Miscellaneous desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 3

Websites for photo albums

Hi, I'm looking for recommendations for websites to create online photo albums, for private use and sharing with friends/family. Something where I can organize my photos chronologically with a page per year. I had heard of Flickr, but when I tried it out it insisted that I had a Yahoo account, and I don't have one nor wish to. Are there any other good ones around? Thanks, ZygonLieutenant (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See List of photo-sharing websites or Category:Photo sharing. --Jayron 32 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if what would suit the OP's desire is to get a computer savvy friend or relative to install a server on a home computer then install something like Coppermine Photo Gallery. It ensures full control without requiring signing up to any third party. The software is free. Personally, I think setting up a server on a inexpensive hosting service would be better but the hosing then needs to be paid for. Also, Flickr and many other sites, reduce the the file size and hence quality of the photos. Having one's own server doesn't impose any such limitations. Not that difficult to learn how to maintain either and provides more flexibility. The retrieval speed from a home-sever may by half that of a paid for hosting service but that is a small sacrifice for infrequent f&f use. There is no reason why an inexpensive Raspberry Pi with an external hard-drive connected to one's home router should not be able to do the job. Power consumption is meagre too – can leave it running all day and night. Uhmm, think I might have a go at implementing such a set up myself. --Aspro (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that unless you host a server yourself as suggested by Aspro, you will almost definitely need to have an account on the site in question. Even sites which allow OpenID with Googe or Live or whatever, many of them retain an account for you, the OpenID part is often mostly just about authentication. While there are photo upload sites which don't require accounts, they understandably have limited support for private use, organisation etc. So if you don't want to have an account on whatever site in question, Aspro's advice may for once be the best. Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Amazon office in Vancouver, Washington

Amazon has an office in Vancouver, Washington [1], but I can't seem to find its address. I've tried both Google Maps and even (gasp!) Bing maps. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just put "Amazon Office Vancouver" into Google, and up pops a map and an address: 575 W Georgia St, Vancouver, BC V6B 2A3, Canada. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That address is in Vancouver, British Columbia, an entirely different city albeit named after the same person. --Xuxl (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question links to a job advert. That advert is for a job in Vancouver, British Columbia - at the address I gave. The problem may be an error on a job search website - clicking the Apply button leads to a CA-BC-Vancouver reference. There does not appear to be an Amazon office in Vancouver, Washington. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ad linked by the original poster does say Vancouver, WA (near the top) and not Vancouver, BC. However, Amazon his its own jobs website: from their home page, just follow the Careers link and you reach http://www.amazon.jobs. On this site you can find a list of their locations either by doing any search and then pulling down the Locations menu on the results page, or else by using the "menu" link to reach this page. As you see, the only Vancouver mentioned is the one in Canada. Conclusion: the ad is wrong. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NHS employees

Are nhs employees employed by their trust or by the nhs? Often in the media, there is talk of standard employment contracts but I assumed staff were employed by individual nhs trusts and their contracts were with the trusts? 2A02:C7D:B91D:8200:8908:DE28:42EE:3CA5 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are employed by the Trusts - but the basic terms of the contracts are negotiated and agreed nationally. Trusts have some discretion to vary those terms. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So basically the NHS isn't really an organisation then. It's more like a national framework or brand under which government funded healthcare organisations operate? 2A02:C7D:B91D:8200:8908:DE28:42EE:3CA5 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's closer to how it operates. TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NHS is supremely complicated (and gets more complex every year) and isn't always what the public might think it is. For example, very few GPs actually work for the NHS. They're private companies ... and have been since the NHS was founded, something that isn't mentioned when GPs are quoted in scare-stories about "NHS privatisation" in the media. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GPs are certainly not employed by the NHS - there is a body called NHS England but I don't know its makeup. They are, however, paid by the government and they form themselves into partnerships or "group practices". 151.224.132.107 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GPs do indeed often work in partnerships and every practice is part of a Clinical Commissioning Group, but each GP practice is a private company that is commissioned by NHS England to provide primary care services locally. The GPs' Clinical Commissioning Group then commissions other services locally, such as hospitals. So every hospital in the country is run by GPs who are, and have always been, running their own private businesses. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The set - up was changed some years ago. Some hospitals became "NHS Foundation Trusts", which are responsible for their own budgeting, and trusts aspire to Foundation status sometimes. This is granted if the government has sufficient confidence in a trust to confer the status.

Now, all private companies that I know of have directors and shareholders, are incorporated under the Companies Act with limited liability, have a Memorandum and Articles of Association and are registered at Companies House. They are required to file certain documents, including annual accounts. By law, every company with limited liability must include the word "Limited" at the end of its name (it is part of the name). When my local practice writes to me its letters are headed simply "XYZ Group Practice". Furthermore, a search at Companies House reveals they are not registered there.

The Foundation Trusts are run like companies, but I think the chief executive of my local hospital (which is a Foundation Trust) is referred to simply as the "Head". These Foundation Trusts are actually administered by a Board of Governors, some or all of whom are elected annually by the local population. GPs of course make use of hospital services, but the abbreviation GP means "General Practitioner" - they are in private practice. Hospital doctors are not in private practice - they have contracts of employment and must do what the hospital tells them, not the other way round. It is the managers who organise their shifts, etc.

It appears that GPs have contracts with the NHS. My guess is that the contracts detail what services are to be provided, not how they are provided. I see from the article that Clinical Commissioning Groups sometimes "incentivise" GPs to behave the way they want. That indicates that they are not in direct control of them. I'm not sure that the General Medical Council would allow doctors to form themselves into limited companies - it doesn't happen with barristers, pharmacists, solicitors etc., all of whom are controlled by their professional associations. So far as I know, such professionals are licensed and registered individually by their governing bodies - I can't imagine that the Medicines Act would permit a limited company to practise medicine. 151.224.133.26 (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2] has some discussion although from a specific POV Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the GPs are both the owners of the private companies that provide services on behalf of the NHS (ie the GP practices) and are also the membership of the CCG that commissions local services, NHS England has the role of commissioning the GPs to try to avoid some of the worst aspects of conflict of interest. How successful that is is down to one's interpretation of propaganda. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone recommend a good one volume political/social history of the 1990's in the United States?

Can anyone recommend a good one volume political/social history of the 1990's in the United States? I don't know if it's "too soon" for such a thing to have been written, however. Thanks if you can help. Zombiesturm (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

America in the 1990s (Decades of Twentieth-Century America) by Marlene Targ Brill. Designed as a High School history text - so may not be as comprehensive as you want, but there ought to be a Bibliography. 86.191.126.192 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pet peeve: it's just 1990s. There's no apostrophe. It's not a possessive. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See apostrophe#Use in forming certain plurals. This usage tends to be disfavored now, but was pretty much standard a few decades ago. Call it old-fashioned but not wrong, unless you're speaking in the context of a particular style guide. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Christopher Hitchens' and Camille Paglia's essay collections from the era are quite good. What sort of viewpoint are you looking at? Social, political, dynastic, statistical, economic, military? μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one idea. Here is another. And another. All found through Google. --Jayron 32 04:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link, Jayron. clpo13_(talk) 04:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]