<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_22_0052201</id>
	<title>Flaw In Emergency Response System May Have Killed Hundreds</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269262320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Telegraph reports that a flaw in the way emergency response software was set up to handle Category A responses in Great Britain <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7489669/Woman-left-to-die-after-999-ambulance-blunder.html">may have cost hundreds of lives over the past ten years</a>. Most ambulance services use an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-1-1">international computerized system designed in America</a> and in the US version, a fall of more than 6 feet receives the maximum priority response. However, the government committee which governs its use in Great Britain decided that such cases should be deemed less urgent, and excluded from an eight minute category A target response time. If a call involved a fall of more than 6 feet it was designated a lower priority 'category B response' despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response. The flaw came to light after Bonnie Mason, 58, fell 12 feet down the stairs and died from a head injury after emergency controllers in Suffolk failed to identify her situation as 'life-threatening.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Telegraph reports that a flaw in the way emergency response software was set up to handle Category A responses in Great Britain may have cost hundreds of lives over the past ten years .
Most ambulance services use an international computerized system designed in America and in the US version , a fall of more than 6 feet receives the maximum priority response .
However , the government committee which governs its use in Great Britain decided that such cases should be deemed less urgent , and excluded from an eight minute category A target response time .
If a call involved a fall of more than 6 feet it was designated a lower priority 'category B response ' despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response .
The flaw came to light after Bonnie Mason , 58 , fell 12 feet down the stairs and died from a head injury after emergency controllers in Suffolk failed to identify her situation as 'life-threatening .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that a flaw in the way emergency response software was set up to handle Category A responses in Great Britain may have cost hundreds of lives over the past ten years.
Most ambulance services use an international computerized system designed in America and in the US version, a fall of more than 6 feet receives the maximum priority response.
However, the government committee which governs its use in Great Britain decided that such cases should be deemed less urgent, and excluded from an eight minute category A target response time.
If a call involved a fall of more than 6 feet it was designated a lower priority 'category B response' despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.
The flaw came to light after Bonnie Mason, 58, fell 12 feet down the stairs and died from a head injury after emergency controllers in Suffolk failed to identify her situation as 'life-threatening.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562714</id>
	<title>Re:Government Committees, I need more please</title>
	<author>toadlife</author>
	<datestamp>1269184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should.</p><p>Less people would die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should.Less people would die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should.Less people would die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563710</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1269193260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ambulances cost money.</p><p>So you are saying they should have had bigger government?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ambulances cost money.So you are saying they should have had bigger government ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ambulances cost money.So you are saying they should have had bigger government?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565408</id>
	<title>Re:Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>rwiggers</author>
	<datestamp>1269263400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know in England, but here I had a friend that had just the car stolen. Called the police immediately and got the response that he would need first to fill in an application for the message to be passed to the cops. Obviously it was too late at that point. (it was in a region that the police knew, and he didn't, that there was a steep ramp up in this crime for a couple weeks)<br>Too much people dicking around with the system and making false calls led to this absurd and ridiculous situation. If you lose some emergencies because of some assholes, the remedy is not to insure no one gets the response on time.<br>(\rant)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know in England , but here I had a friend that had just the car stolen .
Called the police immediately and got the response that he would need first to fill in an application for the message to be passed to the cops .
Obviously it was too late at that point .
( it was in a region that the police knew , and he did n't , that there was a steep ramp up in this crime for a couple weeks ) Too much people dicking around with the system and making false calls led to this absurd and ridiculous situation .
If you lose some emergencies because of some assholes , the remedy is not to insure no one gets the response on time .
( \ rant )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know in England, but here I had a friend that had just the car stolen.
Called the police immediately and got the response that he would need first to fill in an application for the message to be passed to the cops.
Obviously it was too late at that point.
(it was in a region that the police knew, and he didn't, that there was a steep ramp up in this crime for a couple weeks)Too much people dicking around with the system and making false calls led to this absurd and ridiculous situation.
If you lose some emergencies because of some assholes, the remedy is not to insure no one gets the response on time.
(\rant)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31575550</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>operagost</author>
	<datestamp>1269253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least people die of thirst a lot less often in our hospitals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least people die of thirst a lot less often in our hospitals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least people die of thirst a lot less often in our hospitals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562528</id>
	<title>mod do3n</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">The channel to si6n politics openly. the gay niggers</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The channel to si6n politics openly .
the gay niggers [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The channel to si6n politics openly.
the gay niggers [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562672</id>
	<title>Re:Lie</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269184140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you tell the emergency dispatcher that some property was damaged by the person falling head first down the stairs they will send the police right out to arrest them, so maybe they will get some medical attention that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you tell the emergency dispatcher that some property was damaged by the person falling head first down the stairs they will send the police right out to arrest them , so maybe they will get some medical attention that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you tell the emergency dispatcher that some property was damaged by the person falling head first down the stairs they will send the police right out to arrest them, so maybe they will get some medical attention that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31580392</id>
	<title>And</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1269377880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me <a href="http://imgur.com/iPVTA.gif" title="imgur.com" rel="nofollow">http://imgur.com/iPVTA.gif</a> [imgur.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me http : //imgur.com/iPVTA.gif [ imgur.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me http://imgur.com/iPVTA.gif [imgur.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563466</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>IWannaBeAnAC</author>
	<datestamp>1269191460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>welcome to government managed health care, where the least important person in the system is the patient.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Versus the US system where the least important person in the system is, uh, the patient!
</p><p>
The most important being the CEO of the insurance company of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>welcome to government managed health care , where the least important person in the system is the patient .
Versus the US system where the least important person in the system is , uh , the patient !
The most important being the CEO of the insurance company of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>welcome to government managed health care, where the least important person in the system is the patient.
Versus the US system where the least important person in the system is, uh, the patient!
The most important being the CEO of the insurance company of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565750</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>aukset</author>
	<datestamp>1269265440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to explain how reducing call priority can reduce call volume? Here's a clue: It doesn't, every call gets an ambulance no matter the priority. The only difference is in the TARGET "out of chute time" (how long before the call is dispatched) and TARGET response time (how long until the ambulance arrives on scene).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to explain how reducing call priority can reduce call volume ?
Here 's a clue : It does n't , every call gets an ambulance no matter the priority .
The only difference is in the TARGET " out of chute time " ( how long before the call is dispatched ) and TARGET response time ( how long until the ambulance arrives on scene ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to explain how reducing call priority can reduce call volume?
Here's a clue: It doesn't, every call gets an ambulance no matter the priority.
The only difference is in the TARGET "out of chute time" (how long before the call is dispatched) and TARGET response time (how long until the ambulance arrives on scene).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562228</id>
	<title>Re:Not a flaw in the system</title>
	<author>MWoody</author>
	<datestamp>1269180720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is Slashdot and all, but for the rest of the world, "system" means any organized collection of rules and doctrines.  "System" here refers to the Emergency Response System as a whole, including the computers, the people who run them, the officials responsible for determining policy, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is Slashdot and all , but for the rest of the world , " system " means any organized collection of rules and doctrines .
" System " here refers to the Emergency Response System as a whole , including the computers , the people who run them , the officials responsible for determining policy , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is Slashdot and all, but for the rest of the world, "system" means any organized collection of rules and doctrines.
"System" here refers to the Emergency Response System as a whole, including the computers, the people who run them, the officials responsible for determining policy, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562918</id>
	<title>Deadly logic</title>
	<author>Warlock48</author>
	<datestamp>1269186360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can imagine the deadly logic from the committee: People falling from more than 6 feet will probably die anyway, so let's concentrate on others who have more chance to survive -- and therefore pay their bills.</p><p>The only way to fix this will be to throw a few committee members from the roof and when their colleagues see what happens (nothing) they may reconsider...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can imagine the deadly logic from the committee : People falling from more than 6 feet will probably die anyway , so let 's concentrate on others who have more chance to survive -- and therefore pay their bills.The only way to fix this will be to throw a few committee members from the roof and when their colleagues see what happens ( nothing ) they may reconsider.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can imagine the deadly logic from the committee: People falling from more than 6 feet will probably die anyway, so let's concentrate on others who have more chance to survive -- and therefore pay their bills.The only way to fix this will be to throw a few committee members from the roof and when their colleagues see what happens (nothing) they may reconsider...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562736</id>
	<title>Re:Why does fall distance matter so much?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1269184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Believe it or not, I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones.</p></div> </blockquote><p>It is the distance traveled through the air to impact with the ground that matters. Falling down stairs does not count as a 6 foot fall. You are rolling down the steps with maybe a 2 foot fall. Falling off a stool is a 3+ foot fall.</p><p>If you fall 6 feet or more, you are likely to have serious head injury or broken bones. Remember, when one falls, one will most likely land on one's back and that means probably head impact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe it or not , I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones .
It is the distance traveled through the air to impact with the ground that matters .
Falling down stairs does not count as a 6 foot fall .
You are rolling down the steps with maybe a 2 foot fall .
Falling off a stool is a 3 + foot fall.If you fall 6 feet or more , you are likely to have serious head injury or broken bones .
Remember , when one falls , one will most likely land on one 's back and that means probably head impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe it or not, I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones.
It is the distance traveled through the air to impact with the ground that matters.
Falling down stairs does not count as a 6 foot fall.
You are rolling down the steps with maybe a 2 foot fall.
Falling off a stool is a 3+ foot fall.If you fall 6 feet or more, you are likely to have serious head injury or broken bones.
Remember, when one falls, one will most likely land on one's back and that means probably head impact.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562680</id>
	<title>Re:0118 9998 8199 9119 725 3</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269184200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>112</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>112</tokentext>
<sentencetext>112</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563268</id>
	<title>Re:Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269189540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all available ambulances are in use, then what else can you do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all available ambulances are in use , then what else can you do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all available ambulances are in use, then what else can you do?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562154</id>
	<title>Re:Not a flaw in the system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If a call involved a fall of more than 6 feet it was designated a lower priority 'category B response' despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.</p></div><p>Even if other factors should have given the situation an A level, it would be B because the fall wasn't "high enough". That's the flaw in the system here, if I understand the article correctly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a call involved a fall of more than 6 feet it was designated a lower priority 'category B response ' despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.Even if other factors should have given the situation an A level , it would be B because the fall was n't " high enough " .
That 's the flaw in the system here , if I understand the article correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a call involved a fall of more than 6 feet it was designated a lower priority 'category B response' despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.Even if other factors should have given the situation an A level, it would be B because the fall wasn't "high enough".
That's the flaw in the system here, if I understand the article correctly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562980</id>
	<title>Ambalamp?</title>
	<author>PmanAce</author>
	<datestamp>1269186840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Brin' Me A Ambalamp!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Brin ' Me A Ambalamp !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Brin' Me A Ambalamp!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562168</id>
	<title>If they're fags I don't care.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fags need to die. They're a drain on society.<br> <br>Down with Fags! Down with Fags!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fags need to die .
They 're a drain on society .
Down with Fags !
Down with Fags !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fags need to die.
They're a drain on society.
Down with Fags!
Down with Fags!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562694</id>
	<title>Re:Why does fall distance matter so much?</title>
	<author>AVryhof</author>
	<datestamp>1269184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would imagine that a call wouldn't be made if the fall didn't do much harm.</p><p>For example, I have fallen off a roof into a snow bank and was unharmed.  No ambulance was called.</p><p>However, I imagine that if I had fallen and wasn't moving it would have been serious.</p><p>As with anything, initial common sense needs to be exercised.  It's usually obvious when there is no harm, and often less obvious when there is more harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would imagine that a call would n't be made if the fall did n't do much harm.For example , I have fallen off a roof into a snow bank and was unharmed .
No ambulance was called.However , I imagine that if I had fallen and was n't moving it would have been serious.As with anything , initial common sense needs to be exercised .
It 's usually obvious when there is no harm , and often less obvious when there is more harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would imagine that a call wouldn't be made if the fall didn't do much harm.For example, I have fallen off a roof into a snow bank and was unharmed.
No ambulance was called.However, I imagine that if I had fallen and wasn't moving it would have been serious.As with anything, initial common sense needs to be exercised.
It's usually obvious when there is no harm, and often less obvious when there is more harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562792</id>
	<title>Those responsible have been sacked...</title>
	<author>Alpha232</author>
	<datestamp>1269185100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How could such an audience miss this opportunity to quote Python (Monty)!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How could such an audience miss this opportunity to quote Python ( Monty ) !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could such an audience miss this opportunity to quote Python (Monty)!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562344</id>
	<title>May have...</title>
	<author>Aladrin</author>
	<datestamp>1269181560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May have killed hundreds...</p><p>May also have killed nobody.</p><p>How sensational!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May have killed hundreds...May also have killed nobody.How sensational !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May have killed hundreds...May also have killed nobody.How sensational!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562526</id>
	<title>Order of Operations</title>
	<author>Vexo</author>
	<datestamp>1269183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides the questionable decision regarding the severity of a 6 foot fall, the flaw here seems to be the order in which the conditions were evaluated when determining which category should be assigned. It sounds like when they made the modification, they introduced a bug where a 6+ foot fall would force the call into category B, ignoring other serious condition entries that should have forced it into category A by themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides the questionable decision regarding the severity of a 6 foot fall , the flaw here seems to be the order in which the conditions were evaluated when determining which category should be assigned .
It sounds like when they made the modification , they introduced a bug where a 6 + foot fall would force the call into category B , ignoring other serious condition entries that should have forced it into category A by themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides the questionable decision regarding the severity of a 6 foot fall, the flaw here seems to be the order in which the conditions were evaluated when determining which category should be assigned.
It sounds like when they made the modification, they introduced a bug where a 6+ foot fall would force the call into category B, ignoring other serious condition entries that should have forced it into category A by themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31573242</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1269287400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where any problem that won't fit into a predefined pigeonhole clearly does not exist.</p><p>There's no room for judgment calls in such a system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where any problem that wo n't fit into a predefined pigeonhole clearly does not exist.There 's no room for judgment calls in such a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where any problem that won't fit into a predefined pigeonhole clearly does not exist.There's no room for judgment calls in such a system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565002</id>
	<title>Re:Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>Faluzeer</author>
	<datestamp>1269257580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm</p><p>I am sorry but that does not sound plausible. An ambulance will always be dispatched for that type of injury, it may be not always be classed as an emergency response and so may be delayed due to higher priority incidents but an ambulance will always arrive.</p><p>My mother fell and broke her hip in 2005.  A neighbour heard the fall, went in to the house saw my mother on the floor and called the emergency services, the neighbour then rang me.</p><p>I left work, got on my motorcycle and did a high speed dash from my place of work to my mothers house (about 15 miles on the motorway), luckily there were no police on that portion of it.  By the time I arrived at my mothers, the ambulance had arrived, had assessed her and were in the process of transferring her to the ambulance.</p><p>The NHS has a number of problems, but I have never known the ambulance service to out-right refuse to attend a scene.  Mistakes can and have been made by dispatchers wrongly categorising injuries, but generally elderly people that fall are classed as high priority regardless of the symptoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HmmmI am sorry but that does not sound plausible .
An ambulance will always be dispatched for that type of injury , it may be not always be classed as an emergency response and so may be delayed due to higher priority incidents but an ambulance will always arrive.My mother fell and broke her hip in 2005 .
A neighbour heard the fall , went in to the house saw my mother on the floor and called the emergency services , the neighbour then rang me.I left work , got on my motorcycle and did a high speed dash from my place of work to my mothers house ( about 15 miles on the motorway ) , luckily there were no police on that portion of it .
By the time I arrived at my mothers , the ambulance had arrived , had assessed her and were in the process of transferring her to the ambulance.The NHS has a number of problems , but I have never known the ambulance service to out-right refuse to attend a scene .
Mistakes can and have been made by dispatchers wrongly categorising injuries , but generally elderly people that fall are classed as high priority regardless of the symptoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HmmmI am sorry but that does not sound plausible.
An ambulance will always be dispatched for that type of injury, it may be not always be classed as an emergency response and so may be delayed due to higher priority incidents but an ambulance will always arrive.My mother fell and broke her hip in 2005.
A neighbour heard the fall, went in to the house saw my mother on the floor and called the emergency services, the neighbour then rang me.I left work, got on my motorcycle and did a high speed dash from my place of work to my mothers house (about 15 miles on the motorway), luckily there were no police on that portion of it.
By the time I arrived at my mothers, the ambulance had arrived, had assessed her and were in the process of transferring her to the ambulance.The NHS has a number of problems, but I have never known the ambulance service to out-right refuse to attend a scene.
Mistakes can and have been made by dispatchers wrongly categorising injuries, but generally elderly people that fall are classed as high priority regardless of the symptoms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562838</id>
	<title>Re:Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1269185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems to scream about what thinking caused this issue as well. The resources need to be there to handle the calls. If its not serious or life threatening make the caller pay for wasting the ambulance's time. Most people are rather competent for judging how serious the issue is. A person across the phone can't assume anything which is what the questions do. Like if he fell six feet onto a bed of razors. If your under shock it is easy to forget to mention these things when being questioned, but are able to realize how serious the issue is. You can't just prioritize the deficiency in resources away like this without sacrificing a lot of quality. Hell you could make a medical taxi service for people that are not seriously ill that charges for their service to reduce the demand on the ambulance service for low priority callers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to scream about what thinking caused this issue as well .
The resources need to be there to handle the calls .
If its not serious or life threatening make the caller pay for wasting the ambulance 's time .
Most people are rather competent for judging how serious the issue is .
A person across the phone ca n't assume anything which is what the questions do .
Like if he fell six feet onto a bed of razors .
If your under shock it is easy to forget to mention these things when being questioned , but are able to realize how serious the issue is .
You ca n't just prioritize the deficiency in resources away like this without sacrificing a lot of quality .
Hell you could make a medical taxi service for people that are not seriously ill that charges for their service to reduce the demand on the ambulance service for low priority callers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to scream about what thinking caused this issue as well.
The resources need to be there to handle the calls.
