Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 09:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eicme4$8qk_001(a)s950.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45474872.18139E02(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >>> >Europe uses a centralized payment for medical care, as do Canada and > Japan. >>> >They cover everybody and spend less. >>> >>> And deliver less service over a longer period of time. This >>> is not the way medicine works to be effective. Mess prevention >>> is a key element in treating disease. The only timely treatment >>> these systems are good at is treating people who are well. >> >>Really ? I got an appointment @ 08:20 with a GP ( your MD ) for 10:50 and >>I >>would have gone direct to the Path Lab for a blood test ( ~ 300 yds away ) > had >>it not been a Tuesday when it opens @ 12:30. I went direct to a >>Pharmacist > and >>had taken my first dose of medication by 12:00 and it's feeling better > already. >> >>Not good enough ? > > That sounds like an infection and is usually a short-term treatment. > I'm thinking about stuff that is longer. For instance, if you > need an elective surgery done to fix something that is a little bit > broke and have to wait for that surgury, by the time you get > it treated the brokeness is much more serious and needs more > fixing. And this just the one thing that is broken. The side > effects of the body coping with the small breakage can be > even more problematic to fix. Back and joint problems fall > into this category. I required an operation on my calf. I went to see the doctor, was sent for a pressure study that afternoon and booked into surgery for a date which suited me (two and a half weeks later). All on the NHS. >> >>> That's not what medical insurance is supposed to do. Medical >>> insurance used to supply coverage for extraordinary circumstances. >>> Now it does the opposite. >> >>Maybe in your country. > > Yes. That's what our politicians want us to endure. I've listened > to Canadian wives whose husbands had to wait for treatment. They > were very critical of the medical systems. But they will never > say that out loud in front of their men because that would deflate > the confidence of these males in their health care. That loss can be > fatal for men. Amazing set of assumptions.
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:07 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:454B3CBE.A095A610(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> In article <1162480833.859040.321890(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, >> "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >> > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >[....] >> >> >Actually, yes, GDP includes things that are exported. >> >> >> >> One doesn't export intellectual property. It's not a thing. >> > >> >What a curious comment. Care to expand on it? >> >> I'll try. Let's try it this way....I know a piece of knowledge. >> This is intellectual property. I write it down on a piece of >> paper. Unless I formally put it into a corporate structure, >> anybody can use it to make their widget which then gets sold. > > If you 'give it way' for sure. And in any case, the investment made to get it (your wages, mostly) are specfically counted in the GDP. > The whole thing about IP is either (a) keeping it secret / proprietary or > (b) > patenting it, in which case the info enters the public domain but you get > a > 'licence' by virtue of the patent to use it exclusively ( or license the > technology ) for the period of the patent. > > It's essentially a 'bargain' between Governmemt and inventor to encourage > invention ( by means of patent protection ) in return for placing the > invention > in the public domain which will ultimately aid others too. Well put. It's amazing how few people actually understand the purpose and workings of patents. Even some of the people I've worked with in industry. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:10 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4549E5F7.B1BC4A45(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> I listen to people and their stories rather than cite an >>> anonymous survey put out by the government. >> >>What 'anonymous survey' ? > > The government survey. It has removed all personal experience > out of the report. I used to keypunch these kinds of surveys > in college. The personal part is never included. Sure it is. "Are you satisfied with..." is a summary of all of those personal experiences. > surveys I keypunched was a study about retirement of faculty. > 50% were very bitter, a.k.a extremely unhappy. The prof > doing the study never read the margins of the questionaires. > He only did numerical analyses of the questions answered. > His preliminary results was the retirement program the college > had was acceptable until I mentioned that there were a lot of > people who were very bitter. Yeah, so? That bitterness is a good summary of those peoples' personal experiences. How does that invalidate the study? > What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program > is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages > of service delivery counts. Then you'd better get prepared to listen to hundreds of millions of them, because one or two just won't cut it. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Nov 2006 09:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eifeh1$8qk_004(a)s820.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > What counts with measuring the effectiveness of any social program > is the individual stories, not the cut and dried percentages > of service delivery counts. And yet you prefer to believe impersonal books when learning about what Islam is all about, instead of talking to actual Muslims. Your hypocrisy on this issue suggests that you don't intrinsically prefer one or the other (anecdotes or data), but rather in any given situation, you just pick and choose what you believe by how well it supports your assumptions and preconceived notions. Nice. Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 3 Nov 2006 09:13
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ei4sfp$8qk_003(a)s787.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <cb1d3$45452d8a$4fe72af$23817(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>snip >> >>> Nothing about annihilation of western civilization is amusing. >>> This is serious business and it will take another three massive >>> killings before the insane politicians are thrown out and >>> ones who are willing to deal with problem constructively are >>> put back in power. >> >>Those who persist in denying the announced and obvious >>end up driving the defensive system towards an eventual >>dictatorial authority. >> >>Hitler's Mein Kampf was not a secret. The agenda was >>mapped out in advance. Militant Islam has been advocating >>against the west for decades. Despite the protestations >>of some, it is a religion spread by violence and has been >>from the day that Mohammed decided he was heading up a >>new religion. >> >>If we look at British conduct in the face of Hitler's >>growing menace, we see the same sorts of appeasement >>as is being promoted in these related threads. In the >>case of Britain, they eventually put Churchill in >>charge. He was one of those "last choice" sorts of >>men that the appeasers disdained. They historically >>worked hard to derail him but there came a moment >>of truth when they were finally unable to deny the >>realities facing them any longer, and needed a >>strong man to drive them towards victory. By that >>time they were in trouble, so America was pulled >>into the fray, with its own dictator style president >>at the helm replaced eventually (after death) by a >>sleeper sort of a strong man who didn't hesitate to >>use the atomic bomb to end the Pacific war. >> >>How many today would have the nerve to actually use a >>nuclear weapon? Certainly none of the appeasers here >>want that to happen, but by their actions they're >>driving the system towards the point where other >>options will cease to exist. >> >>Unfortunately, with the sorts of "good human beings" >>we're encountering in this newsgroup, we'll probably >>evenually get to the point where we'll have to use >>our own final solution to the problem by using nukes. >> >>History has taught us that it is a much smaller mess >>if you take care of business and protect yourself >>early in the game, rather than late. Keep on ignoring >>all of history folks. I'll be investing in uranium >>futures. > > Thank you. You write better than I do. Very nicely written. It may be well written in some sense, yet is it far from an accurate account. |