The initial release encompasses the cloud object storage and cloud virtual server management suites.
In other words, it's the software that lets people upload files to the distributed network, and the software to manage their virtual servers. Without looking any deeper, it seems to be enough to run your own cloud-based storage system. Need to store more data than one machine can handle? This might do it for you.
The original comment was regarding GDP and the general productivity of patients after being treated. Regardless of heart disease's cost, it's now possible and normal for a heart attack victim to return to a productive life. Diabetes no longer means a "short, disgusting, and painful" life, but one of manageable testing and treatment. If indeed these chronic diseases make up the biggest cost in healthcare, then it's certainly offset by the return to productivity.
Even if the American diet is the cause of American health problems, that doesn't change the fact that there are people sick now, in hospitals and clinics, trying to get back to a normal life. Curing the cause works wonderfully in the long run, but how far off is that for diabetes or cancer? Ten years? Fifty? Two hundred? Until then, treating the symptoms of the disease is equally important, and it's the relief of symptoms that results in the majority of patients returning to productive lives. This isn't the 17th century anymore. Leaving a hospital usually means you're as capable as any other person, even if you do have to take a few pills to maintain that status.
The big reason physicians are less productive with EMR systems is that they need to learn how to use a computer properly. This means using password-protected screen savers instead of fully logging out, and spending $35 a month on a network connection faster than dial-up. It means taking some typing lessons, and getting used to the feeling of a keyboard rather than a pen.
I also note that you very carefully mention only private practice, rather than doctors in any large organization. That reminds me an awful lot of the "get off my lawn" mentality held by most private practices. They have THEIR way, and God forbid anybody try to recommend changing it. Never mind that it would decrease errors, which would make malpractice insurance cheaper, which would bring more profit, but I digress.
Regarding EMR and insurance, your point is moot. Insurance claims are ALREADY required to be filed electronically as part of HIPAA. Now the records will just be stored in a computer in the hospital, reducing the error rate introduced by transcriptionists. If there's going to be any change, it's more likely to be positive. The insurance company can, in one request, see that tests were run that indicated a specific treatment, rather than ask ten times for the results of each test.
Since you seem to appreciate studies, here's a few nice ones (found by searching on Google for "study emr effectiveness":
The Effect of Organizational Factors on the Effectiveness of EMR System Implementation"For practitioners considering or about to begin an EMR system implementation, these results highlight the importance of considering organizational factors before, during and after EMR system implementation"... In other words, if it doesn't help, you're probably doing it wrong.
Looking at those listed credentials, it seems the research is being funded by drug companies. I know from personal experience that drug companies love EMR for the same reason I do: hospitals using EMR are easier to work with for exchanging medical data. Again, the insurance companies don't care, because they've enjoyed electronic records since 2003.
That's odd... I thought the primary problem with healthcare is people getting sick/injured/pregnant. I suppose insurance companies could be the problem, though. I mean, who would want to pay a lower constant rate to cover everyone's rarely-high costs? That's far too cooperative! It's like communism!
Things like strokes are a very small percentage of what hospitals actually deal with. Instead, they deal with a lot of broken bones and other "normal" things like complicated pregnancies.
What's a hospital supposed to do to fix the diet problem, anyway? Send scalpel-armed surgeons into the street to stab anyone eating a cheeseburger? By the time a hospital sees the patient, they've already screwed up their body to the point where treating the cause is practically impossible. Most healthcare systems I've ever been involved in also already run giant public-education campaigns pushing for better diets. They usually are ignored.
Healthcare takes sick people and (usually) makes them healthy again, enough that they can go back to their normal lives. Polio has practically been eliminated. Diseases that were a death sentence a few decades ago are now just minor inconveniences, and those people can go on leading full (and productive) lives.
So what happens to those notes? Are they copied into a permanent record? Are they made available to anyone who needs them? Or are they ignored, as in the case of my father, who suffered an allergic reaction to a surgical disinfectant, because his allergy information was compared (by a human, mind you) against the list of materials to be used, and they missed that one note?
Paper records are great for recording notes that the doctor never wants to see again. Anything that might be useful in the future should be put into electronic form, and kept ready for use in an emergency.
It sounds like your doctor is just following the normal computer-using routine: using Windows, logging out when leaving the room, hunt-and-peck typing, et cetera. If you want to complain about something, go complain to the people who recommend those kind of systems. The doctor could carry around an always-logged-in laptop and take some typing lessons, and you'd see a huge improvement in the time usage. EMR isn't the problem.