If its not serious or life threatening make the caller pay for wasting the ambulance's time.
Most people are rather competent for judging how serious the issue is.
A person across the phone can't assume anything which is what the questions do.
Like if he fell six feet onto a bed of razors.
If your under shock it is easy to forget to mention these things when being questioned, but are able to realize how serious the issue is.
You can't just prioritize the deficiency in resources away like this without sacrificing a lot of quality.
Hell you could make a medical taxi service for people that are not seriously ill that charges for their service to reduce the demand on the ambulance service for low priority callers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562628</id>
	<title>Re:Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269183840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, hip fractures are quite common for old people. They often break when the person is standing up from a sitting position, which used to be mis-diagnosed as "fell when getting up". Some of the relevant data is described at <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14819.abstract" title="pnas.org">http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14819.abstract</a> [pnas.org]. And from experience with some old relatives, as long as they're splinted and the leg supported in the most comfortable position for that person, it's quite surprising how calm they can be about it. So I suspect that "hearing the screaming" wasn't happening.</p><p>\_Moving\_ them and bouncing around the fractured joint, especially if you're not careful, strong, and knowledgeable can cause an amazing amount of pain and damage. I've watched an ambulance crew moving an old relative from their nursing home to a hospital for a broken hip, and it was clearly awkward, but the relative wasn't in constant pain nor were they shouting except when being moved. They also did have a new hip joint implanted very quickly, and had years more of reasonable life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , hip fractures are quite common for old people .
They often break when the person is standing up from a sitting position , which used to be mis-diagnosed as " fell when getting up " .
Some of the relevant data is described at http : //www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14819.abstract [ pnas.org ] .
And from experience with some old relatives , as long as they 're splinted and the leg supported in the most comfortable position for that person , it 's quite surprising how calm they can be about it .
So I suspect that " hearing the screaming " was n't happening. \ _Moving \ _ them and bouncing around the fractured joint , especially if you 're not careful , strong , and knowledgeable can cause an amazing amount of pain and damage .
I 've watched an ambulance crew moving an old relative from their nursing home to a hospital for a broken hip , and it was clearly awkward , but the relative was n't in constant pain nor were they shouting except when being moved .
They also did have a new hip joint implanted very quickly , and had years more of reasonable life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, hip fractures are quite common for old people.
They often break when the person is standing up from a sitting position, which used to be mis-diagnosed as "fell when getting up".
Some of the relevant data is described at http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14819.abstract [pnas.org].
And from experience with some old relatives, as long as they're splinted and the leg supported in the most comfortable position for that person, it's quite surprising how calm they can be about it.
So I suspect that "hearing the screaming" wasn't happening.\_Moving\_ them and bouncing around the fractured joint, especially if you're not careful, strong, and knowledgeable can cause an amazing amount of pain and damage.
I've watched an ambulance crew moving an old relative from their nursing home to a hospital for a broken hip, and it was clearly awkward, but the relative wasn't in constant pain nor were they shouting except when being moved.
They also did have a new hip joint implanted very quickly, and had years more of reasonable life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298</id>
	<title>here's my beef</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1269181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't the 911 operator taking the call be well trained enough to know what's life threatening and whats not? this culture of "the computer will do the thinking for us now" needs to stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the 911 operator taking the call be well trained enough to know what 's life threatening and whats not ?
this culture of " the computer will do the thinking for us now " needs to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the 911 operator taking the call be well trained enough to know what's life threatening and whats not?
this culture of "the computer will do the thinking for us now" needs to stop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31566220</id>
	<title>Some things can't be outsourced.</title>
	<author>Drethon</author>
	<datestamp>1269267180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why some things really don't work to have a worker drone in India answering 911 (999 in England?) and going down a list of answers.  Its fine for first tier helpdesk as long as second tier knows what its doing but 911 calls should always be top tier.<br>
<br>
This is also an unintended down fall of most current development approaches.  In requirement based or use case based developments, if the customer gives poor examples they will get poor results.<br>
<br>
If a customer operating out of death valley orders an auto-pilot system and fails to specify handling of below sea level altitude (ok, already handled by FAA rules but still makes a good mental example if you don't nitpick it) and a plane crashes because the auto-pilot inverts below sea level it could be considered the customer's fault, not the developer's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why some things really do n't work to have a worker drone in India answering 911 ( 999 in England ?
) and going down a list of answers .
Its fine for first tier helpdesk as long as second tier knows what its doing but 911 calls should always be top tier .
This is also an unintended down fall of most current development approaches .
In requirement based or use case based developments , if the customer gives poor examples they will get poor results .
If a customer operating out of death valley orders an auto-pilot system and fails to specify handling of below sea level altitude ( ok , already handled by FAA rules but still makes a good mental example if you do n't nitpick it ) and a plane crashes because the auto-pilot inverts below sea level it could be considered the customer 's fault , not the developer 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why some things really don't work to have a worker drone in India answering 911 (999 in England?
) and going down a list of answers.
Its fine for first tier helpdesk as long as second tier knows what its doing but 911 calls should always be top tier.
This is also an unintended down fall of most current development approaches.
In requirement based or use case based developments, if the customer gives poor examples they will get poor results.
If a customer operating out of death valley orders an auto-pilot system and fails to specify handling of below sea level altitude (ok, already handled by FAA rules but still makes a good mental example if you don't nitpick it) and a plane crashes because the auto-pilot inverts below sea level it could be considered the customer's fault, not the developer's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562274</id>
	<title>Lie</title>
	<author>fyoder</author>
	<datestamp>1269181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good to know. If you're in the UK and you ever have to make an emergency response for someone who has fallen down some stairs, if it looks serious then lie.  Not sure what though.  Perhaps fallen down stairs into pool of crocodiles, that sounds pretty serious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to know .
If you 're in the UK and you ever have to make an emergency response for someone who has fallen down some stairs , if it looks serious then lie .
Not sure what though .
Perhaps fallen down stairs into pool of crocodiles , that sounds pretty serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to know.
If you're in the UK and you ever have to make an emergency response for someone who has fallen down some stairs, if it looks serious then lie.
Not sure what though.
Perhaps fallen down stairs into pool of crocodiles, that sounds pretty serious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086</id>
	<title>Not a flaw in the system</title>
	<author>Raptoer</author>
	<datestamp>1269179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The system itself wasn't flawed, but rather whoever set it up decided that they should be category B. The system did exactly what it was told, it just was told to do something different than in the US, and something that was later deemed to be suboptimal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The system itself was n't flawed , but rather whoever set it up decided that they should be category B. The system did exactly what it was told , it just was told to do something different than in the US , and something that was later deemed to be suboptimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system itself wasn't flawed, but rather whoever set it up decided that they should be category B. The system did exactly what it was told, it just was told to do something different than in the US, and something that was later deemed to be suboptimal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562812</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>lastchance\_000</author>
	<datestamp>1269185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not clear from TFA whether it was a change in the software, or in parameters to the software that were changed. What is clear is that in the case used to highlight the problem, dispatchers were bound by policy not to override the software's recommendation, even if they knew it was wrong:<p><div class="quote"><p>While some services spotted the risk, ordering operatives to override the computer&rsquo;s orders manually, five of England&rsquo;s 12 ambulance trusts did not allow call handlers to upgrade such calls. They include the East of England ambulance service, which covers Suffolk and which only identified the risk after Mrs Mason&rsquo;s death.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not clear from TFA whether it was a change in the software , or in parameters to the software that were changed .
What is clear is that in the case used to highlight the problem , dispatchers were bound by policy not to override the software 's recommendation , even if they knew it was wrong : While some services spotted the risk , ordering operatives to override the computer    s orders manually , five of England    s 12 ambulance trusts did not allow call handlers to upgrade such calls .
They include the East of England ambulance service , which covers Suffolk and which only identified the risk after Mrs Mason    s death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not clear from TFA whether it was a change in the software, or in parameters to the software that were changed.
What is clear is that in the case used to highlight the problem, dispatchers were bound by policy not to override the software's recommendation, even if they knew it was wrong:While some services spotted the risk, ordering operatives to override the computer’s orders manually, five of England’s 12 ambulance trusts did not allow call handlers to upgrade such calls.
They include the East of England ambulance service, which covers Suffolk and which only identified the risk after Mrs Mason’s death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31579778</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>gsogeek</author>
	<datestamp>1269281880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>UK - "The most critical emergency calls, referred to as "Category A" calls, have a response time requirement of eight minutes and zero seconds, with a 75\% compliance requirement, and the additional stipulation that 95\% of these calls must be reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas. "<br>
US - "For life-threatening emer-gencies, providing a transport-capable unit within 8:59 with 90\% reliability is the most common urban benchmark. Common rural and wilderness benchmarks are within 15/90\% and 30/90\%, respectively."</p></div><p>While close, these aren't really measuring the same things. One is looking at time to patient contact the other time to transport capability. In the UK example, if I can get a medic to the patient in 6 minutes by putting him/her on a bicycle to get through hte London streets and crowds, the clock would stop as soon as they are on scene and can start treatment, and determine the need for a transport unit. Conversely, in the US example, if I do the same thing, and have a 6 minute time to get a medic to the patient in the middle of Times Square in New York City, my clock is still running until I get an ambulance there that can load the patient up and get them to the hospital whether they need to go to one or not. It may be a little pedantic, but in the US, these statistics and numbers determine funding and thus how you ask the question matters a great deal. As far as which is the better method, well, that starts to get into the realm of opinion.<br>On another note, while those US numbers may be common, you have to also remember that each jurisdiction can pretty much set their own response time goals based on the guidance their state's certifying authority, and they vary widely based on where you are. In the US, there isn't really a single, overall, national-level authority as to what those times should be, except maybe the US Department Of Transportation (yeah, I'm still trying to figure why that one is still in charge of guiding national policy EMS  since they really naturally excel in determining the definition of an ambulance, which makes about as much sense as giving the USGS the job guiding vitamin and mineral supplement policy based on the logic that your iron supplement pills were rocks at one point.) In the UK, you have a group that logically follows to set those goals and influence policy in the NHS, which deals specifically with health and medical standards for the entire nation. Determining the quality of that oversight, however, exceeds the scope of my comments and is left as an exercise for the reader to consider, preferably off-line and a great distance away from me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>UK - " The most critical emergency calls , referred to as " Category A " calls , have a response time requirement of eight minutes and zero seconds , with a 75 \ % compliance requirement , and the additional stipulation that 95 \ % of these calls must be reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas .
" US - " For life-threatening emer-gencies , providing a transport-capable unit within 8 : 59 with 90 \ % reliability is the most common urban benchmark .
Common rural and wilderness benchmarks are within 15/90 \ % and 30/90 \ % , respectively .
" While close , these are n't really measuring the same things .
One is looking at time to patient contact the other time to transport capability .
In the UK example , if I can get a medic to the patient in 6 minutes by putting him/her on a bicycle to get through hte London streets and crowds , the clock would stop as soon as they are on scene and can start treatment , and determine the need for a transport unit .
Conversely , in the US example , if I do the same thing , and have a 6 minute time to get a medic to the patient in the middle of Times Square in New York City , my clock is still running until I get an ambulance there that can load the patient up and get them to the hospital whether they need to go to one or not .
It may be a little pedantic , but in the US , these statistics and numbers determine funding and thus how you ask the question matters a great deal .
As far as which is the better method , well , that starts to get into the realm of opinion.On another note , while those US numbers may be common , you have to also remember that each jurisdiction can pretty much set their own response time goals based on the guidance their state 's certifying authority , and they vary widely based on where you are .
In the US , there is n't really a single , overall , national-level authority as to what those times should be , except maybe the US Department Of Transportation ( yeah , I 'm still trying to figure why that one is still in charge of guiding national policy EMS since they really naturally excel in determining the definition of an ambulance , which makes about as much sense as giving the USGS the job guiding vitamin and mineral supplement policy based on the logic that your iron supplement pills were rocks at one point .
) In the UK , you have a group that logically follows to set those goals and influence policy in the NHS , which deals specifically with health and medical standards for the entire nation .
Determining the quality of that oversight , however , exceeds the scope of my comments and is left as an exercise for the reader to consider , preferably off-line and a great distance away from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UK - "The most critical emergency calls, referred to as "Category A" calls, have a response time requirement of eight minutes and zero seconds, with a 75\% compliance requirement, and the additional stipulation that 95\% of these calls must be reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas.
"
US - "For life-threatening emer-gencies, providing a transport-capable unit within 8:59 with 90\% reliability is the most common urban benchmark.
Common rural and wilderness benchmarks are within 15/90\% and 30/90\%, respectively.
"While close, these aren't really measuring the same things.
One is looking at time to patient contact the other time to transport capability.
In the UK example, if I can get a medic to the patient in 6 minutes by putting him/her on a bicycle to get through hte London streets and crowds, the clock would stop as soon as they are on scene and can start treatment, and determine the need for a transport unit.
Conversely, in the US example, if I do the same thing, and have a 6 minute time to get a medic to the patient in the middle of Times Square in New York City, my clock is still running until I get an ambulance there that can load the patient up and get them to the hospital whether they need to go to one or not.
It may be a little pedantic, but in the US, these statistics and numbers determine funding and thus how you ask the question matters a great deal.
As far as which is the better method, well, that starts to get into the realm of opinion.On another note, while those US numbers may be common, you have to also remember that each jurisdiction can pretty much set their own response time goals based on the guidance their state's certifying authority, and they vary widely based on where you are.
In the US, there isn't really a single, overall, national-level authority as to what those times should be, except maybe the US Department Of Transportation (yeah, I'm still trying to figure why that one is still in charge of guiding national policy EMS  since they really naturally excel in determining the definition of an ambulance, which makes about as much sense as giving the USGS the job guiding vitamin and mineral supplement policy based on the logic that your iron supplement pills were rocks at one point.
) In the UK, you have a group that logically follows to set those goals and influence policy in the NHS, which deals specifically with health and medical standards for the entire nation.
Determining the quality of that oversight, however, exceeds the scope of my comments and is left as an exercise for the reader to consider, preferably off-line and a great distance away from me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564984</id>
	<title>Re:PE is needed for Programmers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269257100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>PE certificates for safety-criticial developers is a good idea. However, certification is already required for the actual safety-critical system. Certifying the system itself, rather than the developer, is more important. And in any case, the end result is similar, as incompetent developers who would not get the PE would not be able to develop systems which would get certification.</htmltext>
<tokenext>PE certificates for safety-criticial developers is a good idea .
However , certification is already required for the actual safety-critical system .
Certifying the system itself , rather than the developer , is more important .
And in any case , the end result is similar , as incompetent developers who would not get the PE would not be able to develop systems which would get certification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PE certificates for safety-criticial developers is a good idea.
However, certification is already required for the actual safety-critical system.
Certifying the system itself, rather than the developer, is more important.
And in any case, the end result is similar, as incompetent developers who would not get the PE would not be able to develop systems which would get certification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563628</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563070</id>
	<title>that sounds like a misconfiguration</title>
	<author>Punto</author>
	<datestamp>1269187500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more than a flaw in the system, doesn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more than a flaw in the system , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more than a flaw in the system, doesn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565066</id>
	<title>So ...</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1269258540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So not actually a flaw in the application at all, but a flaw in whoever makes decisions like these in terms of absolute quantities.</p><p>Some people have fallen thousands of feet after parachutes failed to open and survived with maybe a broken leg.</p><p>And some other people manage to drown in 3 inches of bathwater.</p><p>Should we really be applying math to these kinds of decisions, when common sense is really all we need ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So not actually a flaw in the application at all , but a flaw in whoever makes decisions like these in terms of absolute quantities.Some people have fallen thousands of feet after parachutes failed to open and survived with maybe a broken leg.And some other people manage to drown in 3 inches of bathwater.Should we really be applying math to these kinds of decisions , when common sense is really all we need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So not actually a flaw in the application at all, but a flaw in whoever makes decisions like these in terms of absolute quantities.Some people have fallen thousands of feet after parachutes failed to open and survived with maybe a broken leg.And some other people manage to drown in 3 inches of bathwater.Should we really be applying math to these kinds of decisions, when common sense is really all we need ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562142</id>
	<title>Carol Beer was not a Satire</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1269180300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>Caller:</b> Please hurry!! He's fallen down a 30ft well! Can't you get here any faster!?</p><p><b>A&amp;E Drone:</b> *clackety clackety*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...... Computer say <i>Nooooo</i>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Caller : Please hurry ! !
He 's fallen down a 30ft well !
Ca n't you get here any faster !
? A&amp;E Drone : * clackety clackety * ...... Computer say Nooooo... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Caller: Please hurry!!
He's fallen down a 30ft well!
Can't you get here any faster!
?A&amp;E Drone: *clackety clackety* ...... Computer say Nooooo....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563436</id>
	<title>Re:The point</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1269191160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent is correct, and everyone else is having a reading-comprehension-glitch. (The summary is not spectacular, but the information is there.) This is definitely an error of logic. Consider this original code:</p><p>if (isGeneralHorribleThing()) then category = A;<br>if (isFallOver6Feet()) then category = A;</p><p>Now, change the very last letter above to a "B". Do you see the logic error? FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It meant that if a call involved a fall of more than 6ft it was designated a lower priority - a category B response - despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.</p><p>As a result, Mrs Mason lay unconscious for more than 38 minutes. The first ambulance sent to her home in the village of Eye, Suffolk, was diverted to attend to a drunk woman who had fallen on a pavement 22 miles away in Thetford, Norfolk. <b>Because the inebriated woman had fallen at ground level, her situation was prioritised over that of Mrs Mason</b>, who was close to death by the time paramedics arrived.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is correct , and everyone else is having a reading-comprehension-glitch .
( The summary is not spectacular , but the information is there .
) This is definitely an error of logic .
Consider this original code : if ( isGeneralHorribleThing ( ) ) then category = A ; if ( isFallOver6Feet ( ) ) then category = A ; Now , change the very last letter above to a " B " .
Do you see the logic error ?
FTA : It meant that if a call involved a fall of more than 6ft it was designated a lower priority - a category B response - despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.As a result , Mrs Mason lay unconscious for more than 38 minutes .
The first ambulance sent to her home in the village of Eye , Suffolk , was diverted to attend to a drunk woman who had fallen on a pavement 22 miles away in Thetford , Norfolk .
Because the inebriated woman had fallen at ground level , her situation was prioritised over that of Mrs Mason , who was close to death by the time paramedics arrived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent is correct, and everyone else is having a reading-comprehension-glitch.
(The summary is not spectacular, but the information is there.
) This is definitely an error of logic.
Consider this original code:if (isGeneralHorribleThing()) then category = A;if (isFallOver6Feet()) then category = A;Now, change the very last letter above to a "B".
Do you see the logic error?
FTA:It meant that if a call involved a fall of more than 6ft it was designated a lower priority - a category B response - despite the presence of life-threatening conditions which were supposed to receive the most urgent category A response.As a result, Mrs Mason lay unconscious for more than 38 minutes.
The first ambulance sent to her home in the village of Eye, Suffolk, was diverted to attend to a drunk woman who had fallen on a pavement 22 miles away in Thetford, Norfolk.
Because the inebriated woman had fallen at ground level, her situation was prioritised over that of Mrs Mason, who was close to death by the time paramedics arrived.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562246</id>
	<title>Government Committees, I need more please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should have them run our healthcare in the USA!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should have them run our healthcare in the USA !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should have them run our healthcare in the USA!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565112</id>
	<title>Isnt it interesting ...</title>
	<author>tkjtkj</author>
	<datestamp>1269259320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it interesting that the blame is put on some 'flaw in a system', where, in truth, the blame is simply a catastrophic error in judgment by a committee.  Although its not stated, the odds are that the committee did not include members with medical training.   Any fool can see that falling 6' is likely to cause fatal injuries, especially to the elderly.

