I’ve been using the excellent Peer Guardian program that blocks any intrusive organisations from contacting your computer in any way. These organisations include advertisers and organisations that try to stop peer to peer (P2P) file sharing.

The only problem with it is that on Vista it doesn’t work most of the time! However, there is a patch available that fixes the problem.

To install the patch, all you do is:

1. Extract the zip file into the PG directory (C:\Program Files\PeerGuardian2).
2. Create a shortcut to the file pg2loader.exe by right clicking on it, then “Send To –> Desktop (as shortcut)”.
3. (Optional) Drag and drop that shortcut to the start menu directory “Startup” so the program runs when you turn on your PC.

Download Peer Guardian (Vista)
Download Patch (pg2loaderRC5.zip)

I’ve been thinking a lot about the comments made by James Murdoch about the BBC being state sponsored and therefore unfair competition for private news organisations. He has a reasonable point, after all, how can they realistically charge for news online when the BBC provides almost the exact same thing free at the point of use.

But there is a strong counter argument that has been less well articulated. Do we want to end up with the likes of Fox News able to spit out utter rubbish and have people believe them? Do we want national coverage of politics and important but unexciting issues to fall by the wayside like they have done locally?

Politicians really should be stepping up to make these arguments, but in their absence BBC reporter Robert Peston does a pretty good job of summing up.

I urge you to read the full transcript of this speech, but here is the key section:

…What I am talking about here is the importance of public service journalism, about informing and educating the public so that there is democratic participation in big decisions about the future of capitalism.

Against this backdrop the certainty that commercial news groups will start charging for online access is relevant. We should be in no doubt about this. Every news organisation – with the exception of the BBC – will start charging very soon for any information that has any proprietary element to it at all.

Against that backdrop, much of what the BBC does – especially the stuff we do online – may look like unfair competition. And as someone who worked in the private sector without a break from 1983 to 2006 – and who rather assumes that he will return to the private sector one day – I completely understand why James Murdoch has argued that the BBC’s online news service looks like state-subsidised unfair competition. Much of the private sector sees the BBC as crowding out legitimate commercial players. I feel the private sector’s pain on all this – although there is a counter argument.

With financial paternalism in its death throes, just as we are being forced to take control of our financial lives as never before, are we sure that a wholly liberalised commercial news market would ensure that everyone has access to the kind of news and financial information they need and deserve? There already appears to be a consensus that in the provision of regional news there has been a massive market failure that will require state intervention and subsidy to rectify. But is that market failure limited to regional news?

Will the new paid-for online model inform and educate on hard issues – financial matters, but also medicine, the environment, education and so on – that matter to us, or will it concentrate on the more sensationalist and titillating bangs for the buck? And even if paid-for online services do endeavour to fill the gap created by the death of financial paternalism, will millions on low incomes be excluded from access to this information? Should we be relaxed if ‘can’t pay’ means ‘can’t know’?

There is a debate here about two kinds of fairness. There is the fairness of ensuring a level playing field for players in a commercial market. And there is the fairness of the distribution of information and knowledge to all who need it, irrespective of their material circumstances. These are two different kinds of fairness. They are apples and pears of social justice. But having just lived through the greatest failure in history to distribute financial resources in an efficient and equitable way, we certainly shouldn’t assume that a commercial digital market in news will distribute information in a way that would support a healthy democracy. Walter Bagehot – as luck would have it the greatest ever writer on banking – defined democracy as government by discussion. But you can’t have a decent chinwag without having the facts. And the big question – one which perhaps Richard Dunn would have relished – is whether the incipient structure of our new digital news industry will promote or undermine the healthy discussion that is necessary for democracy to thrive.

I’ve just discovered a great program that lets you download all content from the BBC iPlayer TV and Radio sections for your iPod.

iDownload uses a well know exploit to download the programmes in .mp3 or .mov format so you can watch them whenever or wherever you want.

I’m sure the BBC will close the exploit soon so enjoy it while you can!

You can download the program here in an installer or head over to the developer’s website for the original zip file.

Download (.exe)

[via Ghacks]

The time for the 2010 applications is fast rolling around and I couldn’t find last years questions easily on the net so here they are. They may well change for 2010 but they should give a rough idea.

