No.

You can’t do that.

Everyone’s Sauron Here

Point of fact, I’m not bobs_monkey, the originator of the rhetorical tone. Fax in healthcare continues to survive well past its prime because there is an inherent loophole: analog data transfer is functionally unsuited to encryption. This allows fax to be operated at a “best effort” level of security. There are handling protocols that are meant to keep traditional fax transmissions as private as possible, but these are layer 8 processes with limited enforceability. Beyond that, traditional fax represents a pathway around requirements on encryption while still meeting HIPAA compliance standards.

FOIP is an improvement, but it still allows for interoperability with a traditional fax machine connected to a POTS line in some GP’s office that they’re unwilling to part with. That means the FOIP user can only be confident of the transmission being secure on their side. I can’t speak to the overall adaptation of FOIP in hospital systems, but I do know that there are non-isolated instances of hospitals still relying on traditional fax as opposed to adopting a cloud-fax solution. Hell, there are still major hospitals using SL-100s as their primary phone switches.

I don’t even want to get into codec mismatches, because that falls out of scope when it comes to a privacy discussion.

Long story short, achieving HIPAA compliance is a low bar with regards to fax, and if that were to change I believe we’d see fax disappear (finally!) shortly thereafter.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but the fax loophole does need to be closed.

Mine flails typically reverse over minefields by design for that very reason, so I interpreted this one as doing the same. If not, then yes, driving across the field with the contraption behind the truck would be a short, joyless trip.

Non-credible. Purpose-built mine flails are on the borderline of credibility already. In this configuration, you’d need at least a class IV hitch to handle the tongue weight, probably a class V when you factor in the force imparted by the motion of the flail. That’s not even taking into account how much power is needed to properly swing the chains with enough impact to detonate a significant portion of the mines.

And if there happens to be an AT mine or two in the mix, the whole ill-advised experiment becomes an unappealing art installation.

Funny thing, that…

Nearly a third of Aussies claim Irish heritage. And a lot of those families ended up there because of, you guessed it, the Famine.

That’s just a “best by” date. You can still eat it, though it might taste a bit stale.

How many more times can you beat this horse? It’s thoroughly dead. Whinging about it as much and as repetitively as you have chosen to makes you seem less “concerned citizen” and more “entitled snot.”

Finish clutching your pearls, then curate your own feed. And stop expecting everyone else to do it for you. Your sensibilities won’t always line up directly with the world around you, but repeatedly haranguing someone else about it won’t solve matters for anyone.

Missed opportunity for “bop-a-moe”

Nah, it has them, too. All three flags have creases.

Strands #202
“I've got the music in me!”
🟡🔵🔵🔵
🔵🔵

“Landmine has taken my sight, taken my speech, taken my hearing…”

I guess someone forgot to tell Metallica when they were writing the song that it wasn’t about a landmine.

And I guess someone previously forgot to tell Dalton Trumbo when he wrote Johnny Got His Gun that it wasn’t an anti-war novel.

And then they forgot to tell him again thirty-two years later when he directed the movie adaptation, Johnny Got His Gun.

And then, worst of all, they forgot to tell the directors of the music video that “One” was anti-war and Johnny Got His Gun was about a landmine and that using scenes from the film in the music video wouldn’t be thematically appropriate.

Damn, there were a lot of missteps! Good thing you set it all straight!

Micatin.

Oh, I full-on agree, hence that final paragraph. I’m one of those idgaf-about-fads types, but I know plenty of folks who do care and who get hosed by the system as it currently exists. Fashion as a whole is pretty much a racket as far as I’m concerned. But what isn’t these days?

The reason they won’t price fast fashion bs lower is because they don’t have to. Trendy things sell at inherently predatory price points, then they declare a new “what’s hot” before the sales drop off. Capitalism is a mfer, and folks are exploited at every rung of the fashion ladder.

I guess that would change if enough people stopped buying in, but do either of us see that happening any time soon? I don’t, and as frustrating as it is, I think you don’t, either. So garments marketed primarily to women remain pocketless and flimsy, and those marketed primarily to my-tastes-don’t-change men continue to trend towards work-wearish looks that are at least marginally sturdier at roughly equivalent cost.

Except for those goddamn fishing shirts. Who decided that was a thing? They’re terrible.

Did you go around telling Reggie to put it away?

Yarr, that be because lads be worryin’ more about scurvy than lasses, matey!

I think you might have flipped your size comparison, but the concept holds.

Apart from fashionistas, “standard” men’s style is far more static. Cuts, materials, colors, and patterns don’t deviate far from the baseline from year to year, so garments tend to be a bit sturdier and longer lasting.

As an example, picture a guy in a Henley, cargo shorts, and work boots. What decade is he from? Okay, now put him in straight leg jeans and a flannel shirt. Was this picture taken yesterday? In the 90s? 2005? Who knows, guys have been wearing that for ages, and will be for ages to come.

However, pre-pandemic I think high-waist flares were one of the main jeans trends for women. Five years later, it’s low-waist straight-leg, right? Or have they shifted back to skinny jeans? I think early-2010s was the last time capris were the statement look, but hell, I truly don’t know. The point is, women’s styles seem to change not only year-to-year but season-to-season. Today’s trend is tomorrow’s faux pas is next week’s retro is next month’s vintage… sure, I’m exaggerating, but women’s fashion does lend itself more to sweeping change.

The criminal part is that woman-specific options are underconstructed and overpriced compared to men’s clothing. That, and the lack of pockets. Seriously, my heart goes out to anyone who wears clothing targeted to women. I’d be fucking lost without pockets.

Damn, Silver Tongue is pissed… Actually, that’s probably par for the course.