Where are the individuals who made this absurd change?  Who are they?  Are they vulnerable to law suite or any sort of consequences?

The 'system' worked.   Those responsible for defining what the 'system' should do did not work in the interests of the public.

Why try to hide them?

Are there other committees making similar 'money-saving' decisions?

tkjtkj, m.d.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it interesting that the blame is put on some 'flaw in a system ' , where , in truth , the blame is simply a catastrophic error in judgment by a committee .
Although its not stated , the odds are that the committee did not include members with medical training .
Any fool can see that falling 6 ' is likely to cause fatal injuries , especially to the elderly .
Where are the individuals who made this absurd change ?
Who are they ?
Are they vulnerable to law suite or any sort of consequences ?
The 'system ' worked .
Those responsible for defining what the 'system ' should do did not work in the interests of the public .
Why try to hide them ?
Are there other committees making similar 'money-saving ' decisions ?
tkjtkj , m.d .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it interesting that the blame is put on some 'flaw in a system', where, in truth, the blame is simply a catastrophic error in judgment by a committee.
Although its not stated, the odds are that the committee did not include members with medical training.
Any fool can see that falling 6' is likely to cause fatal injuries, especially to the elderly.
Where are the individuals who made this absurd change?
Who are they?
Are they vulnerable to law suite or any sort of consequences?
The 'system' worked.
Those responsible for defining what the 'system' should do did not work in the interests of the public.
Why try to hide them?
Are there other committees making similar 'money-saving' decisions?
tkjtkj, m.d.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562222</id>
	<title>Re:Not a flaw in the system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.  What we should be reading is a headline that says Great Britain Death Panel Doing Bang Up Job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
What we should be reading is a headline that says Great Britain Death Panel Doing Bang Up Job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
What we should be reading is a headline that says Great Britain Death Panel Doing Bang Up Job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31570348</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>UnknowingFool</author>
	<datestamp>1269278340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what it would look like in pseudocode:
<br>
US version:
<p>
<tt>
if (fallDistance &gt; 6 ) {
category = "A";
}
</tt> </p><p>
UK version:
</p><p> <tt>
if (fallDistance &gt; 6 ) {
category = "B";
}
</tt> </p><p>
What it should have been:
</p><p>
<tt>
if (fallDistance &gt; 8 ) {
category = "A";
}
</tt> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what it would look like in pseudocode : US version : if ( fallDistance &gt; 6 ) { category = " A " ; } UK version : if ( fallDistance &gt; 6 ) { category = " B " ; } What it should have been : if ( fallDistance &gt; 8 ) { category = " A " ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what it would look like in pseudocode:

US version:


if (fallDistance &gt; 6 ) {
category = "A";
}
 
UK version:
 
if (fallDistance &gt; 6 ) {
category = "B";
}
 
What it should have been:


if (fallDistance &gt; 8 ) {
category = "A";
}
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562594</id>
	<title>mo3 down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Ch4rnel house.  The All m4jor surveys</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ch4rnel house .
The All m4jor surveys [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ch4rnel house.
The All m4jor surveys [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562920</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1269186360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ostensibly, "System" here applies to the whole kaboodle, people where having emergencies, but because of the incorrect classification, the system was not responding correctly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ostensibly , " System " here applies to the whole kaboodle , people where having emergencies , but because of the incorrect classification , the system was not responding correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ostensibly, "System" here applies to the whole kaboodle, people where having emergencies, but because of the incorrect classification, the system was not responding correctly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562852</id>
	<title>A 6 foot fall</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1269185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's that in meters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that in meters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that in meters?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565364</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1269262440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network? </p></div><p>because probably each country has its own well established criteria?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the root problem , though , why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network ?
because probably each country has its own well established criteria ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?
because probably each country has its own well established criteria?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31566726</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1269268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly?</i></p><p>Because the rules that are used to classify incidents are part of the emergency response system?  Just a guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly ? Because the rules that are used to classify incidents are part of the emergency response system ?
Just a guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly?Because the rules that are used to classify incidents are part of the emergency response system?
Just a guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562202</id>
	<title>Government committee</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1269180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"However, the government committee which governs its use in Great Britain decided that such cases should be deemed less urgent, and excluded from an eight minute category A target response time."

