All we can hope for is that there is an equal number of idiots on either side of an issue to cancel each other out so that the informed can sway a vote in the right direction.
Companies don't have views. The people that work in those companies have views, and they are able to express them without paying someone to bribe politicians on their behalf.
The other side is claiming that they are being stepped on by an oppressive corporate regime because they are trying to protect their property. Meanwhile, real oppressive regimes are causing many of those problems you described.
It's a logical fallacy to suggest that something is not wrong just because you can name something far worse somewhere else.
There is one common denominator in all those failed business you've worked for. Have you ever considered that you are a curse to anyone that will hire you?
If the answer to the first statement is close to or at zero, then you've wasted a lot of breath... er, typing. There are plenty of organizations that simply cannot use anything but Windows because they software they need to use has no Linux, Solaris, or Mac alternatives, or perhaps just no good ones. Or perhaps certain hardware you need that requires Windows on it, or a Windows device to attach to. Working in a hospital, I know that there are many examples of this.
It's just not as simple as you seem to be suggesting it is -- if it's possible at all. Not to mention the immense cost in money and time to replace/reinstall your entire information system.
Despite being an ex-pothead and supporter of legalization, I have to point out that the "0" next to marijuana may very well be a falsehood based on playing with numbers.
The numbers by "alcohol" may well include people killed by a drunk driver because that driver's BAC can be measured easily, whereas that is not the case for anyone who may have been killed by someone who was stoned. I'm not saying the number is really big, but I feel confident that it was specifically added to your list to make the point that "no one has died from marijuana use", which is simply not true... or rather, disingenuous. It wasn't the pot that killed them, it was the effects it had on the user, just the same as drunk drivers.
The same applies to "tobacco". If someone's medical record says they are a smoker and they die of lung cancer, heart attack, or any other tobacco-related problem -- or even a mostly-unrelated issue compounded/complicated by the tobacco-based problem -- then they are part of that statistic that says tobacco "killed" them, even if they would have died the same way as a non-smoker.
They should say they will support up to x where x really is what they will support
The should, yeah... problem is, their competitors are advertising their inflated numbers, so if one company starts being honest, customers will purchase service from the liars because the numbers are so tempting.
Most of those procedures don't make the doctor any money, since he doesn't perform them. Unless a doctor has a direct financial interest in the growth of the hospital the procedure is performed at (shareholder, etc), he has no financial interest in ordering those procedures. Many doctors are not even employed by the hospitals at which they work.
Perhaps he meant unnecessary paperwork, not all paper... but even so, hospitals DO have transcriptionists. The doctor picks up a phone, dials a couple numbers (or uses a bar code reader or something, given the right equipment) and starts reading off their diagnosis. Then a transcriptionist somewhere else (perhaps around the world) gets that recording and types out what the doctor said into the phone. Ideally, the doctor gets that document back and approves it, though that part rarely happens. Then it's attached to your medical record.
Having worked with older doctors, I know how hard it is to get them to look at a computer, much less get them to use one. And I don't think it would improve their work flow anyway; in fact it would probably hinder them.
Old dog, new tricks, and all of that. But newer doctors are becoming more receptive... to having their own staff use computers. They still don't like to use them themselves.
Cool story bro, though that probably wasn't an EMR: just some DICOM images. Of course I can't say that with full certainty, just with what I know from working IT in a hospital. But it's still cool that it helped save his life.
Doctors don't want medical treatment to be more efficient.
That is completely ridiculous!!!! The more efficiently they can treat one patient (for the same price), the more patients they can see in a day, making them more money. And maybe one or two of them want people to be healthier. Maybe.
Ever heard of hippa? No? Then you don't work in healthcare
Ever misspelled "HIPAA" as "hippa"? Then you don't work in health care either. It's a pet peeve of many people in that industry. Before you go off about how much you know about health care services, you might want to make sure you don't make yourself look like a moron in the process.
Actually, since he was telling the mods to mod-down a subset of posts, he is in fact wanting to decide for others what is appropriate for them to see, not himself.
Slashdot Mirror
All we can hope for is that there is an equal number of idiots on either side of an issue to cancel each other out so that the informed can sway a vote in the right direction.
Companies don't have views. The people that work in those companies have views, and they are able to express them without paying someone to bribe politicians on their behalf.
The other side is claiming that they are being stepped on by an oppressive corporate regime because they are trying to protect their property. Meanwhile, real oppressive regimes are causing many of those problems you described.
It's a logical fallacy to suggest that something is not wrong just because you can name something far worse somewhere else.
Or they were hunted to extinction because their tasty meat caused addiction.
There is one common denominator in all those failed business you've worked for. Have you ever considered that you are a curse to anyone that will hire you?
