Patient records in EMR systems are not stored on the client.
If you do it right, the RFID reader should automatically log out a person if their tag gets too far away, so that you can put down the device and go get a cup of coffee with less risk of someone sneaking in and looking up records while you're away from the machine.
Ideally, of course, this thing would have a cupholder, so you wouldn't need to put it down to get a cup of coffee, but maybe next version.
And from what I can tell, the legislation referred to has the word "Carter" at the front of it... and he stopped signing laws in 1980. So I'm not sure how that legislation could possibly have caused *this* crisis *now* all of a sudden.
In Cambodia, the Khmer took the guns first, and then massacred 40% of their population.
Took the guns... from whom? And how? Did an elected body pass gun control legislation with the support of the populace, and then turn around and engage in wholesale massacre? Somehow I missed that part of the story.
What's to keep the government from "taking the guns" from a well-armed populace? The same populace? What if the government has bigger guns? They always will, because they have bigger budgets. Your well-armed populace better have fixed anti-aircraft emplacements if someone ever really launches a successful attempt at a military dictatorship in the US.
So, a well-armed populace cannot prevent the scenario you describe. Which leaves the question, just what *can* it accomplish? There will always be people within the population who are not armed, whether they are unwilling or unable to become so. Should they have their liberty and health threatened by the "well-armed populace?"
Is there a role for police in your world? Wouldn't any police force that could effectively protect the rights of individuals necessarily require the ability to exert superior force?
You know what would happen if mortgage lending ended? Houses would lower in price to a level affordable without 30 year financing.
No, actually, it wouldn't...
What would happen is that the real estate market would pretty much freeze. You could buy a house if you had one to sell; otherwise, you'd rent. If you inherited a house from someone else, you might sell it (to someone who could pay for it out-of-pocket), and then buy another... but the ability to buy and sell houses would be limited to those who already owned one to sell for the money, and/or had cash in hand.
Granted, this would dramatically lower prices, but not to the point where people who can currently afford to buy with a multi-decade mortgage would be able to buy one without it. Land prices are pretty stable over time.
Of course, if the mortgage industry disappeared, it would only be a little while before someone would come up with a new way of having it... like rent-to-own, for example. If mortgages didn't exist, someone would have to invent them.
Hey, I find it terribly useful, since it looks like a lot of my 2009 is going to be consumed with vendor selection for an electronic medical record solution for our clinics. Everyone's hung up on which program to go with, which yeah is a huge issue... but no one, and I mean NO ONE, has even thought a tiny bit about what kind of hardware we're going to access the EMR from. Except me.
But that's why they invite me to the meetings, I guess.
overrated? That doesn't even make sense. Even if the features of most colonies bacteria are completely unique, that would only indicate a requirement even deeper seperation by individual feature. (i.e. metabolization of a particular substance into sugar by using a particular amino acid reaction)
I thought the point to that statement was that, when *different* collections of bacteria perform *the same* functions in different people, the statement that "Lactobacillus Reuteri GG plays the role of..." may not be all that useful scientifically.
I would think that the conditioning effect in there would be to bring self-interested actions to the fore, even in situations where there might be harm to others. In many cases, other considerations would override (legality, the risk of getting fired, not wanting to get kicked out of the house) but, in situations where you won't "get caught," it might change behavior (such as making someone more likely to cut into a line of cars, or tear the stems out of the mushrooms before buying them... yes, I actually saw a guy doing this at the supermarket one time).
Actually, a normal human being begins to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality at 6 yrs of age. Before that they take everything literally unless you tell them otherwise (which is why the "I got your nose!" game works so well).
Before 6, if you tell them bears live in the forest and dragons live in caves, they make no distinction. This is why many developmental psychologists suggest avoiding fantasy before 6.