I just have to wonder, what was the make-up of this committee?  Was it bureaucrats, or actual medical and emergency response professionals, or a combination of the two?  What was the justification and evidence used to determine the likelihood of cases such as these to be life-threatening?  If I lived in England, I would be calling for all of this to be reviewed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" However , the government committee which governs its use in Great Britain decided that such cases should be deemed less urgent , and excluded from an eight minute category A target response time .
" I just have to wonder , what was the make-up of this committee ?
Was it bureaucrats , or actual medical and emergency response professionals , or a combination of the two ?
What was the justification and evidence used to determine the likelihood of cases such as these to be life-threatening ?
If I lived in England , I would be calling for all of this to be reviewed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"However, the government committee which governs its use in Great Britain decided that such cases should be deemed less urgent, and excluded from an eight minute category A target response time.
"

I just have to wonder, what was the make-up of this committee?
Was it bureaucrats, or actual medical and emergency response professionals, or a combination of the two?
What was the justification and evidence used to determine the likelihood of cases such as these to be life-threatening?
If I lived in England, I would be calling for all of this to be reviewed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562914</id>
	<title>Re:Dangers of technical rationality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269186300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>and I would not assign any blame to those who developed it</p> </div><p>But, but... they were <i>AMERICANS</i> - didn't you RTFS?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I would not assign any blame to those who developed it But , but... they were AMERICANS - did n't you RTFS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I would not assign any blame to those who developed it But, but... they were AMERICANS - didn't you RTFS?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562216</id>
	<title>Re:I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The flaw in the decision system was that the decision system had been told to decide in a way which wasn't the best way. As a consequences, the decision system decided in a way that wasn't the best. Where exactly the flaw lies is up to your interpretation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The flaw in the decision system was that the decision system had been told to decide in a way which was n't the best way .
As a consequences , the decision system decided in a way that was n't the best .
Where exactly the flaw lies is up to your interpretation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flaw in the decision system was that the decision system had been told to decide in a way which wasn't the best way.
As a consequences, the decision system decided in a way that wasn't the best.
Where exactly the flaw lies is up to your interpretation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563418</id>
	<title>Re:Not a flaw in the system</title>
	<author>SmackTheIgnorant</author>
	<datestamp>1269190980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No stupid, they're not falling up, they're falling down!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No stupid , they 're not falling up , they 're falling down !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No stupid, they're not falling up, they're falling down!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562114</id>
	<title>Oh my stars</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1269180060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> in Great Britain may have cost hundreds of lives over the past ten years. Most ambulance services use an international computerized system designed in America</p></div> </blockquote><p>Revenge for that Mars probe metric conversion mishap</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in Great Britain may have cost hundreds of lives over the past ten years .
Most ambulance services use an international computerized system designed in America Revenge for that Mars probe metric conversion mishap</tokentext>
<sentencetext> in Great Britain may have cost hundreds of lives over the past ten years.
Most ambulance services use an international computerized system designed in America Revenge for that Mars probe metric conversion mishap
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565064</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>lul\_wat</author>
	<datestamp>1269258540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree completely. It's best to keep health priorties right where they belong- profit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely .
It 's best to keep health priorties right where they belong- profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely.
It's best to keep health priorties right where they belong- profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562150</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The flaw came to light after Bonnie Mason, 58, fell 12 feet down the stairs and died from a head injury</p></div></blockquote><p>

"I've fallen...and I can't get up!" <br> <br>But seriously - she was gonna die soon anyway. She probably nagged the hell out of her family and held up supermarket lines arguing with the cashier over a 5-pence rebate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The flaw came to light after Bonnie Mason , 58 , fell 12 feet down the stairs and died from a head injury " I 've fallen...and I ca n't get up !
" But seriously - she was gon na die soon anyway .
She probably nagged the hell out of her family and held up supermarket lines arguing with the cashier over a 5-pence rebate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The flaw came to light after Bonnie Mason, 58, fell 12 feet down the stairs and died from a head injury

"I've fallen...and I can't get up!
"  But seriously - she was gonna die soon anyway.
She probably nagged the hell out of her family and held up supermarket lines arguing with the cashier over a 5-pence rebate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563628</id>
	<title>PE is needed for Programmers</title>
	<author>linzeal</author>
	<datestamp>1269192720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why we need a Professional Engineering certificate for 'Software Engineers' and a degree that prepare them for it.</p><p>There is no reason why I as a mechanical engineer should have to get certified to work on simple things like bridge refits, HVAC and the like and a software engineer/programmer/code monkey with no required qualifications can program anything up to and including life support, emergency dispatch and weapon systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we need a Professional Engineering certificate for 'Software Engineers ' and a degree that prepare them for it.There is no reason why I as a mechanical engineer should have to get certified to work on simple things like bridge refits , HVAC and the like and a software engineer/programmer/code monkey with no required qualifications can program anything up to and including life support , emergency dispatch and weapon systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we need a Professional Engineering certificate for 'Software Engineers' and a degree that prepare them for it.There is no reason why I as a mechanical engineer should have to get certified to work on simple things like bridge refits, HVAC and the like and a software engineer/programmer/code monkey with no required qualifications can program anything up to and including life support, emergency dispatch and weapon systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31569940</id>
	<title>Entropy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269277080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a paramedic in the US and thats pretty misleading. First the definition of a fall changes with what sort of fall it is.  Generally a fall of 6 feet going priority 1 means they fell off scaffolding (or a vertical drop of 6 feet). Otherwise we use approx 2XBody-height in situations where people fall down stairs.  However there is a caveat that if the patient has altered mental status/chest pain/shortness of breath it gets bumped up to a priority 1.  This is not the softwares fault, its the dispatchers not paying attention to the signs of serious injury.  EMD (Emergency Medical Dispatch) only works when you have competent people behind it.</p><p>People also need to realize that the accident rate (at least in the US) is 150\% higher for ambulances/firetrucks/police cars who are going priority one.  Would you rather an ambulance get there 2-3 min earlier or not at all.  People also need to learn what is an emergency vs. taxi ride; nose bleeds, gold tooth pain (yes I've had all of these calls recently) do not require an ambulance, but because you call we have to go using the limited resources we do have. I work in a city of a population of about 100,000 and there are 4 ambulances TOTAL running emergency calls. Think about that next time you have a cold for a few days and want an ambulance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a paramedic in the US and thats pretty misleading .
First the definition of a fall changes with what sort of fall it is .
Generally a fall of 6 feet going priority 1 means they fell off scaffolding ( or a vertical drop of 6 feet ) .
Otherwise we use approx 2XBody-height in situations where people fall down stairs .
However there is a caveat that if the patient has altered mental status/chest pain/shortness of breath it gets bumped up to a priority 1 .
This is not the softwares fault , its the dispatchers not paying attention to the signs of serious injury .
EMD ( Emergency Medical Dispatch ) only works when you have competent people behind it.People also need to realize that the accident rate ( at least in the US ) is 150 \ % higher for ambulances/firetrucks/police cars who are going priority one .
Would you rather an ambulance get there 2-3 min earlier or not at all .
People also need to learn what is an emergency vs. taxi ride ; nose bleeds , gold tooth pain ( yes I 've had all of these calls recently ) do not require an ambulance , but because you call we have to go using the limited resources we do have .
I work in a city of a population of about 100,000 and there are 4 ambulances TOTAL running emergency calls .
Think about that next time you have a cold for a few days and want an ambulance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a paramedic in the US and thats pretty misleading.
First the definition of a fall changes with what sort of fall it is.
Generally a fall of 6 feet going priority 1 means they fell off scaffolding (or a vertical drop of 6 feet).
Otherwise we use approx 2XBody-height in situations where people fall down stairs.
However there is a caveat that if the patient has altered mental status/chest pain/shortness of breath it gets bumped up to a priority 1.
This is not the softwares fault, its the dispatchers not paying attention to the signs of serious injury.
EMD (Emergency Medical Dispatch) only works when you have competent people behind it.People also need to realize that the accident rate (at least in the US) is 150\% higher for ambulances/firetrucks/police cars who are going priority one.
Would you rather an ambulance get there 2-3 min earlier or not at all.
People also need to learn what is an emergency vs. taxi ride; nose bleeds, gold tooth pain (yes I've had all of these calls recently) do not require an ambulance, but because you call we have to go using the limited resources we do have.
I work in a city of a population of about 100,000 and there are 4 ambulances TOTAL running emergency calls.
Think about that next time you have a cold for a few days and want an ambulance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564076</id>
	<title>Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1269198240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forbidding the staff to exercise judgement in an emergency call center is the best illustration I've come across in a long time of what Barry Swartz refers to as the "war on wisdom".</p><p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/barry\_schwartz\_on\_our\_loss\_of\_wisdom.html" title="ted.com">Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom</a> [ted.com]</p><p>From the online transcript:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The truth is that neither rules nor incentives are enough to do the job. How could you even write a rule that go the janitors to do what they did?  And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic? It's preposterous on its face. And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules, rules and incentives may make things better in the short run, but they create a downward spiral that makes them worse in the long run. Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules that deprives us of the opportunity to improvise and learn from our improvisations. And moral will is undermined by an incessant appeal to incentives that destroy our desire to do the right thing. And without intending it, by appealing to rules and incentives, we are engaging in a war on wisdom.</p></div><p>This is actually a bit of a talking head lecture.  Not much sizzle, but a message worth repeating.</p><p>There ought to be nowhere to hide for a bureaucrat forbids the use of human wisdom when the rigid system that ensues makes a total hash of things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forbidding the staff to exercise judgement in an emergency call center is the best illustration I 've come across in a long time of what Barry Swartz refers to as the " war on wisdom " .Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom [ ted.com ] From the online transcript : The truth is that neither rules nor incentives are enough to do the job .
How could you even write a rule that go the janitors to do what they did ?
And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic ?
It 's preposterous on its face .
And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules , rules and incentives may make things better in the short run , but they create a downward spiral that makes them worse in the long run .
Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules that deprives us of the opportunity to improvise and learn from our improvisations .
And moral will is undermined by an incessant appeal to incentives that destroy our desire to do the right thing .
And without intending it , by appealing to rules and incentives , we are engaging in a war on wisdom.This is actually a bit of a talking head lecture .
Not much sizzle , but a message worth repeating.There ought to be nowhere to hide for a bureaucrat forbids the use of human wisdom when the rigid system that ensues makes a total hash of things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forbidding the staff to exercise judgement in an emergency call center is the best illustration I've come across in a long time of what Barry Swartz refers to as the "war on wisdom".Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom [ted.com]From the online transcript:The truth is that neither rules nor incentives are enough to do the job.
How could you even write a rule that go the janitors to do what they did?
And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic?
It's preposterous on its face.
And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules, rules and incentives may make things better in the short run, but they create a downward spiral that makes them worse in the long run.
Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules that deprives us of the opportunity to improvise and learn from our improvisations.
And moral will is undermined by an incessant appeal to incentives that destroy our desire to do the right thing.
And without intending it, by appealing to rules and incentives, we are engaging in a war on wisdom.This is actually a bit of a talking head lecture.
Not much sizzle, but a message worth repeating.There ought to be nowhere to hide for a bureaucrat forbids the use of human wisdom when the rigid system that ensues makes a total hash of things.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565284</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1269261660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?</p><p>Because it's their job to decide how limited resources, in this case emergency response capacity, should be shared. No matter how many ambulances you put on the road, there will always be tough priorities to make.</p><p>There are people who spend their entire careers pouring over medical statistics, constructing casual models, looking for patterns and ways to shave off another percentage of bad outcomes. Are you one of them, or are you just an armchair freakonomist seeing an excuse to bash "government"? If the latter, then maybe you should just shut up, because the people who made the decision in all likelihood know more about it than you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; More to the root problem , though , why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network ? Because it 's their job to decide how limited resources , in this case emergency response capacity , should be shared .
No matter how many ambulances you put on the road , there will always be tough priorities to make.There are people who spend their entire careers pouring over medical statistics , constructing casual models , looking for patterns and ways to shave off another percentage of bad outcomes .
Are you one of them , or are you just an armchair freakonomist seeing an excuse to bash " government " ?
If the latter , then maybe you should just shut up , because the people who made the decision in all likelihood know more about it than you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?Because it's their job to decide how limited resources, in this case emergency response capacity, should be shared.
No matter how many ambulances you put on the road, there will always be tough priorities to make.There are people who spend their entire careers pouring over medical statistics, constructing casual models, looking for patterns and ways to shave off another percentage of bad outcomes.
Are you one of them, or are you just an armchair freakonomist seeing an excuse to bash "government"?
If the latter, then maybe you should just shut up, because the people who made the decision in all likelihood know more about it than you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems that the software downgraded to category B if the fall was larger than 6 feet regardless of other (category A) factors.</p><p>e.g., the patient has been shot and stabbed and drowned and fell 8 feet so it's a category B now.</p><p>That is a fault in the software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the software downgraded to category B if the fall was larger than 6 feet regardless of other ( category A ) factors.e.g. , the patient has been shot and stabbed and drowned and fell 8 feet so it 's a category B now.That is a fault in the software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the software downgraded to category B if the fall was larger than 6 feet regardless of other (category A) factors.e.g., the patient has been shot and stabbed and drowned and fell 8 feet so it's a category B now.That is a fault in the software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269187260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it actually sounds like they screwed up when they altered the parameters.</p><p>Instead of raising the threshold for a Cat A response from 6 feet to say, 8 feet, they set an exclusion which said "if the fall is greater than 6 feet, set to Category B".</p><p>There is a huge difference between the two.  In the first instance, extenuating factors (a knife wound, abnormal breathing, etc) will always bump the Category up despite the height of the fall.  It could be four feet or ten feet, it wouldn't matter.  With an exclusion, however, ALL falls over 6 feet, regardless of extenuating factors, will always be bumped down to Cat B.</p><p>The fault lies squarely on the people who modified the system, and that was driven shortsightedly by this governmental committee.</p><p>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?  Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?!</p><p>All I can say is, welcome to government managed health care, where the least important person in the system is the patient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it actually sounds like they screwed up when they altered the parameters.Instead of raising the threshold for a Cat A response from 6 feet to say , 8 feet , they set an exclusion which said " if the fall is greater than 6 feet , set to Category B " .There is a huge difference between the two .
In the first instance , extenuating factors ( a knife wound , abnormal breathing , etc ) will always bump the Category up despite the height of the fall .
It could be four feet or ten feet , it would n't matter .
With an exclusion , however , ALL falls over 6 feet , regardless of extenuating factors , will always be bumped down to Cat B.The fault lies squarely on the people who modified the system , and that was driven shortsightedly by this governmental committee.More to the root problem , though , why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network ?
Why in god 's name did n't they get more frickin ambulances ?
! All I can say is , welcome to government managed health care , where the least important person in the system is the patient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it actually sounds like they screwed up when they altered the parameters.Instead of raising the threshold for a Cat A response from 6 feet to say, 8 feet, they set an exclusion which said "if the fall is greater than 6 feet, set to Category B".There is a huge difference between the two.
In the first instance, extenuating factors (a knife wound, abnormal breathing, etc) will always bump the Category up despite the height of the fall.
It could be four feet or ten feet, it wouldn't matter.
With an exclusion, however, ALL falls over 6 feet, regardless of extenuating factors, will always be bumped down to Cat B.The fault lies squarely on the people who modified the system, and that was driven shortsightedly by this governmental committee.More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?
Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?
!All I can say is, welcome to government managed health care, where the least important person in the system is the patient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563292</id>
	<title>What can the Government do for you?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1269189720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a whole hell of a lot, and the more you expect it to do the less you will get from it.</p><p>U.K. is a shinning example of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a whole hell of a lot , and the more you expect it to do the less you will get from it.U.K .
is a shinning example of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a whole hell of a lot, and the more you expect it to do the less you will get from it.U.K.
is a shinning example of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562220</id>
	<title>The point</title>
	<author>kdcttg</author>
	<datestamp>1269180660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the comments I have read above me are missing the point, or maybe I am.</p><p>The software was changed so that falls of more than 6 feet no longer caused a case to be considered "category A", the problem is that (through a mistake when rewriting that bit of code I assume), mention of a fall was causing a case to be considered "category B" even if other things were present that would normally have made it "category A".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the comments I have read above me are missing the point , or maybe I am.The software was changed so that falls of more than 6 feet no longer caused a case to be considered " category A " , the problem is that ( through a mistake when rewriting that bit of code I assume ) , mention of a fall was causing a case to be considered " category B " even if other things were present that would normally have made it " category A " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the comments I have read above me are missing the point, or maybe I am.The software was changed so that falls of more than 6 feet no longer caused a case to be considered "category A", the problem is that (through a mistake when rewriting that bit of code I assume), mention of a fall was causing a case to be considered "category B" even if other things were present that would normally have made it "category A".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562556</id>
	<title>ProQA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.radiowiki.org.nz/index.php/ProQA" title="radiowiki.org.nz" rel="nofollow">http://www.radiowiki.org.nz/index.php/ProQA</a> [radiowiki.org.nz]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.radiowiki.org.nz/index.php/ProQA [ radiowiki.org.nz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.radiowiki.org.nz/index.php/ProQA [radiowiki.org.nz]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563460</id>
	<title>It's not a bug...</title>
	<author>Hawthorne01</author>
	<datestamp>1269191400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... it's a feature! Now victims of falls from more than six feet can die at home, rather than in the horrible NHS-run hospitals!</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 's a feature !
Now victims of falls from more than six feet can die at home , rather than in the horrible NHS-run hospitals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... it's a feature!
Now victims of falls from more than six feet can die at home, rather than in the horrible NHS-run hospitals!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524</id>
	<title>Why does fall distance matter so much?</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1269183000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF!  They determine urgency based on the total distance someone falls?   So a person who falls eight feet is automatically considered urgent, even if they landed on their feet and their only symptom is some swelling in their ankle, where as a person who falls four feet and lands on a metal spike which goes directly into their eyeball is a less serious situation?
<br> <br>
Believe it or not, I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones.
<br> <br>
Determining the seriousness of an incident has absolutely nothing to do with the height someone has fallen - none.
<br> <br>
It seems a typical British call would be like this
<br>"Yes, my friend just fell from a ladder and..."
<br>"Okay, how tall was the ladder"
<br>"Uh.. well he only went down about five feet, but he landed on his head on a cement floor and he's unconscious.  He's gurgling up blood.."
<br>"Okay well we're going to consider this a low priority.."
<br>"But he's now going into some kind of convulsions.  Oh my god, there's blood coming out of his eyes..."
<br>"Sir, listen, a four foot fall is no reason for concern.  We have many other calls to get to.  A man just fell off of a one story roof and we think he may have dislocated his knee.  There are more important calls to attend to.  Just tell your friend not to be such a pansy over such a short fall"
<br> <br> <br>