Better healthcare leads to more healthy people, which leads to more productive people, which leads to a better GDP. That's one angle.
Another is that American healthcare is a huge industry, and the processes that are effective there can be expected to migrate into other industries easily, having passed the test of scale. It's hospital EMR today, leading to the fabled paperless office down the road.
I'm not very certain, since I only work with US healthcare, but it's my understanding that the big overseas job markets (Europe, Asia) have had EMR for a long time already. The US is the only place with a huge demand for EMR experts.
EMR is absolutely awesome, and with regards to the government push for it: it's about time.
I'm assuming your "unconstitutional" comment is with regards to privacy. I'm also assuming you have no idea how things currently work.
The concept behind EMR (Electronic Medical Records) is simply taking your medical data, previously filed on paper, and instead storing it on a computer. All the previous privacy regulation (mostly HIPAA) applies, as well as extra regulations (HITECH). The information is still behind firewalls and physical locked doors. The biggest operational difference is that now third parties (like insurance providers, pharmacies, specialists, labs, researchers, etc.) can get access to your data much faster, once they have enough credentials.
In the days of paper, a third-party representative would have to come into the hospital, go to a big room full of paper, stand there making copies of the records they need, then go back and have someone transcribe them all into a computer. For a while, all your data would be carried in a briefcase down the street, easily available for theft. Among the data the third party needs is a lot of other information they don't, but since it's on the same form, they see it anyway.
Now with EMR, the third-party computer system can just connect to the hospital, and supply their credentials to gain access. At the hospital I work with, that means two rounds of username/passwords, plus a physical token. That's far more secure than simply needing a hospital badge and a good excuse. The records are pulled by request, so there's no extra information given. If the third party (like a pharmacy) doesn't need to know about your religious preference (kept by the hospital in case they have to call for last rites), they simply don't get it. Once the electronic medical data's in transit, it's also more secure. There's no briefcases to grab here. Instead, there's an encrypted connection inside an encrypted VPN. When the data arrives at the third party's office, it's easily formatted for their system, with no extra people staring at it.
All in all, EMR is far better than old processes. It's faster, more reliable (think of the stereotypical doctor's handwriting), and more secure.
What you are referring to is actually "free of charge" or "free of cost". This is different from, for example, being "free from defect in workmanship" as you'll often find guaranteed. It's also different from "free speech" which can often cost quite a lot, such as a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl.
I spent seven years on brand-name Ritalin, methylphenidate, and Adderall, and they were the worst years of my life thus far. ADD is not simply having "mental refuse". It's more like having a mental copilot. Sure, most of the ideas are annoying and useless, but when the drug-induced concentration takes hold, there's an eerie silence of ideas. It just doesn't feel right, which was even worse for my concentration.
With regards to creativity, ADD has some wonderful effects. For example, I can avoid lock-in at will. As a programmer, I need to be able to adapt my designs to rapidly-changing requirements. Having unmedicated ADD allows me to be aware of all the capabilities of my program, which makes future changes far simpler.
I also rarely get attached to any single solution to a problem, so I can easily change algorithms without hesitation. Permanent indecision can be a good thing, and the ADD helps me to be flexible. While programming one algorithm, I'm also thinking about the alternatives.
Finally, having ADD also allows me to jump quickly between testing scenarios. While programming, I can concentrate on all possible inputs at once, and pay attention to important ones. At all times, I know what will make my programs fail, and I can can compensate for that.
All this came with a huge price, though. When I went off the meds, I lost friends and a job. I've spent the past six years training myself to discard the useless ideas (pink elephants with tusks twisted around their backs, the shape of the letter 'L', and the ingenious design of my toaster) in favor of the things I really need to think about. I recently started a new job, and I've had to explain a few times already why I keep a half-dozen broken pens on my desk as chew toys, and apologize a few times for tossing a stress ball around and accidentally hitting a coworker.
For me, life with ADD is hard, but life without it is harder.
It looks like a big laser pointer, designed to not slide out of someone's hand. I have a travel coffee mug that looks pretty similar, albeit with a larger diameter.
Unless a TV display can produce photons that are only visible by the left or right eye it can't reproduce true 3D imaging.
That's what the shuttered glasses are for.
That might be possible in the future, but it is not correct to equate a current 3D display to a mirror image.