Uh... when my son was about 3.5, we started discussing the difference between "real" and "fictional." After pretty short discussion of the matter, he was able to very reliably identify people, characters, places, etc. as "real" or "fictional" the first time he was asked. We discussed the difference, we gave some examples, and then would ask him about *other* characters/people, and he'd get them every time... even if they were real people he'd never met, like Barack Obama? real. Buzz Lightyear? fictional... even though he *has* met him at Disneyland.
But then, it turns out that Piaget was wrong about persistence of memory in infants, too. We're constantly learning new stuff about how the brain develops. I think what children develop by age 6 is *skepticism*, or the ability to compare new information to existing information and evaluate the quality of the new information.
Could you please point to which of their inferences you think breaks down because of statistical problems caused by the sample size?
If no such problem exists, the sample size was fine.
Quantative Analysis was over six years ago now, so I'm rusty... but, let's work through this a little:
Two jersies. Two chairs. Subject sits in one chair, so there's a 50/50 chance they'll pick each jersey (assuming they randomized which jersey was closer to the door, and made everything else as even as possible). So, for 22 respondents, if there's no effect of the game experiment, your expected result would be that 11 would sit with one jersey, 11 would sit with the other.
Instead, 75% sat with one jersey. That's... 16.5. Um. Well, let's say it was 17 people, then, instead of 11. What you need is the probability of that happening *just by chance*, when there's a 50/50 probability on each trial.
Oh, hell. I can't possibly remember how to do the math, not without a lot more coffee. Someone else take over here? And if someone can do a Pearson's N or Chi Square or something, that'd be cool too. What's the margin of error? Is it larger than the deviation?
What? Have you not heeded the cries of your fellow Slashdotters!? Lynch him! Draw him! Quarter him! Then hang his quarters separately!! Stealing bank passwords is so much worse than murder, rape or treason!
Actually, if you read upthread a ways, it's apparently a whole lot like rape. Of course, it's also like stealing a car. Or driving a car. Or building a car with 250,000 robots... [I'm so confused...]
I seem to recall that they are more likely to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, though... and that probably is consistent with this particular type of crime.
Sure, I should probably lock the door of my house when I leave for work... It's probably a good idea to lock my car in the parking lot, too... But that doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act if you walk into my house and steal something.
Or, because I'm sooooo much more comfortable with the car analogy than the rape analogy... if you leave your car unlocked, and someone steals it, yeah, you were dumb, and it sucks that your car is now stolen.
It happens that cars used in crimes are often stolen cars. If your car is stolen, then used in robbing a bank, do you have any culpability for robbing the bank? If a security guard gets shot in the robbery, do *you* get slapped with a wrongful death suit? What if he gets run over with your car during the getaway?
Yes, you are, to an extent, morally at fault for your car getting stolen, and the penalty is your car is gone. But you're *not* morally responsible for what someone does with your stolen car. That's too much of a reach, even for 85% of/. (I'm sure as many as 15% of slashdotters can make even THAT leap, though.)
Uhhh... sounds like you need a better tax guy... we start earning money for ourselves around mid-February (our income taxes are about 12% of our gross pay).
But the Libertarian misunderstandings of tax code aside, if government is paid for through taxes, and *some* entities are exempt from paying their portion due to their status as religions (rather than due to the type of business they engage in), then everyone else will be paying more to cover that exemption... hence, a subsidy. We also subsidize other tax-exempt non-profits, it's just that the secular ones are required to file 990s to demonstrate what their monies actually go toward.
>>>The older generation doesn't know they want it.
You (and some others) sound like the TV preacher I recently heard. "Many people don't know they need GAWD in their lives. They don't know it, but they DO need him, because he will make their lives better!" (crowd cheers). "We must give them gawd as soon as possible even if they claim they don't want it. It's for their own good!"
You're failing to see the difference between "make available" and "required to have." In the US, religion is definitely available to everyone who wants it, and our Constitution explicitly protects that availability. Broadband is not available to everyone who wants it, and in part due to that lack of availability, some people who would want it if they had the opportunity believe they do not want it.
