>Processes evolve. What once was necessary is only there because >>deleting the step would cause more breakage; leaving the step >>in doesn't break anything. > >Ok, so you *do* admit that there is needless paperwork. Oh, good grief. What is going on now? > >[....] >>>It is also because once a system works at all many people will assume it >>>is perfect. >> >>ARe you kidding? Everybody bitches about the other guy's control. > >No, I'm not kidding try to change anything in almost any company and see >it at work. I've seen it several times. This was part of my responsibility. I worked for a decade tweaking a process so that needless steps didn't intefere with our distribution system and development cycles. Eliminating a "needless" inhouse paperwork could cause all customers to crash. There is also the case where the original reason for a piece of paper has disappeared but the paper is used for a new function. Do you call this needless because it is no longer needed for the original reason? > >[....] >>>No, we were talking about the economic effect of the needless paperwork. >> >>I'm saying that you cannot identify which is needless. > >I don't need to identify which bit is needless. All I need is to know >that there is needless paper work and we can go on to the subject of the >drag it places on the economy. No, you can't. > > >> I can think >>of some cases, where a delay is inserted in a process so that the >>processing works more smoothly. The delay, by itself, is completely >>unnecessary; howver, in context of the whole process, it is >>what keeps the timing exactly correct. > >What in the neame of Zeus are you talking about? Think of a PERT chart. In some cases, you want to delay the rate of development of one part of a project until another piece is finished. > > >>>As soon as we agree that some must exist, we can go onto the real core of >>>the discussion about the economics. >> >>No, we can't. You keep using an incorrect assumption. I don't see >>how using a false premise is going to create any useful discussion >>because conclusions using a false premise will produce thread drifts. >>They would be a waste of our ASCII time. > >No, my assumption is correct. You have already admitted that there is >needless paper work. There are also green apples. Continuing a design discussion based on a set of incorrect specs is useless. > > >> >>Once more I'll try an analogy even though they don't seem to work >>in this thread. >> >>You are essentially asking me to assume that any high school >>chemistry lab can make gold out of pencil erasers. Then >>you want to discuss the effects of shutting down all gold >>mines on the economy. > >No, I wish to talk about filling out form 1287-B about eraser to gold >conversion. If you fill out that form, you waste some of your time. This >is what we are talking about. Needless paperwork is a drag on the >economy. I said nothing about stopping a productive activity. So why was the form 1287-B required? If it had no use, it would have been created because nobody would have thought of needing a form. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 09:08 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> And yet, you are talking about health care. The politicians > >> >> in this don't talk about that; they talk about insurance > >> >> as something everybody deserves. > >> > > >> >Is it actually real insurance or notional insurance ? > >> > >> It is what our politicians mean when they advocate national > >> health _insurance_ which also means a single-payer system. > > > >So it may not actually be real insurance supplied by a commercial insurance > >company ? > > Not really. Watch the how the money flows. Taxes go into > government coffers. My estimation is that it will go into > the general fund, as usual. After paying all overhead, > disbursements go back to state administrators, who take > a cut and then move it to the adminsistrators of health > care providers who take a cut and then the bills are paid. > > This isn't insurance even though our pols are calling it > that. It is a single-payer system, as your NHS is. Changes > will not be driven by market pressure, but by political pressure. > Changing laws can take decades. For each new treatment or new > disease or new situation, a new law has to be passed rather > than science issuing new research findings. " For each new treatment or new disease or new situation, a new law has to be passed " Pull the other one.it's got bells on it. Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Nov 2006 09:10 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:a5561$456a320c$4fe4a0f$24482(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >>>In article <24c3f$4569e4d0$4fe775f$22843(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>[... crack addicts ....] >>> >>> >>>>Well if the Brits want to help them so much...... >>> >>> >>>If it cost $10 a day to keep them off drugs, it is cheaper than putting >>>them in jail. The brits want to help them. This may be the more >>>practical answer even though I don't see how they can keep an addict away >>>from drugs. >> >>That's really the whole point. They can't be kept away from >>drugs unless they're confined, and even then for various >>reasons guards in any number of jurisdictions have been >>known to sneak drugs to them. > > > Which is why spending money to jail them is not a good option, unless the > intention is to detain the offender for the rest of their life - eventually > they are released and are allowed to cause problems back in polite society. The druggie problem is usually a dual one. The largest percentage resort to crime to acquire the funds with which to purchase. Long term incarceration tends to reduce the crime rate. For women, the crime is usually prostitution in the most careless modes, and that yields to disease transmission. > Treatment is not massively effective, but it is slightly more effective than > detention. I can accept that even without proof. These maters have been argued to death for decades. > If it does prove to be cheaper over the long term then the low pass rate may > become a moot point as generally cost wins most arguments for spending > public money. This is one realm where studies help. The government used to put out a triennial report on drug addiction. I haven't seen the last two or three. > There is always the option to just shoot them, but that is pretty drastic. I was suggesting we ship them to the UK. :-) >>There's what appears to be an insurmountable problem dealing >>with addicts and addiction. Empathy and kindness is taken >>as a sign of weakness to be used to advantage against anyone >>extending help to them. > Not always. A significant percentage of drug addicts appreciate and respond > to the empathy - yes a larger percentage fall to the lure of their chemical > addictions more, but not all. I've known a few middle class ones fighting the addiction from time to time. In the end it went from what appeared to be simple drug addiction to drig addition combined with pretty severe psychosis. The triennial report I mentioned above had some correlation between the drug of choice and the particulars of the mental illness. > It is not just people with addictions to recreational drugs who have this > problem though. While the effects of the addiction may well differ massively > there are still lessons to be learned when it comes to weaning each type of > addict off. I live in a rural area, in a poor county. One judge wears all the judicial hats. One of the functions is called "drug court." While he's extremely harsh with criminal offenses, often someone originally arrested for criminal offenses gets transferred to his drug court where things are more lenient and he works with the offender to try to wean them off. It is usually a cycle of AA or NA and if needed some psychotherepy (with no insurance, the state picks up the tab) and frequnt random substance abuse testing. When they fail, they're immediately arrested and carted back to jail. In the early stages "slips" are expected, but 30, 60, and 90 day stays are the consequence in the later stages. The individual granted drug court leniency ha to sign a contract with the court at the outset, agreeing to the program. They can refuse and be sent back to deal with their charges in criminal court instead. The biggest problem is the least expensive, alcohol. This county expends a lot of time and effort on individuals with substance abuse problems. I should go ask what their failure rate is. >>It would be nice to be able to do something for them that >>works and actually provides rehabilitation, but that >>doesn't seem to be in the cards unless some significant >>advance is made in medicine. > Sadly true. At the moment it is a toss up between two far from ideal > options. Wonder what sort of $ would result from "a cure" if there is a single one. Antabuse hasn't seemed to get too good a play.
From: Eeyore on 27 Nov 2006 09:16
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <ekco6n$g1o$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <ekc2ig$8ss_002(a)s963.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>In article <ek9rql$lag$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >>>In article <ek9i5l$8qk_003(a)s1007.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>It's similar to my inability to understand > >>>>how royalty functioned in Europe. > >>> > >>>It isn't that complicated. > >> > >>You don't understand what I'm talking about. I can't explain it > >>better. > > > >Ok, I guess I don't. > > Let me try. I was told the story of a king who was so ill > he should have been in bed. However, because he was king > he had to attend a function where he had to sit for hours > and hours. Because he did his kingly duty instead of treating > his infection, he died from the infection. I was told that > the option of skipping this function would have never occurred > to royalty as a choice. > > I don't think I can ever understand that flavor of a mindset. > But Europeans have no trouble understanding it; they even > expect it. In the USA, I gather the pressure to go into work even if you're unwell is quite high. Same thing really. Graham |