• List your educational achievements. (250 works, 8 pts)
• Give two examples of specific learning needs that you identified as part of your undergraduate medical training. Compare and contrast your approaches to addressing these differing needs. How will you use these experiences to develop your competence and performance as a foundation doctor? (250 words, 10 pts)
• Compare and contrast the care that you have observed for two patients with the same diagnosis and similar clinical problems. Describe the care and the extent to which it took into account the individual needs of the patients. What have you learned from these observations and how will you apply this learning to your future clinical practice? (250 words, 10 pts)
• Describe one example of a clinical situation where you demonstrated or observed appropriate professional behaviour despite difficult circumstances. How will you apply what you have learned to your future practice? (150 words, 8 points)
• Describe one example, not necessarily clinical, that has increased your understanding of team working. Describe your role and how you contributed to the team. What have you learned and how will you apply this to working with colleagues as a foundation doctor? (150 words, 8 pts)
• Describe a situation, not necessarily clinical, where you personally felt challenged and under pressure. Describe how you responded. What did you learn from this experience and how will this benefit you as a foundation doctor? (150 words, 8 points)
• Describe one of your non-academic achievements. Explain clearly why this was an achievement for you. What did you learn from this achievement and how will this influence your approach to patient care? (150 words, 8 points)

In the comments for an article pointing out to Americans that us Brits actually like the NHS, an ex-pat living in the states made a well reasoned comment about why the NHS is a good thing. Here is an excerpt:

People in Britain complain about the NHS and I did too sometimes, until I moved to America. I’ll never complain about the NHS again.

I spent 3 1/2 years in America before I had the privilege to see a doctor. Of course I could’ve paid to see one, but that’s a bit difficult when you’re dealing with the INS and you don’t have a work permit so you have no money to do so. Even then, I still had to pay a co-pay and fill out about three trees worth of paperwork that I didn’t understand.

I would much rather pay higher taxes so that EVERYONE is able to see a doctor or get any kind of treatment done, than have $50 taken out of my (already small) pay cheque so that only MYSELF can have LIMITED coverage and have to deal with insurance companies who only care about making money.
[Digg - theysayjump]

The last bit is what really gets me. You don’t need to pay higher taxes, it would actually save you money.

In the UK our government pays the equivalent of $2261 per person (see here, table 2) per year on healthcare out of the tax pot. That funds pretty much everyone for all treatment (except prescriptions).

In the USA the country spends $4631 per person per year. Over double. But I hear you say, at least those covered by health insurance get better treatment. Well I’d disagree but that’s another debate for another day.

The really interesting bit is how much the US government spends on healthcare from their tax pot. Keeping in mind their taxpayer funded healthcare covers only 25% of their population. In the same year the UK spent $2261, the US spent $2862. Each US citizen pays more in tax, whether they benefit or not, to provide basic coverage to a tiny fraction of it’s population.

Were the US to take on the NHS exactly as the UK has it, the average person would pay $601 dollars less in tax than they pay at the moment AND not have to pay anything in health insurance (on average $1769/year).

Anyone who claims the NHS is economically inefficient compared to a private system is wrong on every level.

Have you ever had the feeling immigrants are stealing your job? A doddle to get into this country? Home office letting you down with weak borders?

Well have a read of the satirical “Easy Guide” to finding work in the UK for non-EU migrants.

It’s pretty shocking how hard it is to get leave to stay in the UK yet pretty much every day, the Daily Mail or Express has a story about migrants eating our children while being paid over a million pounds a week in benefits.

Picture from Daily Mail Watch (a good read, unlike the paper itself"!).

The European Working Time Directive finally comes into play for junior doctors this week and there is a lot of talk in the press about it. The majority of what I’ve seen written is against it, even in the medical press. As a medical student only a year from being a junior doctor the issue concerns me greatly.

Every piece seems to suggest that dropping to a 48 hour week (effectively 9am-7pm Monday-Friday with an hour’s break/day) will harm medical training. Initially you can see why this may be true; after all, if the last generation worked 90 hour weeks, you can’t possibly get the same experience in half the time. However, that argument falls apart pretty darn fast.

The only reason that you’d get less experience is because you’ve cut the number of hours worked in a week but not the length of a training programme. For example, to become Joe Consultant you may need to train for 7 years out of medical school with an average of 60 hours a week, that’s 18,900 hours of work done. Under the new system you’d have done 15,120 hours, so what do you do about the deficit of 3,780 hours of experience? Well since that equates to another year and a quarter’s work, why not make the junior training another couple of years longer. After all, those hours worked in the past were paid at a certain rate, so there should be no harm in paying the same amount over a longer time period. Doctors earlier in training would get less money a year but with that they’d be given a life! Patients would actually end up with more experienced doctors.

I also question whether a doctor was actually benefiting educationally from the 90 hours a week they were working. 90 hours a week translates to 15 hours a day, and it’s absurd to suggest that a person can give their best during every one of those hours. I don’t have any studies to back this up, but I don’t think it’s any great stretch to suggest that you learn more when you’re not absolutely knackered.

I don’t want to be a less competent doctor than those who preceded me. But I really do want to have a life outside work. I don’t want to spend the best years of my life on an artificially lit ward. As a concession for being allowed to live a happy life, I’m happy to accept less money a year (though the same rate of pay) and a slightly longer training programme. I actually think it will make me a better doctor in the end.

For two contrasting opinions of real doctors check out posts by the NHS Blog Doc and GP Informed.