In Communist China, there may be people who *would* want religion if it was available to them, but believe they don't because it's not. Even though I'm an atheist, I think that they should have the ability to explore those ideas and worship as their conscience dictates. I also think that broadband internet should be available to everyone in the US, just as other communications services (phone, mail) have been made available by previous generations.
What post did *you* read? No one's talking about imposing anything on anyone. They're just saying that someone's self-report that they have no use for broadband is often inaccurate, as they have no experience of broadband, and many people who have had an opportunity to use it find that they do, in fact, like it even though they didn't think they would.
So far, no one's suggested that everyone should be FORCED to get broadband access... simply that it should be made available at competitive prices (I would think, competitive with dial-up) so that the barriers to adoption are removed. People can still decide it's not for them, but some fraction of them will do it just because their visiting family likes having it available, or it doesn't tie up the phone line, or they don't have to wait to dial in, or whatever... and will find so much more that they can use on the internet.
I always find this argument interesting. How many anecdotes does it take to become a truth or near truth. I could talk about stories I've hear about people getting hit by cars because they didn't look both ways before crossing the street. Enough anecdotes like that and a truth emerges that if you don't pay attention in traffic, you can be killed, especially if you are a pedestrian. So how many is enough?
Anecdotal evidence can guide quantitative research, and can point out limitations to research. In this case, the anecdotes show that there is likely some subpopulation of those 2/3rds who "don't want broadband" who would make good use of broadband and be glad they had it *if* they had it, but "don't know what they're missing." This shows a limitation of the research; their polling does not capture that effect.
What anecdotal evidence often does is it exposes the fallacy of absolutes. "People who X always Y" can easily be disproved by finding ONE person who X and show that they don't Y. *Good* scientific research practically never gives absolutes; they'll say "People who X are three times as likely to Y as the general population" or "Your risk of Y is raised 90% if you X". Anecdotes don't inform those conclusions.
The older generation doesn't know they want it. My parents (~70 years old) resisted dumping AOL dial-up until they were more or less pushed into getting broadband. Now both of them have discovered all the high bandwidth stuff on the web that they actually like and want to watch like videos on gardening or quilting. They don't use it much to communicate, they're not on facebook or twitter, they use the internet for finding information they want and now really appreciate the bandwidth. With dial-up finding what they wanted was just too painful so the percieved value was very low.
Exactly.
When my husband and I switched our cell phone provider, I argued for unlimited text messaging. He said that it wasn't worth it; we'd have to send and receive over 200 messages in a month for it to be a savings. He couldn't IMAGINE us using text that much.
Finally, we did get it... and of course, our usage of SMS exploded. Both between us (he can text me while waiting for our four-year-old to fall asleep in his room, while I'm in the office with the baby) and with other services (text updates for flight status, package delivery, etc.)
When a particular resource is limited in some way, we restrict our usage without even being consciously aware of it. When the limits are lifted, our usage expands, again with little consciousness. People who have never experienced internet broadband aren't aware of how dial-up limits their usage; therefore, they don't see the benefit.
Now, there are definitely people who don't have internet and wouldn't know what to do with it if they did, but that number will continue to shrink, and greater broadband availability will help it shrink faster.
Slashdot Mirror
...Why should the most powerful country on the Earth, home to Microsoft, Apple, AND Google, be behind ANYBODY on broadband internet services?
Because we leverage inequity.
Patient records in EMR systems are not stored on the client.
If you do it right, the RFID reader should automatically log out a person if their tag gets too far away, so that you can put down the device and go get a cup of coffee with less risk of someone sneaking in and looking up records while you're away from the machine.
Ideally, of course, this thing would have a cupholder, so you wouldn't need to put it down to get a cup of coffee, but maybe next version.
And from what I can tell, the legislation referred to has the word "Carter" at the front of it... and he stopped signing laws in 1980. So I'm not sure how that legislation could possibly have caused *this* crisis *now* all of a sudden.