Okay, I have an idea.  If you call 911, the problem should be assumed to be a life-critical emergency which emergency services need to get to as fast as is reasonably possible.  If its not a life critical, time sensitive emergency, don't call 9-1-1, or 9-9-9 or whatever the emergency number might be!</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF !
They determine urgency based on the total distance someone falls ?
So a person who falls eight feet is automatically considered urgent , even if they landed on their feet and their only symptom is some swelling in their ankle , where as a person who falls four feet and lands on a metal spike which goes directly into their eyeball is a less serious situation ?
Believe it or not , I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones .
Determining the seriousness of an incident has absolutely nothing to do with the height someone has fallen - none .
It seems a typical British call would be like this " Yes , my friend just fell from a ladder and... " " Okay , how tall was the ladder " " Uh.. well he only went down about five feet , but he landed on his head on a cement floor and he 's unconscious .
He 's gurgling up blood.. " " Okay well we 're going to consider this a low priority.. " " But he 's now going into some kind of convulsions .
Oh my god , there 's blood coming out of his eyes... " " Sir , listen , a four foot fall is no reason for concern .
We have many other calls to get to .
A man just fell off of a one story roof and we think he may have dislocated his knee .
There are more important calls to attend to .
Just tell your friend not to be such a pansy over such a short fall " Okay , I have an idea .
If you call 911 , the problem should be assumed to be a life-critical emergency which emergency services need to get to as fast as is reasonably possible .
If its not a life critical , time sensitive emergency , do n't call 9-1-1 , or 9-9-9 or whatever the emergency number might be !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF!
They determine urgency based on the total distance someone falls?
So a person who falls eight feet is automatically considered urgent, even if they landed on their feet and their only symptom is some swelling in their ankle, where as a person who falls four feet and lands on a metal spike which goes directly into their eyeball is a less serious situation?
Believe it or not, I have tripped and fallen down a full flight of stairs and ended up with only a few bruises but I know people who fell off of a stool and broke bones.
Determining the seriousness of an incident has absolutely nothing to do with the height someone has fallen - none.
It seems a typical British call would be like this
"Yes, my friend just fell from a ladder and..."
"Okay, how tall was the ladder"
"Uh.. well he only went down about five feet, but he landed on his head on a cement floor and he's unconscious.
He's gurgling up blood.."
"Okay well we're going to consider this a low priority.."
"But he's now going into some kind of convulsions.
Oh my god, there's blood coming out of his eyes..."
"Sir, listen, a four foot fall is no reason for concern.
We have many other calls to get to.
A man just fell off of a one story roof and we think he may have dislocated his knee.
There are more important calls to attend to.
Just tell your friend not to be such a pansy over such a short fall"
  