How about wind turbines?
What causes the wind? Basically, heat. Of course, that doesn't fall under the direct transfer group.
that combination would make for an awfully good weapon
"Hey Osama, why don't you stand at this exact spot in Arizona for a while. Why? No reason..."
Lightning's unpredictability makes it a pretty horrible weapon.
you would make this registry to 600 computers without Group Policy/Login Scripts/whatever...how?
A real IT hero would make a worm to do it.
Yeah, seriously. With that much staff for so little hardware, you'd have plenty of time for reading /.
Unless the users are overly demanding or prone to destroying PCs, that should be a simple job.
If the answer to the first statement is close to or at zero, then you've wasted a lot of breath... er, typing. There are plenty of organizations that simply cannot use anything but Windows because they software they need to use has no Linux, Solaris, or Mac alternatives, or perhaps just no good ones. Or perhaps certain hardware you need that requires Windows on it, or a Windows device to attach to. Working in a hospital, I know that there are many examples of this.
It's just not as simple as you seem to be suggesting it is -- if it's possible at all. Not to mention the immense cost in money and time to replace/reinstall your entire information system.
SgtChaireBourne, sir,
don't you realize your haiku
has improper beats?
Tweak the phone's code so it will refuse to disable encryption when "asked to"
I imagine that would result in a dropped call, but if that is preferable to an unencrypted call, I guess it could be done.
Despite being an ex-pothead and supporter of legalization, I have to point out that the "0" next to marijuana may very well be a falsehood based on playing with numbers.
The numbers by "alcohol" may well include people killed by a drunk driver because that driver's BAC can be measured easily, whereas that is not the case for anyone who may have been killed by someone who was stoned. I'm not saying the number is really big, but I feel confident that it was specifically added to your list to make the point that "no one has died from marijuana use", which is simply not true... or rather, disingenuous. It wasn't the pot that killed them, it was the effects it had on the user, just the same as drunk drivers.
The same applies to "tobacco". If someone's medical record says they are a smoker and they die of lung cancer, heart attack, or any other tobacco-related problem -- or even a mostly-unrelated issue compounded/complicated by the tobacco-based problem -- then they are part of that statistic that says tobacco "killed" them, even if they would have died the same way as a non-smoker.
Of course they are: they're both aliens, and I don't mean from Kenya!
I believe that is intentional...
With guns.
Most people don't being wrong - or at least have it pointed out when they are
You make it so hard to resist pointing out the missing word in that sentence...
nobody is going to lose their life because a copyright was infringed.
Not until this treaty is signed, at least.
They should say they will support up to x where x really is what they will support
The should, yeah... problem is, their competitors are advertising their inflated numbers, so if one company starts being honest, customers will purchase service from the liars because the numbers are so tempting.
bill for unnecessary procedures
Most of those procedures don't make the doctor any money, since he doesn't perform them. Unless a doctor has a direct financial interest in the growth of the hospital the procedure is performed at (shareholder, etc), he has no financial interest in ordering those procedures. Many doctors are not even employed by the hospitals at which they work.
Perhaps he meant unnecessary paperwork, not all paper... but even so, hospitals DO have transcriptionists. The doctor picks up a phone, dials a couple numbers (or uses a bar code reader or something, given the right equipment) and starts reading off their diagnosis. Then a transcriptionist somewhere else (perhaps around the world) gets that recording and types out what the doctor said into the phone. Ideally, the doctor gets that document back and approves it, though that part rarely happens. Then it's attached to your medical record.
Having worked with older doctors, I know how hard it is to get them to look at a computer, much less get them to use one. And I don't think it would improve their work flow anyway; in fact it would probably hinder them.
Old dog, new tricks, and all of that. But newer doctors are becoming more receptive... to having their own staff use computers. They still don't like to use them themselves.
Cool story bro, though that probably wasn't an EMR: just some DICOM images. Of course I can't say that with full certainty, just with what I know from working IT in a hospital. But it's still cool that it helped save his life.
Doctors don't want medical treatment to be more efficient.
That is completely ridiculous!!!! The more efficiently they can treat one patient (for the same price), the more patients they can see in a day, making them more money. And maybe one or two of them want people to be healthier. Maybe.
Ever heard of hippa? No? Then you don't work in healthcare
Ever misspelled "HIPAA" as "hippa"? Then you don't work in health care either. It's a pet peeve of many people in that industry. Before you go off about how much you know about health care services, you might want to make sure you don't make yourself look like a moron in the process.
Actually, since he was telling the mods to mod-down a subset of posts, he is in fact wanting to decide for others what is appropriate for them to see, not himself.