No because the virus can't wipe out the offline backups. Examples would be like tape storage sent off-site.
Why bother with offline backups? Isn't mirroring a perfectly adequate backup solution?
In Cambodia, the Khmer took the guns first, and then massacred 40% of their population.
Took the guns... from whom? And how? Did an elected body pass gun control legislation with the support of the populace, and then turn around and engage in wholesale massacre? Somehow I missed that part of the story.
What's to keep the government from "taking the guns" from a well-armed populace? The same populace? What if the government has bigger guns? They always will, because they have bigger budgets. Your well-armed populace better have fixed anti-aircraft emplacements if someone ever really launches a successful attempt at a military dictatorship in the US.
So, a well-armed populace cannot prevent the scenario you describe. Which leaves the question, just what *can* it accomplish? There will always be people within the population who are not armed, whether they are unwilling or unable to become so. Should they have their liberty and health threatened by the "well-armed populace?"
Is there a role for police in your world? Wouldn't any police force that could effectively protect the rights of individuals necessarily require the ability to exert superior force?
You know what would happen if mortgage lending ended? Houses would lower in price to a level affordable without 30 year financing.
No, actually, it wouldn't...
What would happen is that the real estate market would pretty much freeze. You could buy a house if you had one to sell; otherwise, you'd rent. If you inherited a house from someone else, you might sell it (to someone who could pay for it out-of-pocket), and then buy another... but the ability to buy and sell houses would be limited to those who already owned one to sell for the money, and/or had cash in hand.
Granted, this would dramatically lower prices, but not to the point where people who can currently afford to buy with a multi-decade mortgage would be able to buy one without it. Land prices are pretty stable over time.
Of course, if the mortgage industry disappeared, it would only be a little while before someone would come up with a new way of having it... like rent-to-own, for example. If mortgages didn't exist, someone would have to invent them.
Hey, I find it terribly useful, since it looks like a lot of my 2009 is going to be consumed with vendor selection for an electronic medical record solution for our clinics. Everyone's hung up on which program to go with, which yeah is a huge issue... but no one, and I mean NO ONE, has even thought a tiny bit about what kind of hardware we're going to access the EMR from. Except me.
But that's why they invite me to the meetings, I guess.
If you can find a vendor, that is... and I haven't been able to find one where I'm bound.
overrated? That doesn't even make sense. Even if the features of most colonies bacteria are completely unique, that would only indicate a requirement even deeper seperation by individual feature. (i.e. metabolization of a particular substance into sugar by using a particular amino acid reaction)
I thought the point to that statement was that, when *different* collections of bacteria perform *the same* functions in different people, the statement that "Lactobacillus Reuteri GG plays the role of..." may not be all that useful scientifically.
I would think that the conditioning effect in there would be to bring self-interested actions to the fore, even in situations where there might be harm to others. In many cases, other considerations would override (legality, the risk of getting fired, not wanting to get kicked out of the house) but, in situations where you won't "get caught," it might change behavior (such as making someone more likely to cut into a line of cars, or tear the stems out of the mushrooms before buying them... yes, I actually saw a guy doing this at the supermarket one time).
No, not purple clothing... you just are willing to pay a lot more if the price tag is purple instead of blue.
In other news, you frequently throw away items that have any words printed in grey on them.
Actually, a normal human being begins to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality at 6 yrs of age. Before that they take everything literally unless you tell them otherwise (which is why the "I got your nose!" game works so well).
Before 6, if you tell them bears live in the forest and dragons live in caves, they make no distinction. This is why many developmental psychologists suggest avoiding fantasy before 6.
Uh... when my son was about 3.5, we started discussing the difference between "real" and "fictional." After pretty short discussion of the matter, he was able to very reliably identify people, characters, places, etc. as "real" or "fictional" the first time he was asked. We discussed the difference, we gave some examples, and then would ask him about *other* characters/people, and he'd get them every time... even if they were real people he'd never met, like Barack Obama? real. Buzz Lightyear? fictional... even though he *has* met him at Disneyland.