That's why I said it would be an ideal display. I'm not equating them. Our current technology has limitations, but the old report is irrelevant due to its review of completely different technology.
Your eyes actually aren't focusing on anything. They're adjusting the paths of photons entering your eyes. A television in several years may be able to accurately control light enough to send photons at us from different angles, rather than the current method of blasting light in (more or less) all directions from a pixel.
Protecting copyrights is a good idea, though. If you don't protect your copyrights, and go to sue someone, you look more like a troll and have to fight that much harder. Probably not a big concern for Lucasarts with their fame and all, but valid nonetheless. Protecting copyrights (especially against a company like Wicked Lasers, who can be expected to respond with media attention and a Slashdot story) also serves as a nice deterrent against other potential infringers. It says loud and clear: "We're watching."
"They're a big company that needs to protect their trademarks. Maybe they're having to look like they're protecting their trademark in case they need to [protect it again] later."
It's just a laser for now, but next month when Lucasfilm sues a company making unlicensed life-size R2D2 statues, their lawyers can claim they've been actively protecting their copyrights and trademarks, which easily cuts off the biggest defenses. It's all part of the game.
Not quite. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the employer just has to show they aren't discriminating.
It's perfectly acceptable to reject a male applicant for an acting role that requires a female.
For a job requiring constant travel, a married applicant who says they cannot travel without their spouse (and wants the company to pay for it) can be rejected in favor of one without such a requirement.
With their protected qualities, these applicants bring on additional costs that make then genuinely undesirable for the positions.
Likewise, an applicant having a tattoo depicting puppies being crushed by a truck is probably not a good fit for a day care center. If sued for discrimination, the employer just has to convince the courts that it's not the gender/marriage/expression that was rejected, but the extra complications that come with it.
It's perfectly possible to live on your own. Find a benefactor/old relative/government willing to give you a hassle-free patch of land, and go live. No problems there. I have an acquaintance who does just that through the summer. He does some temporary work as a snowplow driver through winter, to make enough cash to pay for the various services he uses (things like police and fire coverage, school for his niece, and a few large tanks of propane). When summer comes, he's back at his little cabin, living off his garden, cistern, and guns.
It's not about being part of a "machine" or not. It's just economics. He can't really put out a forest fire by himself, so he pays others who can. He can bring a monstrous snowplow within two inches of a car without any risk of damage, and he sells that skill to those willing to pay.
Money is just a certificate saying you've done something that someone else liked enough to pay for. Things get complicated, but it all comes down to just that simple concept.
I'd like to think that, as soon as the other company made their initial press release about developing the product, Sega would privately pass the report on to them as a bit of professional courtesy. However, I'm pretty sure that's my idealism getting away from me.
After that last post I did RTFA, and I still feel the same.
The headset is on the kid's head, preventing them from possibly looking away. The technology used isn't mentioned, but it is implied that the visual quality isn't great. There's also lots of little variables like exposure time, audio cues, and visual refresh rate.
What you should get from this buried report is that that specific implementation of that specific technology had the potential for causing harm. It should imply nothing about 3D technology in general, just like my report that package A is slower than Z should not imply that all computers are slow.
Go stand in front of a mirror for a while, and marvel at the 3D imagery from a 2D surface. The mirror can be considered to be emitting photons at carefully-specified frequencies, positions, and directions, just like an ideal 3D television would do. Our inferior pixel technology just can't aim photons well enough yet, so we use a variety of tricks to accomplish the desired effect of getting different images to each eye. One certain trick might have adverse health effects, but changing the parameters slightly changes the effects.
For example, the Sega headset used dual LCD screens. Todays 3D televisions generally use a single screen, usually with glasses to isolate the eyes. That's a major difference, and probably enough to invalidate the previous research for any use other than fear mongering.
When using package A on system B with configuration C and test profile D, while running profiling software E and monitor F, and supplying it with data from source G and database H, throughput is roughly N% lower than using package Z on system Y with configuration X and test profile W, while running profiling software V and monitor U, and supplying it with data from source T and database S.
Supply the appropriate values for the appropriate letters, and you have most of the reports I've buried. They're absolutely worthless outside my application, unless you're trying to dig up meaningless evidence for/against any of the components.
Life is complicated. Research is, too. Note that I haven't read TFA (this IS/., after all), but I suspect the report included lovely details like viewing angles, use profiles, the specific 3D technology used, and so forth. Change any tiny detail, and the previous research is probably irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
The initial release encompasses the cloud object storage and cloud virtual server management suites.