Okay, I have an idea.
If you call 911, the problem should be assumed to be a life-critical emergency which emergency services need to get to as fast as is reasonably possible.
If its not a life critical, time sensitive emergency, don't call 9-1-1, or 9-9-9 or whatever the emergency number might be!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562270</id>
	<title>Slylandro probe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is anyone else reminded of Star Control 2?  The "peaceful" Slylandro probe... which was misconfigured with bad priorities.</p><p><b>Captain:</b> Your probe DOES destroy ships and I can prove it!<br><b>Slylandro:</b> No! It cannot! It is not programmed for hostile behavior! What is your reasoning?!<br><b>Captain:</b> Think about what a probe does when it meets a ship.<br><b>Slylandro:</b> Space ships are the probe's highest priority because we want more than anything to make friendly contact with alien races.<br><b>Captain:</b> Think about a probe's Replication behavior.<br><b>Slylandro:</b> The probe seeks raw materials, and processes them in preparation for Replication.<br><b>Captain:</b> Think about the effect of changing the replication behavior's priority.<br><b>Slylandro:</b> The answer is simple... it would spend more of its time seeking raw materials for its replication process. So what?<br><b>Captain:</b> Now, what will it do to a ship, given that its Replication priority is set to maximum?<br><b>Slylandro:</b> I don't see what you are getting at, but I'll play along with you.<br><b>Slylandro:</b> Like I said, alien ships are THE top priority target. Once a probe scanned a ship, it would instantly move toward it. Then, when it got to the ship, it would initiate communication automatically. When communications were terminated, a new behavior would be selected, and...<br><b>Slylandro:</b> Uh-oh.<br><b>Slylandro:</b> A new behavior would be selected, and since the Replication setting was set to maximum the probe wouldn't get time to pick a new target... it would use the current target--the ship--for raw Replication materials.  It would process the ship, break it into component compounds with electrical discharges.<br><b>Slylandro:</b> Oh no! what have we done? Traveller! You must tell us what we can do! How can we stop the probes from destroying all life in the galaxy?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else reminded of Star Control 2 ?
The " peaceful " Slylandro probe... which was misconfigured with bad priorities.Captain : Your probe DOES destroy ships and I can prove it ! Slylandro : No !
It can not !
It is not programmed for hostile behavior !
What is your reasoning ?
! Captain : Think about what a probe does when it meets a ship.Slylandro : Space ships are the probe 's highest priority because we want more than anything to make friendly contact with alien races.Captain : Think about a probe 's Replication behavior.Slylandro : The probe seeks raw materials , and processes them in preparation for Replication.Captain : Think about the effect of changing the replication behavior 's priority.Slylandro : The answer is simple... it would spend more of its time seeking raw materials for its replication process .
So what ? Captain : Now , what will it do to a ship , given that its Replication priority is set to maximum ? Slylandro : I do n't see what you are getting at , but I 'll play along with you.Slylandro : Like I said , alien ships are THE top priority target .
Once a probe scanned a ship , it would instantly move toward it .
Then , when it got to the ship , it would initiate communication automatically .
When communications were terminated , a new behavior would be selected , and...Slylandro : Uh-oh.Slylandro : A new behavior would be selected , and since the Replication setting was set to maximum the probe would n't get time to pick a new target... it would use the current target--the ship--for raw Replication materials .
It would process the ship , break it into component compounds with electrical discharges.Slylandro : Oh no !
what have we done ?
Traveller ! You must tell us what we can do !
How can we stop the probes from destroying all life in the galaxy ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else reminded of Star Control 2?
The "peaceful" Slylandro probe... which was misconfigured with bad priorities.Captain: Your probe DOES destroy ships and I can prove it!Slylandro: No!
It cannot!
It is not programmed for hostile behavior!
What is your reasoning?
!Captain: Think about what a probe does when it meets a ship.Slylandro: Space ships are the probe's highest priority because we want more than anything to make friendly contact with alien races.Captain: Think about a probe's Replication behavior.Slylandro: The probe seeks raw materials, and processes them in preparation for Replication.Captain: Think about the effect of changing the replication behavior's priority.Slylandro: The answer is simple... it would spend more of its time seeking raw materials for its replication process.
So what?Captain: Now, what will it do to a ship, given that its Replication priority is set to maximum?Slylandro: I don't see what you are getting at, but I'll play along with you.Slylandro: Like I said, alien ships are THE top priority target.
Once a probe scanned a ship, it would instantly move toward it.
Then, when it got to the ship, it would initiate communication automatically.
When communications were terminated, a new behavior would be selected, and...Slylandro: Uh-oh.Slylandro: A new behavior would be selected, and since the Replication setting was set to maximum the probe wouldn't get time to pick a new target... it would use the current target--the ship--for raw Replication materials.
It would process the ship, break it into component compounds with electrical discharges.Slylandro: Oh no!
what have we done?
Traveller! You must tell us what we can do!
How can we stop the probes from destroying all life in the galaxy?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565422</id>
	<title>Re:A 6 foot fall</title>
	<author>rwiggers</author>
	<datestamp>1269263640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.google.com.br/webhp?hl=pt-BR#hl=pt-BR&amp;source=hp&amp;q=6+foot+in+meters&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=&amp;fp=4899bbf9a167e960" title="google.com.br" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com.br/webhp?hl=pt-BR#hl=pt-BR&amp;source=hp&amp;q=6+foot+in+meters&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=&amp;fp=4899bbf9a167e960</a> [google.com.br]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.com.br/webhp ? hl = pt-BR # hl = pt-BR&amp;source = hp&amp;q = 6 + foot + in + meters&amp;meta = &amp;aq = f&amp;aqi = &amp;aql = &amp;oq = &amp;gs \ _rfai = &amp;fp = 4899bbf9a167e960 [ google.com.br ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.com.br/webhp?hl=pt-BR#hl=pt-BR&amp;source=hp&amp;q=6+foot+in+meters&amp;meta=&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;oq=&amp;gs\_rfai=&amp;fp=4899bbf9a167e960 [google.com.br]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562410</id>
	<title>Re:here's my beef</title>
	<author>Loomismeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269182100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200</id>
	<title>Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1269180600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have friends in England and one of them had her hip replaced.  A couple weeks after she was able to walk on it, she was doing the dishes and the replacement broke -- basically either the hip or femur end broke and was completely out of socket.  Her husband called 999 and the ambulance at first refused to come because it wasn't a life-threatening emergency.  "Can she just walk to the car?"  "Can you carry her to the car?"  You can probably imagine your wife screaming in pain, you not knowing if some vein or artery has been sliced, and any movement at all just makes her scream more.  "Yah, it's cool.  I just duct taped her mouth and threw her over my shoulder.  I think she's passed out from the pain so tossing her in the back seat should work a treat.  We'll be at the hospital in no time!"</p><p>I realize a line needs to be drawn somewhere.  Some people will call for an ambulance when they've cut themselves shaving.  But you know, when you can hear the screams in the background...you should probably get off your asses and help out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have friends in England and one of them had her hip replaced .
A couple weeks after she was able to walk on it , she was doing the dishes and the replacement broke -- basically either the hip or femur end broke and was completely out of socket .
Her husband called 999 and the ambulance at first refused to come because it was n't a life-threatening emergency .
" Can she just walk to the car ?
" " Can you carry her to the car ?
" You can probably imagine your wife screaming in pain , you not knowing if some vein or artery has been sliced , and any movement at all just makes her scream more .
" Yah , it 's cool .
I just duct taped her mouth and threw her over my shoulder .
I think she 's passed out from the pain so tossing her in the back seat should work a treat .
We 'll be at the hospital in no time !
" I realize a line needs to be drawn somewhere .
Some people will call for an ambulance when they 've cut themselves shaving .
But you know , when you can hear the screams in the background...you should probably get off your asses and help out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have friends in England and one of them had her hip replaced.
A couple weeks after she was able to walk on it, she was doing the dishes and the replacement broke -- basically either the hip or femur end broke and was completely out of socket.
Her husband called 999 and the ambulance at first refused to come because it wasn't a life-threatening emergency.
"Can she just walk to the car?
"  "Can you carry her to the car?
"  You can probably imagine your wife screaming in pain, you not knowing if some vein or artery has been sliced, and any movement at all just makes her scream more.
"Yah, it's cool.
I just duct taped her mouth and threw her over my shoulder.
I think she's passed out from the pain so tossing her in the back seat should work a treat.
We'll be at the hospital in no time!
"I realize a line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Some people will call for an ambulance when they've cut themselves shaving.
But you know, when you can hear the screams in the background...you should probably get off your asses and help out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564154</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1269199560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network? Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?!</p></div> </blockquote><p>That costs money, which can be better used for bonuses for the leaders.</p><blockquote><div><p>All I can say is, welcome to government managed health care, where the least important person in the system is the patient.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This is different from how private insurance firms operate how?</p><p>Face it, in any system run by humans, if you are injured, sick or otherwise incapacipated, your wellbeing depends on someone else giving a shit about it - and that someone else is a complete stranger who's more interested in getting his shift over with and going home than your life or death. The only difference between a government service and private company is that the government service regards you as a statistic while the private company regards you as a liability to get rid of on whatever flimsy excuse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the root problem , though , why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network ?
Why in god 's name did n't they get more frickin ambulances ? !
That costs money , which can be better used for bonuses for the leaders.All I can say is , welcome to government managed health care , where the least important person in the system is the patient .
This is different from how private insurance firms operate how ? Face it , in any system run by humans , if you are injured , sick or otherwise incapacipated , your wellbeing depends on someone else giving a shit about it - and that someone else is a complete stranger who 's more interested in getting his shift over with and going home than your life or death .
The only difference between a government service and private company is that the government service regards you as a statistic while the private company regards you as a liability to get rid of on whatever flimsy excuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?
Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?!
That costs money, which can be better used for bonuses for the leaders.All I can say is, welcome to government managed health care, where the least important person in the system is the patient.
This is different from how private insurance firms operate how?Face it, in any system run by humans, if you are injured, sick or otherwise incapacipated, your wellbeing depends on someone else giving a shit about it - and that someone else is a complete stranger who's more interested in getting his shift over with and going home than your life or death.
The only difference between a government service and private company is that the government service regards you as a statistic while the private company regards you as a liability to get rid of on whatever flimsy excuse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562190</id>
	<title>But falling 12 feet down the stairs...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is more like falling 24 times 6 inches, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is more like falling 24 times 6 inches , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is more like falling 24 times 6 inches, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562382</id>
	<title>0118 9998 8199 9119 725 3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269181860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least the Brits can be credited for the genius of their new number and catchy jingle.