But then, it turns out that Piaget was wrong about persistence of memory in infants, too. We're constantly learning new stuff about how the brain develops. I think what children develop by age 6 is *skepticism*, or the ability to compare new information to existing information and evaluate the quality of the new information.
The article is here: http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/29/4/1046.pdf
Can I have your login so I can read it?
Could you please point to which of their inferences you think breaks down because of statistical problems caused by the sample size?
If no such problem exists, the sample size was fine.
Quantative Analysis was over six years ago now, so I'm rusty... but, let's work through this a little:
Two jersies. Two chairs. Subject sits in one chair, so there's a 50/50 chance they'll pick each jersey (assuming they randomized which jersey was closer to the door, and made everything else as even as possible). So, for 22 respondents, if there's no effect of the game experiment, your expected result would be that 11 would sit with one jersey, 11 would sit with the other.
Instead, 75% sat with one jersey. That's... 16.5. Um. Well, let's say it was 17 people, then, instead of 11. What you need is the probability of that happening *just by chance*, when there's a 50/50 probability on each trial.
Oh, hell. I can't possibly remember how to do the math, not without a lot more coffee. Someone else take over here? And if someone can do a Pearson's N or Chi Square or something, that'd be cool too. What's the margin of error? Is it larger than the deviation?
What? Have you not heeded the cries of your fellow Slashdotters!? Lynch him! Draw him! Quarter him! Then hang his quarters separately!! Stealing bank passwords is so much worse than murder, rape or treason!
Actually, if you read upthread a ways, it's apparently a whole lot like rape. Of course, it's also like stealing a car. Or driving a car. Or building a car with 250,000 robots... [I'm so confused...]
I seem to recall that they are more likely to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, though... and that probably is consistent with this particular type of crime.
Sure, I should probably lock the door of my house when I leave for work... It's probably a good idea to lock my car in the parking lot, too... But that doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act if you walk into my house and steal something.
Or, because I'm sooooo much more comfortable with the car analogy than the rape analogy... if you leave your car unlocked, and someone steals it, yeah, you were dumb, and it sucks that your car is now stolen.
It happens that cars used in crimes are often stolen cars. If your car is stolen, then used in robbing a bank, do you have any culpability for robbing the bank? If a security guard gets shot in the robbery, do *you* get slapped with a wrongful death suit? What if he gets run over with your car during the getaway?
Yes, you are, to an extent, morally at fault for your car getting stolen, and the penalty is your car is gone. But you're *not* morally responsible for what someone does with your stolen car. That's too much of a reach, even for 85% of /. (I'm sure as many as 15% of slashdotters can make even THAT leap, though.)
I wonder if he plan on putting this on his resume?
Controlled Bot Net of over 250,000.
I prefer the way TFA put it: "...wielded a 250,000-strong bot army."
Several phones have 2 speakers. One for the tanking part, the other for the rest.
So the other speaker has to handle DPS, healing, and crowd control?
Damn, warriors always get the easy job.
Uhhh... sounds like you need a better tax guy... we start earning money for ourselves around mid-February (our income taxes are about 12% of our gross pay).
But the Libertarian misunderstandings of tax code aside, if government is paid for through taxes, and *some* entities are exempt from paying their portion due to their status as religions (rather than due to the type of business they engage in), then everyone else will be paying more to cover that exemption... hence, a subsidy. We also subsidize other tax-exempt non-profits, it's just that the secular ones are required to file 990s to demonstrate what their monies actually go toward.
Personally, I don't see any issue with the situation, but the above "solution" seems to cover all bases.
Except for having the convenience of embedded video with a gigantic PLAY triangle in the middle of your web page.
The difference is that religion is free.
Broadband is not, and I don't want to see my taxes go up.
