Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:32 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eii0gf$8ps_004(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <i5I2h.499$Mw.441(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>><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? >> >>The conclusions from the data showed the opposite. >> >>> >>>>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. >> >>It isn't just one or two. It is everyone I listened to plus >>relatives of in-laws who needed the service. > > > How many did you listen to? How many relatives? What percentage of the total > did this reflect? How did you ensure your sample was representative and not > just people with complaints? > > >>The only ones >>who thought Canada's medical system was wonderful were those >>husbands who were very, very sick. > > > How can you make a claim like this? Did you speak to _every_ one? > > You were the first to complain about the data sample methods and conclusions > in the Lancet report, yet here you seem to be more than happy to weigh > personal anecdote over data. Failure analysis is critical to understanding how well, or badly, any system works.
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:34 MooseFET wrote: > unsettled wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>>In article <S8J2h.682$Mw.315(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote in message >>>>news:1162566543.051602.226320(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>It is likely that he will give it a try. This week's comments were a >>>>>botched joke. We already knew that Kerry can't tell a joke to save his >>>>>life so in the long run it won't matter. What will matter is that he >>>>>has already lost one election and it is likely that the voters will >>>>>never forgive him for that. >>>>> >>>>>In the US they have things called "primaries" where the folks from the >>>>>same party run against each other for the right to run in the general >>>>>election. Kerry is not likely to come in above 4th place in the >>>>>primaries where three people are running. >>>> >>>>Good lord, I hope not. >>> >>> >>>I've been telling that the Democrat leadership are insane. >> >>It is an appeasement repeat taken from from Britain's >>history at the early stages of WW1 and WW2. We can't >>defend liberty by appeasing those who would end it. > > > Are you suggesting that it was the Democrats that close the Prince > Sultan Airbase? It was the republicans that did that. This along with > the other blundering about on the world stage has made the US much less > safe for the future. > Only you would equate blunders with appeasement
From: MooseFET on 4 Nov 2006 12:35 T Wake wrote: [....] > > Now, think about an Islam decision that uses a similar tactic > > which involves a shutdown of all oil shipments. > > Ok. I have thought about possible Islamic decisions which would use similar > tactics and dismissed them all as either idiotic or ineffective. First > though, I though about which "Islam" could make such a decision. I have also > though about the fact that there are non-Islamic countries which produce > oil. I am sure most OPEC nations would baulk at bankrupting themselves just > to reduce the oil they export to the west. Venezuela ships it North more than west. Some of the Islamic leaders would increase production if another Islamic leader of the wrong stripe suggested an embargo. A far bigger risk is that a few large multinational corporations could gain control of the oil industry and conspire to force prices up to increase their profits.
From: Eeyore on 4 Nov 2006 12:37 unsettled wrote: > Arab = Muslim Mainly. And Muslim does not mean Arab. Graham
From: unsettled on 4 Nov 2006 12:37
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:eii3bf$8nc_006(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>In article <454B8CBB.216F8FE1(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>They seem to be doing better than the US with a lot less money >>>>>>>>>for >>>>>>>>>health care. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Could it be the drug costs that make this difference? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why do so may US medical practicioners prescibe expensive drugs >>>>>> >>>>>>They don't. >>>>> >>>>>My advice is that they *do* ! >>>>> >>>>>In fact I know a chap in the USA whose wife's preferred drugs were so >>>>>prohibitively expensive that they couldn't afford them and had to 'make >> >>do' >> >>>>>withsomething cheaper. >>>>> >>>>>Maybe we have different ideas of 'expensive' ? In the UK an NHS course >>>>>of >>>>>drugscosts ?6.50 ( ~ $12.30 ). >>>> >>>>Is that your copayment? >>> >>>We call it a precription charge. >> >>OK. The US' term is copayment. > > > It is an interesting choice of words the US has coined. > > >>>It's a flat rate for any course of one single >>>drug which might be from 7 days to say 3 months. So if your treatment >>>needs 2 >>>drugs you pay ?6.50 ea for them. >>> >>> >>> >>>>What do they really cost? >>> >>>I've no idea. Usually more but not always since the NHS >>>makes extensive use of >>>generics which they ( and the pharmacists ) can buy in >>>bulk and get a good price on. >> >>This means that you don't have access to any improved drugs. >>The patent period, IRRC, in the US is 20 years. With your >>drug plan, you have to use 20-year old medical drug technology. > > > Not always. You have misread his post. The NHS makes extensive use of > generics but they are not the *only* choice. If I'm not mistaken, the physician must be able to justify prescribing higher priced medicines. > That said, the approval cycle for a new drug is quite long now - this is a > good thing though. > > >>>>From what >>>>I've read about UK social programs a lot of real costs are hidden >>>>because a lot is subsidized. >>> >>>That's the whole point. If your drugs cost say ?200 you still only pay >>>?6.50. >>>This means good health care is affordable for all regardless of income. >> >>So who is paying for the rest of the cost? $200-$6.50=$193.50 >>(I don't have a pound sign so I'll use dollars). > > > Like all state funded institutions, taxpayers pay for the rest. > > I am sure you think this is a bad thing, but it really isn't. > > >>>The appointment with the doctor or consultant is free of course since >>>they're >>>employed by the NHS ( actually these days the local Primary Care Trust ). >> >>Just because you don't pay for it does not mean there are no costs >>for that delivery of service. Somebody is paying for suppplies, >>labor, footprint, cleaning, disposing, etc. > > > Yes. This is why we pay taxes. > > |