In other words, it's the software that lets people upload files to the distributed network, and the software to manage their virtual servers. Without looking any deeper, it seems to be enough to run your own cloud-based storage system. Need to store more data than one machine can handle? This might do it for you.
The original comment was regarding GDP and the general productivity of patients after being treated. Regardless of heart disease's cost, it's now possible and normal for a heart attack victim to return to a productive life. Diabetes no longer means a "short, disgusting, and painful" life, but one of manageable testing and treatment. If indeed these chronic diseases make up the biggest cost in healthcare, then it's certainly offset by the return to productivity.
Even if the American diet is the cause of American health problems, that doesn't change the fact that there are people sick now, in hospitals and clinics, trying to get back to a normal life. Curing the cause works wonderfully in the long run, but how far off is that for diabetes or cancer? Ten years? Fifty? Two hundred? Until then, treating the symptoms of the disease is equally important, and it's the relief of symptoms that results in the majority of patients returning to productive lives. This isn't the 17th century anymore. Leaving a hospital usually means you're as capable as any other person, even if you do have to take a few pills to maintain that status.
The big reason physicians are less productive with EMR systems is that they need to learn how to use a computer properly. This means using password-protected screen savers instead of fully logging out, and spending $35 a month on a network connection faster than dial-up. It means taking some typing lessons, and getting used to the feeling of a keyboard rather than a pen.
I also note that you very carefully mention only private practice, rather than doctors in any large organization. That reminds me an awful lot of the "get off my lawn" mentality held by most private practices. They have THEIR way, and God forbid anybody try to recommend changing it. Never mind that it would decrease errors, which would make malpractice insurance cheaper, which would bring more profit, but I digress.
Regarding EMR and insurance, your point is moot. Insurance claims are ALREADY required to be filed electronically as part of HIPAA. Now the records will just be stored in a computer in the hospital, reducing the error rate introduced by transcriptionists. If there's going to be any change, it's more likely to be positive. The insurance company can, in one request, see that tests were run that indicated a specific treatment, rather than ask ten times for the results of each test.
Since you seem to appreciate studies, here's a few nice ones (found by searching on Google for "study emr effectiveness":
Looking at those listed credentials, it seems the research is being funded by drug companies. I know from personal experience that drug companies love EMR for the same reason I do: hospitals using EMR are easier to work with for exchanging medical data. Again, the insurance companies don't care, because they've enjoyed electronic records since 2003.
That's odd... I thought the primary problem with healthcare is people getting sick/injured/pregnant. I suppose insurance companies could be the problem, though. I mean, who would want to pay a lower constant rate to cover everyone's rarely-high costs? That's far too cooperative! It's like communism!
Things like strokes are a very small percentage of what hospitals actually deal with. Instead, they deal with a lot of broken bones and other "normal" things like complicated pregnancies.
What's a hospital supposed to do to fix the diet problem, anyway? Send scalpel-armed surgeons into the street to stab anyone eating a cheeseburger? By the time a hospital sees the patient, they've already screwed up their body to the point where treating the cause is practically impossible. Most healthcare systems I've ever been involved in also already run giant public-education campaigns pushing for better diets. They usually are ignored.
Healthcare takes sick people and (usually) makes them healthy again, enough that they can go back to their normal lives. Polio has practically been eliminated. Diseases that were a death sentence a few decades ago are now just minor inconveniences, and those people can go on leading full (and productive) lives.
So what happens to those notes? Are they copied into a permanent record? Are they made available to anyone who needs them? Or are they ignored, as in the case of my father, who suffered an allergic reaction to a surgical disinfectant, because his allergy information was compared (by a human, mind you) against the list of materials to be used, and they missed that one note?
Paper records are great for recording notes that the doctor never wants to see again. Anything that might be useful in the future should be put into electronic form, and kept ready for use in an emergency.
It sounds like your doctor is just following the normal computer-using routine: using Windows, logging out when leaving the room, hunt-and-peck typing, et cetera. If you want to complain about something, go complain to the people who recommend those kind of systems. The doctor could carry around an always-logged-in laptop and take some typing lessons, and you'd see a huge improvement in the time usage. EMR isn't the problem.
Better healthcare leads to more healthy people, which leads to more productive people, which leads to a better GDP. That's one angle.
Another is that American healthcare is a huge industry, and the processes that are effective there can be expected to migrate into other industries easily, having passed the test of scale. It's hospital EMR today, leading to the fabled paperless office down the road.