How much do you suppose they'd go down if churches had to pay taxes? Religion, as implemented in the US, is NOT free. It's subsidized by government.
>>>The older generation doesn't know they want it.
You (and some others) sound like the TV preacher I recently heard. "Many people don't know they need GAWD in their lives. They don't know it, but they DO need him, because he will make their lives better!" (crowd cheers). "We must give them gawd as soon as possible even if they claim they don't want it. It's for their own good!"
You're failing to see the difference between "make available" and "required to have." In the US, religion is definitely available to everyone who wants it, and our Constitution explicitly protects that availability. Broadband is not available to everyone who wants it, and in part due to that lack of availability, some people who would want it if they had the opportunity believe they do not want it.
In Communist China, there may be people who *would* want religion if it was available to them, but believe they don't because it's not. Even though I'm an atheist, I think that they should have the ability to explore those ideas and worship as their conscience dictates. I also think that broadband internet should be available to everyone in the US, just as other communications services (phone, mail) have been made available by previous generations.
What post did *you* read? No one's talking about imposing anything on anyone. They're just saying that someone's self-report that they have no use for broadband is often inaccurate, as they have no experience of broadband, and many people who have had an opportunity to use it find that they do, in fact, like it even though they didn't think they would.
So far, no one's suggested that everyone should be FORCED to get broadband access... simply that it should be made available at competitive prices (I would think, competitive with dial-up) so that the barriers to adoption are removed. People can still decide it's not for them, but some fraction of them will do it just because their visiting family likes having it available, or it doesn't tie up the phone line, or they don't have to wait to dial in, or whatever... and will find so much more that they can use on the internet.
I always find this argument interesting. How many anecdotes does it take to become a truth or near truth. I could talk about stories I've hear about people getting hit by cars because they didn't look both ways before crossing the street. Enough anecdotes like that and a truth emerges that if you don't pay attention in traffic, you can be killed, especially if you are a pedestrian. So how many is enough?
Anecdotal evidence can guide quantitative research, and can point out limitations to research. In this case, the anecdotes show that there is likely some subpopulation of those 2/3rds who "don't want broadband" who would make good use of broadband and be glad they had it *if* they had it, but "don't know what they're missing." This shows a limitation of the research; their polling does not capture that effect.
What anecdotal evidence often does is it exposes the fallacy of absolutes. "People who X always Y" can easily be disproved by finding ONE person who X and show that they don't Y. *Good* scientific research practically never gives absolutes; they'll say "People who X are three times as likely to Y as the general population" or "Your risk of Y is raised 90% if you X". Anecdotes don't inform those conclusions.
The older generation doesn't know they want it. My parents (~70 years old) resisted dumping AOL dial-up until they were more or less pushed into getting broadband. Now both of them have discovered all the high bandwidth stuff on the web that they actually like and want to watch like videos on gardening or quilting. They don't use it much to communicate, they're not on facebook or twitter, they use the internet for finding information they want and now really appreciate the bandwidth. With dial-up finding what they wanted was just too painful so the percieved value was very low.
Exactly.
When my husband and I switched our cell phone provider, I argued for unlimited text messaging. He said that it wasn't worth it; we'd have to send and receive over 200 messages in a month for it to be a savings. He couldn't IMAGINE us using text that much.
Finally, we did get it... and of course, our usage of SMS exploded. Both between us (he can text me while waiting for our four-year-old to fall asleep in his room, while I'm in the office with the baby) and with other services (text updates for flight status, package delivery, etc.)
When a particular resource is limited in some way, we restrict our usage without even being consciously aware of it. When the limits are lifted, our usage expands, again with little consciousness. People who have never experienced internet broadband aren't aware of how dial-up limits their usage; therefore, they don't see the benefit.
Now, there are definitely people who don't have internet and wouldn't know what to do with it if they did, but that number will continue to shrink, and greater broadband availability will help it shrink faster.