Oh one one eight, nine nine nine--eight eight one nine nine, nine one one nine seven two five!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... three.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the Brits can be credited for the genius of their new number and catchy jingle .
Oh one one eight , nine nine nine--eight eight one nine nine , nine one one nine seven two five !
.... three .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the Brits can be credited for the genius of their new number and catchy jingle.
Oh one one eight, nine nine nine--eight eight one nine nine, nine one one nine seven two five!
.... three.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562798</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269185160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems that the software downgraded to category B if the fall was larger than 6 feet regardless of other (category A) factors.</p><p>e.g., the patient has been shot and stabbed and drowned and fell 8 feet so it's a category B now.</p><p>That is a fault in the software.</p></div><p>
So it's simple to fix it. Just insert another question: "Is the person well ? Is he begging for his life? or does he look like he's dead?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that the software downgraded to category B if the fall was larger than 6 feet regardless of other ( category A ) factors.e.g. , the patient has been shot and stabbed and drowned and fell 8 feet so it 's a category B now.That is a fault in the software .
So it 's simple to fix it .
Just insert another question : " Is the person well ?
Is he begging for his life ?
or does he look like he 's dead ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that the software downgraded to category B if the fall was larger than 6 feet regardless of other (category A) factors.e.g., the patient has been shot and stabbed and drowned and fell 8 feet so it's a category B now.That is a fault in the software.
So it's simple to fix it.
Just insert another question: "Is the person well ?
Is he begging for his life?
or does he look like he's dead?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562676</id>
	<title>Re:here's my beef</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1269184200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of mad skills and knowledge are you expecting of a person being paid, on average, less than US$16.00 per hour?</p><p>Will you expect them to be able to diagnose illness and injury over the phone? A medical degree?</p><p>What happens if the dispatcher gets it wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of mad skills and knowledge are you expecting of a person being paid , on average , less than US $ 16.00 per hour ? Will you expect them to be able to diagnose illness and injury over the phone ?
A medical degree ? What happens if the dispatcher gets it wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of mad skills and knowledge are you expecting of a person being paid, on average, less than US$16.00 per hour?Will you expect them to be able to diagnose illness and injury over the phone?
A medical degree?What happens if the dispatcher gets it wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563772</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1269193980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ambulance shortages aren't exactly unique to socialized medicine.  All emergency medical facilities have to practice some sort of triage.</p><p>Unfortunately, we can't reasonably justify doubling the size of our emergency medical response teams for those once-in-a-thousand cases where it would be necessary to have extra staff/ambulances on hand.  Also unfortunately, these once-in-a-thousand cases happen every few days over the span of a big country.  Statistics can be a bitch sometimes.</p><p>Also, emergency services in the US are already almost always run by local governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ambulance shortages are n't exactly unique to socialized medicine .
All emergency medical facilities have to practice some sort of triage.Unfortunately , we ca n't reasonably justify doubling the size of our emergency medical response teams for those once-in-a-thousand cases where it would be necessary to have extra staff/ambulances on hand .
Also unfortunately , these once-in-a-thousand cases happen every few days over the span of a big country .
Statistics can be a bitch sometimes.Also , emergency services in the US are already almost always run by local governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ambulance shortages aren't exactly unique to socialized medicine.
All emergency medical facilities have to practice some sort of triage.Unfortunately, we can't reasonably justify doubling the size of our emergency medical response teams for those once-in-a-thousand cases where it would be necessary to have extra staff/ambulances on hand.
Also unfortunately, these once-in-a-thousand cases happen every few days over the span of a big country.
Statistics can be a bitch sometimes.Also, emergency services in the US are already almost always run by local governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31580058</id>
	<title>As if ....</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1269286380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As if, the computer suddenly has a medical degree?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As if , the computer suddenly has a medical degree ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As if, the computer suddenly has a medical degree?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563262</id>
	<title>Whambulance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269189360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Low priority, high priority, whatever... It's free!!</p><p>The UK still have patients waiting in the parking lot in ambulances to avoid starting the waiting room clock?  Last I heard 'they' were going to outlaw that.  'They' will then have to delay dispatching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Low priority , high priority , whatever... It 's free !
! The UK still have patients waiting in the parking lot in ambulances to avoid starting the waiting room clock ?
Last I heard 'they ' were going to outlaw that .
'They ' will then have to delay dispatching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Low priority, high priority, whatever... It's free!
!The UK still have patients waiting in the parking lot in ambulances to avoid starting the waiting room clock?
Last I heard 'they' were going to outlaw that.
'They' will then have to delay dispatching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31579396</id>
	<title>Not so much an ERS flaw...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269278160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...as it is a flaw in the government committee.  Perhaps it would be better to fix that flaw before more people die because "it wasn't priority."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...as it is a flaw in the government committee .
Perhaps it would be better to fix that flaw before more people die because " it was n't priority .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...as it is a flaw in the government committee.
Perhaps it would be better to fix that flaw before more people die because "it wasn't priority.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565528</id>
	<title>Re:Carol Beer was not a Satire</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is definitely something you want to avoid if you are in the area of Scotland covered by Strathclyde Fire and RESCUE "Service" !</p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow\_and\_west/8545876.stm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is definitely something you want to avoid if you are in the area of Scotland covered by Strathclyde Fire and RESCUE " Service " ! http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow \ _and \ _west/8545876.stm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is definitely something you want to avoid if you are in the area of Scotland covered by Strathclyde Fire and RESCUE "Service" !http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow\_and\_west/8545876.stm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564298</id>
	<title>"A flaw in Slashdot submission system.."</title>
	<author>kauttapiste</author>
	<datestamp>1269288300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news:<br>
<i>"A flaw in Slashdot's sensationalistic story submission system may have caused hundreds to accidentally RTFA.."</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news : " A flaw in Slashdot 's sensationalistic story submission system may have caused hundreds to accidentally RTFA.. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news:
"A flaw in Slashdot's sensationalistic story submission system may have caused hundreds to accidentally RTFA.." </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562994</id>
	<title>Before we blame the NHS itself...</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1269186960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We should consider who manages the emergency phone system.  If you call and speak to a dispatcher, who trained that dispatcher?  Who pays them?  What kind of script do they follow on the phone?<br> <br>
It isn't too hard to imagine emergency dispatch becoming something similar to tech support - regardless of the country in question - where calls are themselves triaged and moved through levels until specific criteria are met.  And for the Americans who think that this couldn't happen here, just tell me when the last time was that you were in an American emergency room and did <b>not</b> encounter a triage nurse?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We should consider who manages the emergency phone system .
If you call and speak to a dispatcher , who trained that dispatcher ?
Who pays them ?
What kind of script do they follow on the phone ?
It is n't too hard to imagine emergency dispatch becoming something similar to tech support - regardless of the country in question - where calls are themselves triaged and moved through levels until specific criteria are met .
And for the Americans who think that this could n't happen here , just tell me when the last time was that you were in an American emergency room and did not encounter a triage nurse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should consider who manages the emergency phone system.
If you call and speak to a dispatcher, who trained that dispatcher?
Who pays them?
What kind of script do they follow on the phone?
It isn't too hard to imagine emergency dispatch becoming something similar to tech support - regardless of the country in question - where calls are themselves triaged and moved through levels until specific criteria are met.
And for the Americans who think that this couldn't happen here, just tell me when the last time was that you were in an American emergency room and did not encounter a triage nurse?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090</id>
	<title>I don't understand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562554</id>
	<title>Re:Ambulance Service</title>
	<author>Cassini2</author>
	<datestamp>1269183300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Her husband called 999 and the ambulance at first refused to come because it wasn't a life-threatening emergency.</p></div></blockquote><p>I must be missing something here.  Where I live, if you call for an ambulance, it comes.  If something serious is going on, call the fire department and the ambulance, because the fire department has a quicker response time.  There is no option for "not show up".  Some injuries (like concussions) don't look like emergencies immediately.  As such, the procedure is to get you to the hospital, and have the nurses and doctor's deal with the situation.
</p><p>Sure, if you call an ambulance over a stubbed toe, then the ambulance guys will send you a bill for the ride to the hospital, and the police might charge you for wasting everyone's time.  However, <b>the ambulance, police and fire will show up.</b>
</p><p>Do the ambulances in England have an option to refuse to come in an acute, emergency situation? involving major fractures? dislocations?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Her husband called 999 and the ambulance at first refused to come because it was n't a life-threatening emergency.I must be missing something here .
Where I live , if you call for an ambulance , it comes .
If something serious is going on , call the fire department and the ambulance , because the fire department has a quicker response time .
There is no option for " not show up " .
Some injuries ( like concussions ) do n't look like emergencies immediately .
As such , the procedure is to get you to the hospital , and have the nurses and doctor 's deal with the situation .
Sure , if you call an ambulance over a stubbed toe , then the ambulance guys will send you a bill for the ride to the hospital , and the police might charge you for wasting everyone 's time .
However , the ambulance , police and fire will show up .
Do the ambulances in England have an option to refuse to come in an acute , emergency situation ?
involving major fractures ?
dislocations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Her husband called 999 and the ambulance at first refused to come because it wasn't a life-threatening emergency.I must be missing something here.
Where I live, if you call for an ambulance, it comes.
If something serious is going on, call the fire department and the ambulance, because the fire department has a quicker response time.
There is no option for "not show up".
Some injuries (like concussions) don't look like emergencies immediately.
As such, the procedure is to get you to the hospital, and have the nurses and doctor's deal with the situation.
Sure, if you call an ambulance over a stubbed toe, then the ambulance guys will send you a bill for the ride to the hospital, and the police might charge you for wasting everyone's time.
However, the ambulance, police and fire will show up.
Do the ambulances in England have an option to refuse to come in an acute, emergency situation?
involving major fractures?
dislocations?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562590</id>
	<title>Re:Dangers of technical rationality</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1269183540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The idea that risk can be rationalized and reduced to a number (class A, class B, and so on) is itself potentially dangerous</p></div><p>Of course. A two metre fall on to my feet would do little or no damage to me. A fall on to my head on the other hand would do a lot of damage.</p><p>A plumber I had working at my place fell three metres on to his feet but the salient point I passed to the ambulance operator was that he wanted to sit up but experienced great pain when he tried.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that risk can be rationalized and reduced to a number ( class A , class B , and so on ) is itself potentially dangerousOf course .
A two metre fall on to my feet would do little or no damage to me .
A fall on to my head on the other hand would do a lot of damage.A plumber I had working at my place fell three metres on to his feet but the salient point I passed to the ambulance operator was that he wanted to sit up but experienced great pain when he tried .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that risk can be rationalized and reduced to a number (class A, class B, and so on) is itself potentially dangerousOf course.
A two metre fall on to my feet would do little or no damage to me.
A fall on to my head on the other hand would do a lot of damage.A plumber I had working at my place fell three metres on to his feet but the salient point I passed to the ambulance operator was that he wanted to sit up but experienced great pain when he tried.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563258</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1269189240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly the coders or whoever set it up that way fucked up. And you had me until the anti-government rant. Driving any vehicle at high speeds comes with danger so there are good reasons to lower the category. (Hong Kong has only 1 category and stats show that this is a shitty plan). Likely that they modified the system based on new information, incredibly well-established facts aren't always true.<br> <br>UK - "The most critical emergency calls, referred to as "Category A" calls, have a response time requirement of eight minutes and zero seconds, with a 75\% compliance requirement, and the additional stipulation that 95\% of these calls must be reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas. "<br>US -   "For life-threatening emer-gencies, providing a transport-capable unit within 8:59 with 90\% reliability is the most common urban benchmark. Common rural and wilderness benchmarks are within 15/90\% and 30/90\%, respectively."<br> <br>So, comparatively the two countries are similar in numbers. UK is arguably a bit behind, but if you've ever been to both cities it is obvious why. The US was designed for cars, the UK for people or carriages in many parts. In any-case it is insulting to say that they are behind due to government negligence. And this is just talking about ambulance response times, in many other metrics the UK is far far ahead with their socialized healthcare. So please refrain from the rhetoric. I think we can all agree we have enough of that already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the coders or whoever set it up that way fucked up .
And you had me until the anti-government rant .
Driving any vehicle at high speeds comes with danger so there are good reasons to lower the category .
( Hong Kong has only 1 category and stats show that this is a shitty plan ) .
Likely that they modified the system based on new information , incredibly well-established facts are n't always true .
UK - " The most critical emergency calls , referred to as " Category A " calls , have a response time requirement of eight minutes and zero seconds , with a 75 \ % compliance requirement , and the additional stipulation that 95 \ % of these calls must be reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas .
" US - " For life-threatening emer-gencies , providing a transport-capable unit within 8 : 59 with 90 \ % reliability is the most common urban benchmark .
Common rural and wilderness benchmarks are within 15/90 \ % and 30/90 \ % , respectively .
" So , comparatively the two countries are similar in numbers .
UK is arguably a bit behind , but if you 've ever been to both cities it is obvious why .
The US was designed for cars , the UK for people or carriages in many parts .
In any-case it is insulting to say that they are behind due to government negligence .
And this is just talking about ambulance response times , in many other metrics the UK is far far ahead with their socialized healthcare .
So please refrain from the rhetoric .
I think we can all agree we have enough of that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the coders or whoever set it up that way fucked up.
And you had me until the anti-government rant.
Driving any vehicle at high speeds comes with danger so there are good reasons to lower the category.
(Hong Kong has only 1 category and stats show that this is a shitty plan).
Likely that they modified the system based on new information, incredibly well-established facts aren't always true.
UK - "The most critical emergency calls, referred to as "Category A" calls, have a response time requirement of eight minutes and zero seconds, with a 75\% compliance requirement, and the additional stipulation that 95\% of these calls must be reached within 14 minutes in urban areas and 19 minutes in rural areas.
"US -   "For life-threatening emer-gencies, providing a transport-capable unit within 8:59 with 90\% reliability is the most common urban benchmark.
Common rural and wilderness benchmarks are within 15/90\% and 30/90\%, respectively.
" So, comparatively the two countries are similar in numbers.
UK is arguably a bit behind, but if you've ever been to both cities it is obvious why.
The US was designed for cars, the UK for people or carriages in many parts.
In any-case it is insulting to say that they are behind due to government negligence.
And this is just talking about ambulance response times, in many other metrics the UK is far far ahead with their socialized healthcare.
So please refrain from the rhetoric.
I think we can all agree we have enough of that already.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563800</id>
	<title>the real culprit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269194280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should really be a discussion about software testing and change verification. A more likely scenario might be a bureaucrat committee decided to change the fall priority maybe even based on some good empirical data and instructed some manager or the software vendor to make the change. Said agent has made the change as instructed (like a good robot), and only the change instructed, and this is the result.</p><p>On investigation you may find one or more of the following evaluates true:</p><p>- Someone decided the change was so minor the software change and verification process could be bypassed entirely<br>- The owner didn't like the price the vendor wanted to or was anticipated to charge for this 'minor' change and decided they could do the job locally<br>- The change specification was utter crap<br>- The verification was utter crap</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This should really be a discussion about software testing and change verification .
A more likely scenario might be a bureaucrat committee decided to change the fall priority maybe even based on some good empirical data and instructed some manager or the software vendor to make the change .
Said agent has made the change as instructed ( like a good robot ) , and only the change instructed , and this is the result.On investigation you may find one or more of the following evaluates true : - Someone decided the change was so minor the software change and verification process could be bypassed entirely- The owner did n't like the price the vendor wanted to or was anticipated to charge for this 'minor ' change and decided they could do the job locally- The change specification was utter crap- The verification was utter crap  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should really be a discussion about software testing and change verification.
A more likely scenario might be a bureaucrat committee decided to change the fall priority maybe even based on some good empirical data and instructed some manager or the software vendor to make the change.
Said agent has made the change as instructed (like a good robot), and only the change instructed, and this is the result.On investigation you may find one or more of the following evaluates true:- Someone decided the change was so minor the software change and verification process could be bypassed entirely- The owner didn't like the price the vendor wanted to or was anticipated to charge for this 'minor' change and decided they could do the job locally- The change specification was utter crap- The verification was utter crap
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562984</id>
	<title>Re:Why does fall distance matter so much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269186900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of points<br>1. <b>READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE</b><br>The <b>high</b> falls were <b>less</b> critical - translation, It has been determined that you are highly likely to die, so, <b>if we are busy</b>, we will try and save someone who can be saved.<br>2. It is in the Daily Telegraph so the story is most likely a beat up (think National Enquirer meets Fox)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of points1 .
READ THE BLOODY ARTICLEThe high falls were less critical - translation , It has been determined that you are highly likely to die , so , if we are busy , we will try and save someone who can be saved.2 .
It is in the Daily Telegraph so the story is most likely a beat up ( think National Enquirer meets Fox )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of points1.
READ THE BLOODY ARTICLEThe high falls were less critical - translation, It has been determined that you are highly likely to die, so, if we are busy, we will try and save someone who can be saved.2.
It is in the Daily Telegraph so the story is most likely a beat up (think National Enquirer meets Fox)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563202</id>
	<title>Many Small Falls</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269188760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     A fall down the stairs is sort of one stair at a time. In a way people only fall about ten inches but do it over and over again until they hit bottom. I can see why defining a category for falls could be quite confusing as far as writing response software is concerned. A lot of us have fallen down stairs quite a distance and not been injured at all.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Here, I believe that any ambulance call involves a high speed response. It may be that certain areas are simply not keeping enough response teams at the ready.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A fall down the stairs is sort of one stair at a time .
In a way people only fall about ten inches but do it over and over again until they hit bottom .
I can see why defining a category for falls could be quite confusing as far as writing response software is concerned .
A lot of us have fallen down stairs quite a distance and not been injured at all .
          Here , I believe that any ambulance call involves a high speed response .
It may be that certain areas are simply not keeping enough response teams at the ready .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     A fall down the stairs is sort of one stair at a time.
In a way people only fall about ten inches but do it over and over again until they hit bottom.
I can see why defining a category for falls could be quite confusing as far as writing response software is concerned.
A lot of us have fallen down stairs quite a distance and not been injured at all.
          Here, I believe that any ambulance call involves a high speed response.
It may be that certain areas are simply not keeping enough response teams at the ready.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562134</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is worse than that actually. The operators were prohibited in upgrading the priority manually. The emergency services just trusted the computer program.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worse than that actually .
The operators were prohibited in upgrading the priority manually .
The emergency services just trusted the computer program .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worse than that actually.
The operators were prohibited in upgrading the priority manually.
The emergency services just trusted the computer program.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562660</id>
	<title>More evil than alternative?</title>
	<author>moteyalpha</author>
	<datestamp>1269184080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems that what is lacking is the ratio ( deaths in mode X / deaths in mode Y ). So if they change it to category A and something else becomes category B by falling off the end, what death toll does that have and do they even know?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems that what is lacking is the ratio ( deaths in mode X / deaths in mode Y ) .
So if they change it to category A and something else becomes category B by falling off the end , what death toll does that have and do they even know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems that what is lacking is the ratio ( deaths in mode X / deaths in mode Y ).
So if they change it to category A and something else becomes category B by falling off the end, what death toll does that have and do they even know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563698</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1269193140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least you have many CEO's to choose from. You only have one government and no choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least you have many CEO 's to choose from .
You only have one government and no choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least you have many CEO's to choose from.
You only have one government and no choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562498</id>
	<title>Re:here's my beef</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1269182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they are - and they can override the automatic priority set by the computer based on the information they receive and their own judgement. They also will stay on the line and talk a caller through vital life saving steps while the ambulance is on its way. They are remarkable people, far from the "computer says noooooo" drones that your "culture" seems to suggest.</p><p>Of course, they are human and sometimes make mistakes, or are sometimes sub-standard at their jobs, but the vast, vast majority are a credit to their profession.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they are - and they can override the automatic priority set by the computer based on the information they receive and their own judgement .
They also will stay on the line and talk a caller through vital life saving steps while the ambulance is on its way .
They are remarkable people , far from the " computer says noooooo " drones that your " culture " seems to suggest.Of course , they are human and sometimes make mistakes , or are sometimes sub-standard at their jobs , but the vast , vast majority are a credit to their profession .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they are - and they can override the automatic priority set by the computer based on the information they receive and their own judgement.
They also will stay on the line and talk a caller through vital life saving steps while the ambulance is on its way.
They are remarkable people, far from the "computer says noooooo" drones that your "culture" seems to suggest.Of course, they are human and sometimes make mistakes, or are sometimes sub-standard at their jobs, but the vast, vast majority are a credit to their profession.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31574810</id>
	<title>Computers:1 People:0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269250020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad title...should read "Dumbass people tell computer that falling 12 feet down on to your head not life threatening"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad title...should read " Dumbass people tell computer that falling 12 feet down on to your head not life threatening "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad title...should read "Dumbass people tell computer that falling 12 feet down on to your head not life threatening"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564478</id>
	<title>flawed logic</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1269291360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Maybe they assumed that a fall from that height would usually kill the person anyway, so there isn't much point in hurrying.</p></div><p>That would be even stupider. A fall from 8 feet may inflict anything from minor bruising to serious or life-threatening injury, such as compound fracture or head/neck injuries. Only in a few cases would those injuries be untreatably mortal.<br> <br>
As one anecdote, I have fallen from more than 10 feet up, while traveling horizontally at about 30 km/h (the horse and I unexpectedly took different paths over a jump). I collected some bruises, but was able to re-mount and continue over the rest of the course. Medical attention was neither needed nor sought, and I was over 50 years old at the time. Had there been solid obstacles such as rocks in my unintended landing zone, the outcome might have been considerably worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they assumed that a fall from that height would usually kill the person anyway , so there is n't much point in hurrying.That would be even stupider .
A fall from 8 feet may inflict anything from minor bruising to serious or life-threatening injury , such as compound fracture or head/neck injuries .
Only in a few cases would those injuries be untreatably mortal .
As one anecdote , I have fallen from more than 10 feet up , while traveling horizontally at about 30 km/h ( the horse and I unexpectedly took different paths over a jump ) .
I collected some bruises , but was able to re-mount and continue over the rest of the course .
Medical attention was neither needed nor sought , and I was over 50 years old at the time .
Had there been solid obstacles such as rocks in my unintended landing zone , the outcome might have been considerably worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they assumed that a fall from that height would usually kill the person anyway, so there isn't much point in hurrying.That would be even stupider.
A fall from 8 feet may inflict anything from minor bruising to serious or life-threatening injury, such as compound fracture or head/neck injuries.
Only in a few cases would those injuries be untreatably mortal.
As one anecdote, I have fallen from more than 10 feet up, while traveling horizontally at about 30 km/h (the horse and I unexpectedly took different paths over a jump).
I collected some bruises, but was able to re-mount and continue over the rest of the course.
Medical attention was neither needed nor sought, and I was over 50 years old at the time.
Had there been solid obstacles such as rocks in my unintended landing zone, the outcome might have been considerably worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562264</id>
	<title>Dangers of technical rationality</title>
	<author>Geof</author>
	<datestamp>1269180960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly?</p></div> </blockquote><p>You're right:  it isn't a flaw in the software <i>per se</i>, and I would not assign any blame to those who developed it (as opposed to those who implemented it).

