Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[Clay]

On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

  ...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

  ...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

Clay

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article
<c283953b-9bc5-49c8-8ec0-a7fce2bc2b58@t38g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Clay <clay@claysturner.com> wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

  ...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

  ...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

Clay

How about texting while operating in the OR?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Clay wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

YES!!! Doctors need to learn better and safer methods of removing
cell phones from people after they have a wreck, and embed it into their
bodies.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org>
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor

all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

Bret Cahill

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
problem with that?

Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.

Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....

Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?

Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

Sheeeish. Good fucking grief.

Utter silence from the "Rune Allnor" moron. Science: it works,
bitch.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[Les Cargill]

Clay wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

Clay

In his book "The Checklist Manifesto", Atul Gawande describes how he
*radically* reduced patient injury by medical personnel by introducing
.... checklists. ISBN-13: 978-0805091748

No clue whether this has caught on or not, but the book sold well.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:24:16 -0800 (PST), Clay <clay@claysturner.com>
wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:55=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

=A0 ...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

=A0 ...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

Clay

I doubt addressing causes of auto accidents precludes addressing
medical mistakes as well.

Part of the basic issue is that there are much better statistics
available for causes of auto accidents than there are for medical
errors (actual cause, preventable or not, etc., etc.), and it's
probably more practical to influence individual driver behavior than
the medical community which is traditionally resistant to change.

Low hanging fruit and all that.

This is, however, one of the reasons that there's a push to move more
IT and data automation into the medical community so that the record
keeping (and data collection opportunities) improves. The stimulus
package included funding for Health Care IT partly to help address the
issue you raise.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think addressing any sort
of accident prevention is a bad idea.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:24:16 -0800 (PST), Clay <clay@claysturner.com
wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:55=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

=A0 ...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

=A0 ...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

Clay

I doubt addressing causes of auto accidents precludes addressing
medical mistakes as well.

Part of the basic issue is that there are much better statistics
available for causes of auto accidents than there are for medical
errors (actual cause, preventable or not, etc., etc.), and it's
probably more practical to influence individual driver behavior than
the medical community which is traditionally resistant to change.

Low hanging fruit and all that.

This is, however, one of the reasons that there's a push to move more
IT and data automation into the medical community so that the record
keeping (and data collection opportunities) improves. The stimulus
package included funding for Health Care IT partly to help address the
issue you raise.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I don't think addressing any sort
of accident prevention is a bad idea.

The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time. Every
visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
they can call up anything they need. Every prescription I've had is on
file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
something new is prescribed. It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
transcribed. It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
whoever was logged into a patient's file.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/17/2011 2:52 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

...

The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time. Every
visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
they can call up anything they need. Every prescription I've had is on
file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
something new is prescribed. It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
transcribed. It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
whoever was logged into a patient's file.

It will take more than paperless. When my doctor sent me to a local ER
to get a dog bite stitched up (it turned out not to need stitching) the
front desk knew all about me, including allergies to penicillin and
antihistamines, and that my tetanus shots were up to date. (It did no
good to explain that penicillin was only a suspicion, and that the
problem with antihistamines was not allergy, but its well-known side
effect of inhibiting urination.)

After some hours, I got to a treatment room, the bite was cleaned and
found to be minor, and I was given a prescription for an antibiotic. I
got a funny look from my pharmacist when I brought the prescription to
be filled. It was for penicillin by another name.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/16/2011 5:24 PM, Clay wrote:

On Dec 15, 1:55 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:31:13 -0500, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 12/14/2011 5:07 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:

...

Last winter I shuffled more snow ...

Shoveled. (But I think your way is more interesting.)

...

Nah, just don't talk about CO2. There is far more
going on.

For me, the question of what else is going on matters only if I want to
dismiss CO2 altogether. There's a move afoot here to ban cell phone use
while driving. Given all the other possible accident causes, does that
make sense?

Jerry

Given that distracted driving has grown to be a major contributor to
accidents, and that cell phone use is a major contributor to
distracted driving, there's some logic to it.

I'm hoping there'll be a compromise of sorts (no texting, hands-free
only or something), but enforcement is going to be problematic.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined. Before worrying about cell phone usage in cars, maybe one
should look at improving medical procedures to prevent accicdents.
There is a greater potential number of lives to be saved.

That is very interesting, and it shows me that my post was too oblique.
I intended to say to Rune that the existence of other causes shouldn't
deter us from dealing with causes we can successfully address.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 17 Des, 04:26, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org
wrote:





On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor

all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

Bret Cahill

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
problem with that?

Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.

Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....

Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?

Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

Doesn't matter. Science is not about popularity
or number of votes.

Sheeeish. Good fucking grief.

Utter silence from the "Rune Allnor" moron. Science: it works,
bitch.

*Science* works. However, the climate 'research'
doesn't qualify, as I showed in an earlier post:

https://groups.google.com/group/comp.dsp/msg/f581401dfeb53c65?hl=no

Rune

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/17/2011 2:52 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

...

