On 08/02/09 23:16, Chambers wrote:
> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.

	Yes. And the relevance of that is...?

-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).

	Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".

-- 
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> favorite is some twit telling me, "Oh,
> well, that is just the Fibonacci sequence... Well, great, if I used the
> it for anything, I might remember what that was. But, a) I don't, and b)
> someone that has no clue what the sequence looks like in the first place
> isn't stupid, they just don't know what the sequence is, so can't figure
> it out.

Reminds me of this:

Q: How does this sequence continue?

    M D M D _ _ _

A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".

Why? But isn't that plain obvois? It's the first letters of the German days of
week ("Montag Dienstag Mittwoch Donnerstag Freitag Samstag Sonntag") :P


Or, to put it in software developers' terms: Hey, the next characters in the
sequence could be *anything* until you show me the specs; after all, it migt
just as well be the output of a random number generator, right?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
> > I do, however, see a boatload of
> > Monday-morning quarterbacking.
>
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically
> challenged people?

From the context I'd guess it's what "couch coaches" typically do on a Monday
morning, after having participated in Sunday's football game in the couch
potato position: They'll team up with their colleagues at work for a round of
"Knowing Better".

Post a reply to this message

On 3-8-2009 11:53, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 20:30:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>>> I do the same or so my wife tells me.
> 
> 
>> Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
>> ;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
>> 'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
>> make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
>> the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
>> listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
>> saves time.
> 
> I don't recognise myself in that paragraph (maybe it does not translate well). I
> tend to say "he said" and "he did" without mentioning which "he" I mean. But
> with a little effort on the listener's part, mentally shifting subjects when the
> sense is lost, understanding can be obtained :P
> I tend to oscillate between speaking very precisely, as if I were writing a
> functional spec and being too sloppy. 

Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote 
verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and 
the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and 
by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that 
other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has 
ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.
Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning 
only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns 
you both know is meant.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:03:00 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>
>Or perhaps you are not as bad as my wife, she is able to really quote 
>verbatim (or at least that is what she claims). Quoting both herself and 
>the other person literally without any indication that it is a quote and 
>by whom. Which means that if she uses 'you' she can mean either that 
>other person or herself if she is quoting that other or me if she has 
>ended the quote. I find it rather confusing at times.

Ah! A mere male. :) Thus is a common condition for us ;)

>Also sometimes confusing, but what happens to more people, is mentioning 
>only a first name and leaving to the other person which one of the Johns 
>you both know is meant.

But you know that Jan Wit would never do that and Jan Zwart is doing it all the
time so it must have been Jan who said it. Yes or no? :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 23:16, Chambers wrote:
>> You have to agree, though, that it isn't economically feasible to supply
>> every treatment available to every individual who might possibly need
>> it. The cost would be so prohibitive as to cripple any economy.
> 
>     Yes. And the relevance of that is...?
> 

That, at some point, you have to make a decision about who gets which 
treatments, taking into consideration all the relevant factors (age, 
other conditions, likelihood of success, and cost).  Excluding any one 
of those factors - even cost - would be irresponsible.

Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer 
becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied 
treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.

Too often, the debate is framed as the "we'll provide treatment for 
everyone, no matter what" crowd versus the "we'll provide treatment for 
those who can pay for it themselves" crowd.  Like most real issues, the 
practical solution is one which lies somewhere in the middle.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Q: How does this sequence continue?
> 
>     M D M D _ _ _
> 
> A: No, it's not "... M D M", it's "... F S S".

I've seen plenty of tests that ask you for the pattern, and I get 
seriously annoyed that the writers of the test didn't think of *my* 
pattern.  After all, *mine* is perfectly logical, and describes the 
demonstrated sequence exactly... so why *isn't* it the correct answer?

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 08/02/09 22:57, Chambers wrote:
>> I've seen interviews with several people from his staff who talked of
>> the pressure exerted on them to present information that fit in with the
>> higher-up's views (though it's not clear if the pressure came from Bush
>> himself, or if Cheney was trying to keep him misinformed).
> 
>     Oh sure. However, that doesn't translate to "deluded".

OK, then, maybe "deluded" is a bit strong.  "Misinformed," perhaps?  Or 
even just "biased?"

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Once you admit that there's a cutoff point somewhere, then it no longer 
> becomes a question of whether or not certain people will be denied 
> treatment, but only a question of where that cutoff point is.

Just like organ transplants.

I think I read somewhere a while ago that Canada just ranks all the 
treatments in terms of value per dollar, then adds up the dollars until they 
run out of budget, and then says "anyone with these problems below this line 
isn't going to get cured", basically.  Seems like a reasonable way to go.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message