In the headline, “pledging to ‘murder’ shoplifters” is a restrictive participial phrase modifying “texts.” Restrictive elements are not offset by commas.
In the headline, “pledging to ‘murder’ shoplifters” is a restrictive participial phrase modifying “texts.” Restrictive elements are not offset by commas.
If premeditation was a requirement, 2nd degree murder would not exist.
Premeditation isn’t required for murder charges.
Malice aforethought is.
Point of fact, I’m not bobs_monkey, the originator of the rhetorical tone. Fax in healthcare continues to survive well past its prime because there is an inherent loophole: analog data transfer is functionally unsuited to encryption. This allows fax to be operated at a “best effort” level of security. There are handling protocols that are meant to keep traditional fax transmissions as private as possible, but these are layer 8 processes with limited enforceability. Beyond that, traditional fax represents a pathway around requirements on encryption while still meeting HIPAA compliance standards.
FOIP is an improvement, but it still allows for interoperability with a traditional fax machine connected to a POTS line in some GP’s office that they’re unwilling to part with. That means the FOIP user can only be confident of the transmission being secure on their side. I can’t speak to the overall adaptation of FOIP in hospital systems, but I do know that there are non-isolated instances of hospitals still relying on traditional fax as opposed to adopting a cloud-fax solution. Hell, there are still major hospitals using SL-100s as their primary phone switches.
I don’t even want to get into codec mismatches, because that falls out of scope when it comes to a privacy discussion.
Long story short, achieving HIPAA compliance is a low bar with regards to fax, and if that were to change I believe we’d see fax disappear (finally!) shortly thereafter.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but the fax loophole does need to be closed.
Mine flails typically reverse over minefields by design for that very reason, so I interpreted this one as doing the same. If not, then yes, driving across the field with the contraption behind the truck would be a short, joyless trip.
Non-credible. Purpose-built mine flails are on the borderline of credibility already. In this configuration, you’d need at least a class IV hitch to handle the tongue weight, probably a class V when you factor in the force imparted by the motion of the flail. That’s not even taking into account how much power is needed to properly swing the chains with enough impact to detonate a significant portion of the mines.
And if there happens to be an AT mine or two in the mix, the whole ill-advised experiment becomes an unappealing art installation.
How many more times can you beat this horse? It’s thoroughly dead. Whinging about it as much and as repetitively as you have chosen to makes you seem less “concerned citizen” and more “entitled snot.”
Finish clutching your pearls, then curate your own feed. And stop expecting everyone else to do it for you. Your sensibilities won’t always line up directly with the world around you, but repeatedly haranguing someone else about it won’t solve matters for anyone.
Missed opportunity for “bop-a-moe”
To add to your point regarding additional functions inherent in smartphones: pagers do one thing. They’re relatively simple devices. Simplicity means that there are fewer things that can cause the device to function incorrectly or fail to function altogether. In hospital communications use-cases, this is a huge benefit.
Additionally, pagers are relatively inexpensive. Therefore, it’s much more effective to have multiple spares available for distribution compared to smartphones. If a pager is inoperable, it can quickly be swapped out with a backup while the original is repaired or replaced. Smartphones do not carry that benefit.
No… porque no los dos
By now I should know better
Your queen is never free
So tell me about your little
Gambit on file c
Chesse you can always sell
En passant to me
They did exactly that.
Bet you didn’t see it with your own eyes…
Phbbbt.
This is absolutely not equivalent to the paradox of intolerance. Taking the stance of “you’re wrong to wish such torture upon anyone for any reason” almost immediately before wishing such torture upon someone is, by even the most generous interpretation, blatant hypocrisy.
No shit…
Hold up…
You’re wrong to wish such torture upon anyone for any reason, no matter what they’ve done.
You should be raped and stabbed until you understand why you’re wrong.
Wouldn’t it work better in that case? The implication being that if you weren’t the only tall person, then staff wouldn’t be so short without you.