The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time. Every
visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
they can call up anything they need. Every prescription I've had is on
file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
something new is prescribed. It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
transcribed. It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
whoever was logged into a patient's file.

It will take more than paperless. When my doctor sent me to a local ER
to get a dog bite stitched up (it turned out not to need stitching) the
front desk knew all about me, including allergies to penicillin and
antihistamines, and that my tetanus shots were up to date. (It did no
good to explain that penicillin was only a suspicion, and that the
problem with antihistamines was not allergy, but its well-known side
effect of inhibiting urination.)

After some hours, I got to a treatment room, the bite was cleaned and
found to be minor, and I was given a prescription for an antibiotic. I
got a funny look from my pharmacist when I brought the prescription to
be filled. It was for penicillin by another name.

Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.



--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/17/2011 9:12 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

...

Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.

This one didn't have "cillin" as part of the name, but don't you think
the prescribing physician should have known that he was steering his
patient to anaphylactic shock? The warning in my computerized records
was clear (and unnecessary, but we didn't know that at the time). My
pharmacist knew it was a penicillin, and knew about my supposed allergy
without consulting a computer.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Jerry Avins]

On 12/17/2011 11:32 AM, Rune Allnor wrote:

On 17 Des, 10:05, Jerry Avins<j...@ieee.org> wrote:

I intended to say to Rune that the existence of other causes shouldn't
deter us from dealing with causes we can successfully address.

That something *can* be addressed is not a sufficient
reason for *actually* addressing it.

Where I am, heads-on car collisions on single-lane roads
(one lane in each direction) has been a big deal fro some
time. For some reason, these kinds of accidents have
recievded a lot of attention, to the exlusion of most
other types.

So the remedy has been to install 'fences' between the
two lanes, so that cars would not be able to stray or
otherwise get over into the opposing lane. Now, that's
fine if one talked about *two*-lane roads (two lanes
in each direction), as there would be space available
for overtaking slower traffic. But these are *one*-lane
roads.

So the net effect is that everyone are slowed to the
speed of the slowest car travelling in your direction,
no matter what traffic there might be in the opposing
direction, What happens, then, is that even at night,
two cars on the road for miles in each direction, one
is trapped behind the slower one.

When I catch up with slower traffic in such situations,
I occasionally try to 'encourage' the car in front to
stop where available. Stop, not let me overtake.
Because there is no space for me to overtake inside
the one lane. When other people catch me up, I find
it very uncomfortable, since I have no way of letting
them overtake, except stopping.

So the problem is not the intentions and motivations
for doing whatever - they are usually benign. But benign
intention does not ensure the absence of severe collateral
damage.

In effect, one needs to do a cool, calm, collected and
*informed* analysis, before committing to an action:

1) What benefits are achieved?
2) What drawbacks are avoided?
3) What benefits are forefited?
4) What drawbacks are imposed?

I suspect particularly the three latter points are
not often considered. At times, even the first seems
to recieve little attention.

That we assess your four numbered points differently in the case of
planetary warming doesn't detract from from their validity and
importance. A fifth might also be appropriate:

5) What steps can restore the forfeited benefits and mitigate the
imposed drawbacks?

In the traffic case you use as an example, there is a simple
improvement. Many roads in Canada's Maritime Provinces are narrow and
wind along the coast or around mountains. In many places, the roadbed is
carved out of a mountainside, and widening the road impose great cost in
money and scenic value. Canada's solution is simple, and you might want
to propose it for your roads. Turnouts are provided where the topology
allows it. One is required by law to use them to allow a following
vehicle to pass. It is rare that one is delayed for more than a
kilometer or two by a slow vehicle.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

 

[Rune Allnor]

On 17 Des, 10:05, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

I intended to say to Rune that the existence of other causes shouldn't
deter us from dealing with causes we can successfully address.

That something *can* be addressed is not a sufficient
reason for *actually* addressing it.

Where I am, heads-on car collisions on single-lane roads
(one lane in each direction) has been a big deal fro some
time. For some reason, these kinds of accidents have
recievded a lot of attention, to the exlusion of most
other types.

So the remedy has been to install 'fences' between the
two lanes, so that cars would not be able to stray or
otherwise get over into the opposing lane. Now, that's
fine if one talked about *two*-lane roads (two lanes
in each direction), as there would be space available
for overtaking slower traffic. But these are *one*-lane
roads.

So the net effect is that everyone are slowed to the
speed of the slowest car travelling in your direction,
no matter what traffic there might be in the opposing
direction, What happens, then, is that even at night,
two cars on the road for miles in each direction, one
is trapped behind the slower one.

When I catch up with slower traffic in such situations,
I occasionally try to 'encourage' the car in front to
stop where available. Stop, not let me overtake.
Because there is no space for me to overtake inside
the one lane. When other people catch me up, I find
it very uncomfortable, since I have no way of letting
them overtake, except stopping.

So the problem is not the intentions and motivations
for doing whatever - they are usually benign. But benign
intention does not ensure the absence of severe collateral
damage.