</p><p>However, it is a predictable of administration, and the use of information technology is often integrated into systems in just this way.  The idea that risk can be rationalized and reduced to a number (class A, class B, and so on) is itself potentially dangerous.  Though it is not necessarily dangerous in any particular situation, it is nevertheless predictable that administrative or technical rationality would make this kind of outcome more common.

</p><p>You see, the problem was not simply that the response categories were incorrect.  The problem was that the system (including its operators, operating procedures, and so on) was too rigid, too rationalized, and therefore unable to respond to unexpected events:</p><blockquote><div><p>While some services spotted the risk, ordering operatives to override the computer's orders manually, five of England's 12 ambulance trusts did not allow call handlers to upgrade such calls.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This kind of event was clearly unexpected by the systems implementors.  But even if they had assessed the danger of falls differently, there is likely some other event that would fall outside the systems parameters.  (Most falls probably should be category B events, not category A.)  That's why you want to have human judgement and human overrides.

</p><p>Treating a system in terms of independent technical components has a number of benefits, including efficiency.  That's what happened here.  The process was rationally divided into tasks for the humans and tasks for the computer.  Nice, neat, clean:  and likely to produce outcomes like this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly ?
You 're right : it is n't a flaw in the software per se , and I would not assign any blame to those who developed it ( as opposed to those who implemented it ) .
However , it is a predictable of administration , and the use of information technology is often integrated into systems in just this way .
The idea that risk can be rationalized and reduced to a number ( class A , class B , and so on ) is itself potentially dangerous .
Though it is not necessarily dangerous in any particular situation , it is nevertheless predictable that administrative or technical rationality would make this kind of outcome more common .
You see , the problem was not simply that the response categories were incorrect .
The problem was that the system ( including its operators , operating procedures , and so on ) was too rigid , too rationalized , and therefore unable to respond to unexpected events : While some services spotted the risk , ordering operatives to override the computer 's orders manually , five of England 's 12 ambulance trusts did not allow call handlers to upgrade such calls .
This kind of event was clearly unexpected by the systems implementors .
But even if they had assessed the danger of falls differently , there is likely some other event that would fall outside the systems parameters .
( Most falls probably should be category B events , not category A .
) That 's why you want to have human judgement and human overrides .
Treating a system in terms of independent technical components has a number of benefits , including efficiency .
That 's what happened here .
The process was rationally divided into tasks for the humans and tasks for the computer .
Nice , neat , clean : and likely to produce outcomes like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this a flaw in the Emergency Response System if the change initiated by a government committee is how the incidents were classified wrongly?
You're right:  it isn't a flaw in the software per se, and I would not assign any blame to those who developed it (as opposed to those who implemented it).
However, it is a predictable of administration, and the use of information technology is often integrated into systems in just this way.
The idea that risk can be rationalized and reduced to a number (class A, class B, and so on) is itself potentially dangerous.
Though it is not necessarily dangerous in any particular situation, it is nevertheless predictable that administrative or technical rationality would make this kind of outcome more common.
You see, the problem was not simply that the response categories were incorrect.
The problem was that the system (including its operators, operating procedures, and so on) was too rigid, too rationalized, and therefore unable to respond to unexpected events:While some services spotted the risk, ordering operatives to override the computer's orders manually, five of England's 12 ambulance trusts did not allow call handlers to upgrade such calls.
This kind of event was clearly unexpected by the systems implementors.
But even if they had assessed the danger of falls differently, there is likely some other event that would fall outside the systems parameters.
(Most falls probably should be category B events, not category A.
)  That's why you want to have human judgement and human overrides.
Treating a system in terms of independent technical components has a number of benefits, including efficiency.
That's what happened here.
The process was rationally divided into tasks for the humans and tasks for the computer.
Nice, neat, clean:  and likely to produce outcomes like this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31566966</id>
	<title>To be fair, that was a series of 6 to 8 inch falls</title>
	<author>GungaDan</author>
	<datestamp>1269269100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not a 12-foot fall. You don't fall 12 feet down stairs. You fall 12 feet off a 12 foot cliff. I'd suspect that the injuries from the latter tend to be more life-threatening than injuries from the former.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not a 12-foot fall .
You do n't fall 12 feet down stairs .
You fall 12 feet off a 12 foot cliff .
I 'd suspect that the injuries from the latter tend to be more life-threatening than injuries from the former .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not a 12-foot fall.
You don't fall 12 feet down stairs.
You fall 12 feet off a 12 foot cliff.
I'd suspect that the injuries from the latter tend to be more life-threatening than injuries from the former.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563940</id>
	<title>I've worked as a Paramedic</title>
	<author>harlequinn</author>
	<datestamp>1269196200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've worked as a Paramedic under the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (AMPDS).</p><p>Whether you are given a Cat A or B generally makes no difference in the response time of the crew to the scene - i.e. they always drive as fast as they safely can no matter what the emergency.</p><p>Incorrect triage by the communications centre is routine. This is usually not the comcen's fault - it is almost always incorrectly reported information from the caller. Things like whether there is a pulse or not, whether they are breathing or not, whether they are bleeding or not, are often incorrectly reported from panicky callers.</p><p>Or you can get correctly triaged responses with totally different results. You might get a call saying a patient has severe gastric pain which ends up being a myocardial infarction.</p><p>You might get a call from a patient with severe difficulty breathing (which is a cat B emergency) only to find they are having a panic attack or have a sore knee (patient lie all the time to get either free drugs, attention, a free trip to hospital, etc.).</p><p>In regards to the height of a fall problem consider this. A 6 foot plus tall person falls 6 plus feet to the ground when they pass unconscious from standing - yet the person reporting won't usually think of saying they fell six feet (we're talking head impact here - not much else matter until you're falling from really big heights and can start shattering lots of bones). A very common example of misreporting from callers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've worked as a Paramedic under the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System ( AMPDS ) .Whether you are given a Cat A or B generally makes no difference in the response time of the crew to the scene - i.e .
they always drive as fast as they safely can no matter what the emergency.Incorrect triage by the communications centre is routine .
This is usually not the comcen 's fault - it is almost always incorrectly reported information from the caller .
Things like whether there is a pulse or not , whether they are breathing or not , whether they are bleeding or not , are often incorrectly reported from panicky callers.Or you can get correctly triaged responses with totally different results .
You might get a call saying a patient has severe gastric pain which ends up being a myocardial infarction.You might get a call from a patient with severe difficulty breathing ( which is a cat B emergency ) only to find they are having a panic attack or have a sore knee ( patient lie all the time to get either free drugs , attention , a free trip to hospital , etc .
) .In regards to the height of a fall problem consider this .
A 6 foot plus tall person falls 6 plus feet to the ground when they pass unconscious from standing - yet the person reporting wo n't usually think of saying they fell six feet ( we 're talking head impact here - not much else matter until you 're falling from really big heights and can start shattering lots of bones ) .
A very common example of misreporting from callers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've worked as a Paramedic under the Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System (AMPDS).Whether you are given a Cat A or B generally makes no difference in the response time of the crew to the scene - i.e.
they always drive as fast as they safely can no matter what the emergency.Incorrect triage by the communications centre is routine.
This is usually not the comcen's fault - it is almost always incorrectly reported information from the caller.
Things like whether there is a pulse or not, whether they are breathing or not, whether they are bleeding or not, are often incorrectly reported from panicky callers.Or you can get correctly triaged responses with totally different results.
You might get a call saying a patient has severe gastric pain which ends up being a myocardial infarction.You might get a call from a patient with severe difficulty breathing (which is a cat B emergency) only to find they are having a panic attack or have a sore knee (patient lie all the time to get either free drugs, attention, a free trip to hospital, etc.
).In regards to the height of a fall problem consider this.
A 6 foot plus tall person falls 6 plus feet to the ground when they pass unconscious from standing - yet the person reporting won't usually think of saying they fell six feet (we're talking head impact here - not much else matter until you're falling from really big heights and can start shattering lots of bones).
A very common example of misreporting from callers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563444</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1269191220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network? Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?!</p></div><p>-devilsadvocate-<br>Maybe they assumed that a fall from that height would usually kill the person anyway, so there isn't much point in hurrying.<br>-/devilsadvocate-</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the root problem , though , why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network ?
Why in god 's name did n't they get more frickin ambulances ?
! -devilsadvocate-Maybe they assumed that a fall from that height would usually kill the person anyway , so there is n't much point in hurrying.-/devilsadvocate-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?
Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?
!-devilsadvocate-Maybe they assumed that a fall from that height would usually kill the person anyway, so there isn't much point in hurrying.-/devilsadvocate-
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066</id>
	<title>More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary sounds like "we underestimated how dangerous a medium distance fall can be, so we didn't have the correct priorities and more people died than could have". That isn't really a flaw in the algorithm, it's just a flaw in one specific parameter in the algorithm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary sounds like " we underestimated how dangerous a medium distance fall can be , so we did n't have the correct priorities and more people died than could have " .
That is n't really a flaw in the algorithm , it 's just a flaw in one specific parameter in the algorithm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary sounds like "we underestimated how dangerous a medium distance fall can be, so we didn't have the correct priorities and more people died than could have".
That isn't really a flaw in the algorithm, it's just a flaw in one specific parameter in the algorithm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565588</id>
	<title>Re:here's my beef</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269264600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am fairly certain that the 911 dispatchers around here are are amoeba.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am fairly certain that the 911 dispatchers around here are are amoeba .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am fairly certain that the 911 dispatchers around here are are amoeba.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563566</id>
	<title>Re:0118 9998 8199 9119 725 3</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1269192180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite as catchy as 10 0011 1010 1, but that number just gets you a messenger from among the metal ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite as catchy as 10 0011 1010 1 , but that number just gets you a messenger from among the metal ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite as catchy as 10 0011 1010 1, but that number just gets you a messenger from among the metal ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565418</id>
	<title>Re:More like a flaw in statistics</title>
	<author>D Ninja</author>
	<datestamp>1269263520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network? Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?!</p></div><p>You had a good post until you got to this line.</p><p>It's not that simple to just "getting another ambulance."  Ambulances are expensive.  They also require more people to staff them (read: more money).  And, even if you had all the right amount of ambulances (whatever that is), a fall may still not be considered as critical as another type of emergency and the person may still not receive proper care.  Despite what many people seem to think, the government doesn't have an unlimited supply of money and issues like this are never that simple to solve - if they were, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the root problem , though , why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network ?
Why in god 's name did n't they get more frickin ambulances ?
! You had a good post until you got to this line.It 's not that simple to just " getting another ambulance .
" Ambulances are expensive .
They also require more people to staff them ( read : more money ) .
And , even if you had all the right amount of ambulances ( whatever that is ) , a fall may still not be considered as critical as another type of emergency and the person may still not receive proper care .
Despite what many people seem to think , the government does n't have an unlimited supply of money and issues like this are never that simple to solve - if they were , the problem would n't exist in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the root problem, though, why the hell would they alter the well-established criteria for a dangerous fall to reduce the load on their ambulance network?
Why in god's name didn't they get more frickin ambulances?
!You had a good post until you got to this line.It's not that simple to just "getting another ambulance.
"  Ambulances are expensive.
They also require more people to staff them (read: more money).
And, even if you had all the right amount of ambulances (whatever that is), a fall may still not be considered as critical as another type of emergency and the person may still not receive proper care.
Despite what many people seem to think, the government doesn't have an unlimited supply of money and issues like this are never that simple to solve - if they were, the problem wouldn't exist in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562406</id>
	<title>Re:Not a flaw in the system</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Garbage In Garbage Out</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Garbage In Garbage Out</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Garbage In Garbage Out</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31573242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31580058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31566726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31575550
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31579778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563628
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31570348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_22_0052201_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562736
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563034
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565364
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31570348
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563444
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564478
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565750
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31573242
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563772
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564154
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563710
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563258
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31579778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563628
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564984
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563466
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31575550
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31580058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562918
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31564076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31565408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31563418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562406
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31566726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562714
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_22_0052201.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_22_0052201.31562344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
