Friday, 12 September 2014

Shuffling to Day One

I'm moved over to Day One as my journal and blog editor. I considered many other bits and pieces, but I wanted something that would work from wherever I want.

Plus it looks nice and not everything needs to go on the web!

Home Improvements

Building work.  It's really not as easy as you think.
Just getting a sodding wood burning stove in has been an ordeal and a half.

1 day job.  Alternatively it's a week job, with scaffolding and all sorts.

Still I'm happy with my chaps.  The previous builders who have stuffed this all up, I'm not so keen on.

Thursday, 7 August 2014

iPhone replacements...

So I've been to replace my iPhone once again...

Last time it was wifi, this time the screen has disconnected itself. Within 80 days of replacement...

So what happened this time? Well there was obviously a loose connection, as when it got hot, the screen would become striped and loose all capacitance and be unusable. Once I got there though and waited ages it cooled down and was back to normal.

I know it's been a warm summer but god the UK isn't that hot!

Anyway, to their credit they've replaced it again.

I wonder how long this will last...

Friday, 27 June 2014

3 Days To Kill

This film: 3 Days To Kill with Kevin Costner.

Formulaic - check
Gritty - check
Classic action with gruff lead - check
Has to kill or else he dies? - check - see this for previous


New in 2014!
Director with stupid name - check
Grumpy dad with teenage daughter and parenting issues - check.

It's enjoyable.

A Model Hospital Drawn in Paper

This is what I think a modern, modular, expandable and manageable hospital should be like.

I drew this with my fair hands using Paper

Look at in my Tumblr, go on I dare you.

http://threestain.tumblr.com/post/90059842377/the-hospital-of-the-future-tm

Cross Site Working

Modern day NHS hospitals have flocked to the idea of “separating the elective from the emergency”. This is a managers dream of removing the profitable cherry-picked easy cases from the battlefield of the acute emergency.

In theory it works.

Patients have a booked slot, they attend pre-admission checks, get letters with plenty of warning, are appropriately fit for the operation, beds are ready well in advance and nobody ever has a problem. The emergencies also never have to wait for a bed, are whisked out from A&E and sorted at great speed, ready to be rehabilitated.

Except this never happens.

The elective site is distant from the emergency site, sometimes by a mile, sometimes by an hour's drive. Doctors, nurses and patients have to be shuttled between sites at great cost and upset. Notes get lost. Infrastructure must be duplicated. Beds get full. Elective patients have complications. Cover gets stretched between sites. Rotas become incomprehensible. Nurses and doctors become deskilled. Staff morale drops. People go off sick. Patient experience plummets. Reputations die. Patients die. Hospitals die.
The clinical staff get the blame, whereas the managers are at fault. Trainees emigrate. You don’t have to care for this to fail.

Or you can have everything on one site, including a private wing (funnelling money into the same hospital rather than another one), and then all of sudden you find that everyone knows where everyone else is, the bed capacity is large enough to cope with flux, the medical speciality cover is sufficient for all to be seen by an appropriate specialist, with training part of this, provided at a respected and liked centre. You do have to care though for this to work.

Thursday, 17 April 2014

Monday, 14 April 2014

The Fallacy of Open Access Science Publication

Open Access Publications...

What exactly are they meant to do? Are they there to promote new ways of literature publication? Or are they just there to make money? I believe the latter.

Why do I believe this? It’s because they charge over $1000 for EACH article. Now compare this with the old system where publishers charged nothing to the writer of the article.

The difference is that to read the article in open access it’s free to all, but in traditional systems you either had to pay for the article, pay to be a subscriber, be a member of an academic institution or of course merely e-mail the author for a free pdf.

That means that Open access costs (someone) $1000 per article and subscription access costs (someone) $0.

In terms of expenditure - both open access journals and subscription access have exactly the same costs EXCEPT for journals such as PLOS One (you know the open access one, which costs $1000). You see traditional journals have editorial staff, which have to be paid, usually from adverts. PLOS One does no copyediting and therefore it relies on Peer Review to find the errors. This costs 0, cos we peer-reviewers do not get paid. But it still has the adverts. BECAUSE OPEN ACCESS IS A HUGE CON. It makes millions for the publishers.

Public Library of Science is meant to be a non-profit organisation. But in 2012 it took in $32 MILLION in author fees (after all the supposed refunds for deserving countries etc) AND $0.5 million in advertising. See link to their accounts. After publishing costs of $22 million and staff of $5.5. million that only left them with with a surplus of $7.1 million for the year, bringing their cash up to $15 million. Now it has a surplus of $20 million! LINK

At least the Hindawi corporation don’t pretend to be “good for you"

So now we’ve cleared the misconception that open access is good for all, who is it bad for? The researchers - you have limited funding (if any) and you know that ANY paper you submit needs to be paid for to the tune of $1000+. It is only going to reduce the number of papers, and amount of actual science you can do with the funding allotted.

But then who cares? Clever doctory people have millions of bucks right? Not quite, cos if they did they’d be Open Access Publishers!