In effect, one needs to do a cool, calm, collected and
*informed* analysis, before committing to an action:

1) What benefits are achieved?
2) What drawbacks are avoided?
3) What benefits are forefited?
4) What drawbacks are imposed?

I suspect particularly the three latter points are
not often considered. At times, even the first seems
to recieve little attention.

Rune

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:12:24 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/17/2011 2:52 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

...

The VA medical system has been paperless for a long time. Every
visit I've ever had at a clinic or hospital is in my medical file, where
they can call up anything they need. Every prescription I've had is on
file, and they are automatically check for unsuitable combinations when
something new is prescribed. It saves them a hell of a lot of money by
using direct entry, rather than having charts filled out, then
transcribed. It also makes sure that any mistakes can be traced to
whoever was logged into a patient's file.

It will take more than paperless. When my doctor sent me to a local ER
to get a dog bite stitched up (it turned out not to need stitching) the
front desk knew all about me, including allergies to penicillin and
antihistamines, and that my tetanus shots were up to date. (It did no
good to explain that penicillin was only a suspicion, and that the
problem with antihistamines was not allergy, but its well-known side
effect of inhibiting urination.)

After some hours, I got to a treatment room, the bite was cleaned and
found to be minor, and I was given a prescription for an antibiotic. I
got a funny look from my pharmacist when I brought the prescription to
be filled. It was for penicillin by another name.


Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.

Amoxicillin <> penicillin. Close, but they're not the same.

 

[AGWFacts]

In article
c283953b-9bc5-49c8-8ec0-a7fce2bc2b58@t38g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Clay <clay@claysturner.com> wrote:

You know an interesting fact in the US (can't speak for elsewhere) is
each year we have about 25000 deaths due to guns (half of them
suicides) and around 30000 to 40000 deaths due to auto accidents (the
numbers have been steadily reducing over time). However, according the
the Harvard School of Medicine, doctors via mistakes kill about 90000
patients a year. So Doctors kill more people than guns and cars
combined.

How many lives to guns save every year? How many lives do cars
save every year? How many lives to physicians save every year?


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 01:30:23 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
<allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 17 Des, 04:26, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:44:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org
wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:59:45 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

On 13 Des, 22:06, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:37:32 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor

all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:52:48 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

Assume the tree ring data is good.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/chinese-2485-year-tree-ring-study-sh...

Bret Cahill

There is too little information to see exactly how
they have extrapolated the data, but I have no
problems accepting the main thesis of the piece.

The main thesis of the propaganda is that the central-eastern
Tibetan Plateau represents the entire planet. You don't see any
problem with that?

Not really: Any claims to *global* warming should apply
to that area as well. If there is one area that fails
to comply with the dominant thesis, there might be others.

Global warming results in regional cooling; I explained this more
than 50 times already; the IPCC explained it four times; S.G.
Callendar explained it in the year 1938; Gilbert Plass explained
it in year 1951; Suess and Revelle explained it in year 1956;
Wally Broecker explained it in 1975.....

Why don't you clowns actually study the subject? Why the fear?

Tree ring proxies on the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau only show
regional climate change; they do not show global climate change.
Web of Knowledge Index shows more than a 200 peer reviewed science
papers, published in science journals, on the subject.

Doesn't matter. Science is not about popularity
or number of votes.

Idiot.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Dec 17, 9:49 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 09:12:24 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
....
Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.

Amoxicillin <> penicillin. Close, but they're not the same.

A gal like her, with her extensive experience with VD
would know that.
Ken

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jerry Avins wrote:

On 12/17/2011 9:12 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

...

Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.

This one didn't have "cillin" as part of the name, but don't you think
the prescribing physician should have known that he was steering his
patient to anaphylactic shock? The warning in my computerized records
was clear (and unnecessary, but we didn't know that at the time). My
pharmacist knew it was a penicillin, and knew about my supposed allergy
without consulting a computer.

You haven't said who provides your medical care, but at the VA clinic
the pharmacy is right across the hall from the Primary Care Physicians
at the CBOC I am assigned to. If there is any question about any
prescription, they call the PCP and tell them to change it. In all the
years I've had VA healthier the only thing they questioned was mailing
me one bottle of Insulin at a time, and changed it to three at a time.
Several large hospital chains have tried to get the government to force
the VA to give them copies of the medical care software they created at
no charge, because it has one of the lowest error rates in the
industry. The VA developed it to lower their operating costs and the
ones who want it don't want to spend the money to duplicate it. I think
that the VA should be allowed to license it to outside use, and use that
money on homeless Veterans.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Penicillin has a lot of different names. The VA likes Amoxicillin.

Amoxicillin <> penicillin. Close, but they're not the same.

They are the same family, but the VA uses Amoxicillin because it's a
wider spectrum antibiotic. I have spent most of the last couple months
on various antibiotics because of the swollen, gray patches of swollen
dead skin on my legs. It's gone on one leg, but about half of it is
still on the other.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.