I'm not very certain, since I only work with US healthcare, but it's my understanding that the big overseas job markets (Europe, Asia) have had EMR for a long time already. The US is the only place with a huge demand for EMR experts.
EMR is absolutely awesome, and with regards to the government push for it: it's about time.
I'm assuming your "unconstitutional" comment is with regards to privacy. I'm also assuming you have no idea how things currently work.
The concept behind EMR (Electronic Medical Records) is simply taking your medical data, previously filed on paper, and instead storing it on a computer. All the previous privacy regulation (mostly HIPAA) applies, as well as extra regulations (HITECH). The information is still behind firewalls and physical locked doors. The biggest operational difference is that now third parties (like insurance providers, pharmacies, specialists, labs, researchers, etc.) can get access to your data much faster, once they have enough credentials.
In the days of paper, a third-party representative would have to come into the hospital, go to a big room full of paper, stand there making copies of the records they need, then go back and have someone transcribe them all into a computer. For a while, all your data would be carried in a briefcase down the street, easily available for theft. Among the data the third party needs is a lot of other information they don't, but since it's on the same form, they see it anyway.
Now with EMR, the third-party computer system can just connect to the hospital, and supply their credentials to gain access. At the hospital I work with, that means two rounds of username/passwords, plus a physical token. That's far more secure than simply needing a hospital badge and a good excuse. The records are pulled by request, so there's no extra information given. If the third party (like a pharmacy) doesn't need to know about your religious preference (kept by the hospital in case they have to call for last rites), they simply don't get it. Once the electronic medical data's in transit, it's also more secure. There's no briefcases to grab here. Instead, there's an encrypted connection inside an encrypted VPN. When the data arrives at the third party's office, it's easily formatted for their system, with no extra people staring at it.
All in all, EMR is far better than old processes. It's faster, more reliable (think of the stereotypical doctor's handwriting), and more secure.
Slashdot's system relies on its huge popularity.
What you are referring to is actually "free of charge" or "free of cost". This is different from, for example, being "free from defect in workmanship" as you'll often find guaranteed. It's also different from "free speech" which can often cost quite a lot, such as a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl.
I spent seven years on brand-name Ritalin, methylphenidate, and Adderall, and they were the worst years of my life thus far. ADD is not simply having "mental refuse". It's more like having a mental copilot. Sure, most of the ideas are annoying and useless, but when the drug-induced concentration takes hold, there's an eerie silence of ideas. It just doesn't feel right, which was even worse for my concentration.
With regards to creativity, ADD has some wonderful effects. For example, I can avoid lock-in at will. As a programmer, I need to be able to adapt my designs to rapidly-changing requirements. Having unmedicated ADD allows me to be aware of all the capabilities of my program, which makes future changes far simpler.
I also rarely get attached to any single solution to a problem, so I can easily change algorithms without hesitation. Permanent indecision can be a good thing, and the ADD helps me to be flexible. While programming one algorithm, I'm also thinking about the alternatives.
Finally, having ADD also allows me to jump quickly between testing scenarios. While programming, I can concentrate on all possible inputs at once, and pay attention to important ones. At all times, I know what will make my programs fail, and I can can compensate for that.
All this came with a huge price, though. When I went off the meds, I lost friends and a job. I've spent the past six years training myself to discard the useless ideas (pink elephants with tusks twisted around their backs, the shape of the letter 'L', and the ingenious design of my toaster) in favor of the things I really need to think about. I recently started a new job, and I've had to explain a few times already why I keep a half-dozen broken pens on my desk as chew toys, and apologize a few times for tossing a stress ball around and accidentally hitting a coworker.
For me, life with ADD is hard, but life without it is harder.
It looks like a big laser pointer, designed to not slide out of someone's hand. I have a travel coffee mug that looks pretty similar, albeit with a larger diameter.
Unless a TV display can produce photons that are only visible by the left or right eye it can't reproduce true 3D imaging.
That's what the shuttered glasses are for.
That might be possible in the future, but it is not correct to equate a current 3D display to a mirror image.
That's why I said it would be an ideal display. I'm not equating them. Our current technology has limitations, but the old report is irrelevant due to its review of completely different technology.
Your eyes actually aren't focusing on anything. They're adjusting the paths of photons entering your eyes. A television in several years may be able to accurately control light enough to send photons at us from different angles, rather than the current method of blasting light in (more or less) all directions from a pixel.
