Think like a millipede
"She's got legs up to here!"
73 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jul 2012
Update to my original post. To their credit, NHS Digital did reply quickly to my email. However,it was along the lines of, "No we don't have a list but I'm sure they won't sell your details on," along with a link to a register of previous companies with whom they have shared data.
My experience with this:
Managed to find a link to opt out which was texted to me by my GP after I specifically requested to opt out. Here is the link for the "National" opt out. There's a "Type1" one as well which is a paper form you have to fill in with your GP but i think that's being scrapped in favour of the national one (I'd check that, don't take my word for it).
After this I followed up with some questions to enquiries@nhsdigital.nhs.uk which was the provided enquiry link, firstly to verify that I'd been removed, then these follow-ups:
"
- please could you provide information regarding how the GPDPR programme complies with GDPR legislation, because the sharing of personal data of (effectively) the population of the UK without express permission seems, on the surface (to my limited legal understanding), to be illegal.
- could you provide a list of to whom my data matters; that is to say, a list of the third parties that my data would have been passed onto if I had approved this.
"
They sent back a word doc with links to this page, which does go into how it fits in with GDPR ("it's in the national interest so we don't need your permission (and it's only England, not UK)") and this page. They also said: "For more information, please contact your GP or local authority."
I've resent this question:
"
- please can you provide a specific list of the companies that data will be shared with. This way they can be held accountable if any data goes missing and it will ensure that they are under scrutiny not to sell on any data. It seems that this sort of information is unlikely to be held by my GP or local authority as this is clearly a strategic decision.
"
I'm not expecting a response but I can update anyone if they care.
I'm of a similar opinion. When I first heard about the idea years ago I thought it would be an awesome way to improve my brain, and I couldn't wait to sign up.
Unlike yourself, I think the people making it are likely to be intelligent, hard-working and fascinated by pushing the boundaries of what's possible. The people I don't trust are the ones who want to make money out of it. The internet seems to be a good analogue of this, built by people looking to connect ideas and share research (yes, maybe not all of them but I'm sure a lot of the engineers on the ground were), but then look what happened when people wanted to start making money off it.
So if this stuff is ever released, I think I'll stick to enhancing my intelligence the old-fashioned way, by learning more (old-skool! Hence icon).
I appreciate as others have stated that for those with limited mobility this could be a life-changer, but I'd be wary about what "diagnostics" and "monitoring" would be done on the sly which the user agreed to as part of a long, unintelligible EULA.
Nuclear cogeneration would definitely be a majorly beneficial source, seeing as it can be done concurrently with electricity production.
Related report for those interested - Missing Link to a Liveable Climate: How Hydrogen-Enabled Synthetic Fuels Can Help Deliver the Paris Goals. Pg 55 gives a good indication of the spatial requirements for the predicted amount of energy.
When I was growing up and my parents repeatedly played a tape in the car that featured Peter Sarstedt's Where Do You Go To My Lovely, I always took that as a literal interpretation.
It sounds like the timeline is similar to when the US and Canada are looking to start deploying micro-reactors (not sure on the Russian and Chinese timelines). So a couple of these may also do the trick (typically these are specced around 10MWth, so around 4MWe). The spare heat capacity could also, potentially, drive heat engines to drive the cooling systems, although that's probably looking a bit further forward.
People forget the original meaning of the word twitter, as defined in Roger's Profanisaurus. However, your definition lends itself nicely to referring to the most popular social media channels collectively as twatface.
Or we could recycle the nuclear waste, use them in fast reactors and power our civilisation. (Obviously this isn't in the same spirit of silly ideas but it might help with the whole energy / climate crisis thing.)
As with most places that people like to say are shit, I think most of its detractors have never been there.
"But I've been there and it's definitely shit!"
Thank you, hypothetical commentard. I suppose anyone can be biased enough to like any place if that's where all your friends and family live though. Me, I think the post being in Croydon is the only reason to take the job!
For those of you interested, there is a UK design in Molten Salt Reactors which, unlike the LFTR, uses existing nuclear qualified parts and doesn't involve pumping radioactive salt through heat exchangers. It also uses heat storage which would justify deployment of renewable energy sources by acting as a backup reactor. Currently would run off spent nuclear fuel, although in the long term could be developed for thorium.
http://www.moltexenergy.com/