As I said before, the mirror is the ideal.
Protecting copyrights is a good idea, though. If you don't protect your copyrights, and go to sue someone, you look more like a troll and have to fight that much harder. Probably not a big concern for Lucasarts with their fame and all, but valid nonetheless. Protecting copyrights (especially against a company like Wicked Lasers, who can be expected to respond with media attention and a Slashdot story) also serves as a nice deterrent against other potential infringers. It says loud and clear: "We're watching."
Copyright has nothing to do with prior art. Patents and copyrights are different.
"They're a big company that needs to protect their trademarks. Maybe they're having to look like they're protecting their trademark in case they need to [protect it again] later."
It's just a laser for now, but next month when Lucasfilm sues a company making unlicensed life-size R2D2 statues, their lawyers can claim they've been actively protecting their copyrights and trademarks, which easily cuts off the biggest defenses. It's all part of the game.
It is, but it's a nice presentation. I'll take this over flash-laden pop-ups any day.
Not quite. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the employer just has to show they aren't discriminating.
It's perfectly acceptable to reject a male applicant for an acting role that requires a female.
For a job requiring constant travel, a married applicant who says they cannot travel without their spouse (and wants the company to pay for it) can be rejected in favor of one without such a requirement.
With their protected qualities, these applicants bring on additional costs that make then genuinely undesirable for the positions.
Likewise, an applicant having a tattoo depicting puppies being crushed by a truck is probably not a good fit for a day care center. If sued for discrimination, the employer just has to convince the courts that it's not the gender/marriage/expression that was rejected, but the extra complications that come with it.
It's perfectly possible to live on your own. Find a benefactor/old relative/government willing to give you a hassle-free patch of land, and go live. No problems there. I have an acquaintance who does just that through the summer. He does some temporary work as a snowplow driver through winter, to make enough cash to pay for the various services he uses (things like police and fire coverage, school for his niece, and a few large tanks of propane). When summer comes, he's back at his little cabin, living off his garden, cistern, and guns.
It's not about being part of a "machine" or not. It's just economics. He can't really put out a forest fire by himself, so he pays others who can. He can bring a monstrous snowplow within two inches of a car without any risk of damage, and he sells that skill to those willing to pay.
Money is just a certificate saying you've done something that someone else liked enough to pay for. Things get complicated, but it all comes down to just that simple concept.
I'd like to think that, as soon as the other company made their initial press release about developing the product, Sega would privately pass the report on to them as a bit of professional courtesy. However, I'm pretty sure that's my idealism getting away from me.
A fair point, but shouldn't we be critical anyway, without artificially-relevant fear?
After that last post I did RTFA, and I still feel the same.
The headset is on the kid's head, preventing them from possibly looking away. The technology used isn't mentioned, but it is implied that the visual quality isn't great. There's also lots of little variables like exposure time, audio cues, and visual refresh rate.
What you should get from this buried report is that that specific implementation of that specific technology had the potential for causing harm. It should imply nothing about 3D technology in general, just like my report that package A is slower than Z should not imply that all computers are slow.
Go stand in front of a mirror for a while, and marvel at the 3D imagery from a 2D surface. The mirror can be considered to be emitting photons at carefully-specified frequencies, positions, and directions, just like an ideal 3D television would do. Our inferior pixel technology just can't aim photons well enough yet, so we use a variety of tricks to accomplish the desired effect of getting different images to each eye. One certain trick might have adverse health effects, but changing the parameters slightly changes the effects.
For example, the Sega headset used dual LCD screens. Todays 3D televisions generally use a single screen, usually with glasses to isolate the eyes. That's a major difference, and probably enough to invalidate the previous research for any use other than fear mongering.
When using package A on system B with configuration C and test profile D, while running profiling software E and monitor F, and supplying it with data from source G and database H, throughput is roughly N% lower than using package Z on system Y with configuration X and test profile W, while running profiling software V and monitor U, and supplying it with data from source T and database S.
Supply the appropriate values for the appropriate letters, and you have most of the reports I've buried. They're absolutely worthless outside my application, unless you're trying to dig up meaningless evidence for/against any of the components.
Life is complicated. Research is, too. Note that I haven't read TFA (this IS /., after all), but I suspect the report included lovely details like viewing angles, use profiles, the specific 3D technology used, and so forth. Change any tiny detail, and the previous research is probably irrelevant.