Thanks, that helps. What you point out though is a need for doctor access to patient records and doctor access to the internet, but not necessarily simultaneously from the same terminal, virtual machine, or other sandbox. Patient data should be prevented from flowing to or accessed by parts of systems connected to the internet.
Except that patient data is frequently gained from the internet as well. Except in large hospitals which can support very large IT departments, most EHR and practice management systems are hosted at third-party sites accessed via an Internet connection. Many don't even use a VPN, just SSL encryption.
So you're talking about having two separate machines, connected to the Internet in different ways. You're rapidly approaching infeasibility for a small-to-medium practice or even hospital.
a) medical records were on paper or on a mainframe with dedicated terminals or
b) Google and whatever databases you're searching didn't exist yet?
I can't speak for the PP, but in general:
- Hospitals and some large outpatient offices spent (spend) a TON on transcription of voice-recorded notes into machine-readable text
- Doctors saw (see) fewer patients per day, without being able to spend more time with them
- The body of medical knowledge was smaller, with more of it personally known to the physician, and with changes happening with less frequency. The nature of communication in the Internet era also means that doctors have the ability to stay on top of the latest literature, knowing that this or that lab result should be interpreted differently according to a new study, or that this symptom constellation may be indicative of this other previously-underdiagnosed condition. The entire approach toward diagnosis is evolving, from a knowledge of symptoms and their causes, to a research skill. At the same time, we remain as litigious as ever, and patients are also able to search for the same information, which means that if they find something that the doctor "should have," they may sue for malpractice. And win. And quite possibly *should* win... if the information is out there, and available enough that even the patient found it, shouldn't the doctor be able to?
The expectations of medical practice have evolved with technology. The offices that are still using paper charts are struggling to keep up, and will mostly go by the wayside by 2014. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
She should get fired for doing her private stuff on a hospital computer that ended up being compromised,
She should, *IF* it was a violation of her employer's policies. Some work environments allow personal use on personal time, and you can't fire someone for doing that if you don't have a rule against it.
How long ago was that? The billing, labs, pharmacy, etc. systems use standard internet connections now (with SSL encryption) for the most part. There's some stuff that's implemented via VPN, but a lot that isn't.
Because, for smaller hospitals, it's not feasible to have the practice management and (if available) EHR tools served locally. They're hosted by outside companies and accessed via the Internet.
A home/ISP virus scanner probably have to let those through, but not a corporate one. You can try sending me a passworded zip, it won't get through as the scanner will reject it.
Whereas where I work, we have a policy that we must password-protect any files we email that have clients' information in them. Why? Because we're providing health care, and have to comply with HIPAA.
So if you've got a 66,000-row CSV file to get from one person to another, you pretty much have to do a password-protected ZIP.
What exactly makes this different from any of the other hundreds of sites with the same popup? Is it just because this is a large, well-known website like the New York Times?
More to the point, because it's a large, reputable, trusted site. The sort of site that people who don't go to certain sites for security reasons wouldn't think twice about hitting.
We who are about to pull our hair out (from our families not listening to the words "Don't go to this site") salute you....
Seriously? You already warned your family off of NYTimes.com?
That's the problem with this one... it's a very reputable site. Lots of people will get hit that wouldn't normally be at risk, because they DO listen to the warnings of their tech-savvy family and friends.
Why the browser manufacturers can't simply build in whitelisting for sites, instead of the current "all or nothing" approach, is beyond me.
The problem isn't the browser, so much as the advertising companies. Why *they* aren't scanning every ad placed through them for legitimacy boggles my mind. Are they so short-sighted that they'd rather get the dough from the malware ads now, even though it will convert thousands of new users to blocking their ads in the future?
It's like if the newspaper didn't bother to *read* the classified ads before printing them, and ended up printing all kinds of obscene or libelous or otherwise inappropriate material.
So, is it any wonder that people are suckered in by the "You have a virus! Click here to remove!" nonsense? To many people those "alerts" look exactly like every other Windows alert they've ever seen, and since Windows is always suggesting to download random garbage, they think this is normal. That's why I say Windows actively encourages this kind of stupidity.
This. I'm a pretty savvy user. My last virus was on Windows 98se. I apologize to my computer anytime I launch IE (which is only to run Windows Update or to access certain Federal Government grant application websites that ONLY work in IE). At home I run Ubuntu on my main machine.
And I got hit by the NYTimes thing, because I knew that our Exchange server was doing stupid McCaffee stuff, and I don't have full control of this machine or this network, so when this thing popped up, I hit the wrong button somewhat reflexively. I was hoping that this *might* have been triggered by the IT department's attempts to stop email attachments from getting randomly nuked as "corrupt content". I realized my mistake pretty quickly, but by then, my machine was all but unusable. Fortunately the malware only took down the browser I was using when it hit (Chrome) and I was able to download Spybot S&D from Firefox and get rid of the crap, but it was a mess.
And if I hadn't been dealing with the vagaries of stupid AV software someone else installed on the network, I would have been immediately suspicious of the popup and wouldn't have clicked anything until I felt like I knew what it was.
Spybot S&D usually takes care of everything. I'll keep a watch out for this AntiVirus 2010.
I got "Anti-Virus Remover 2009" on Friday, probably through NYT, then clicking the wrong button because there's been stupid McCaffee stuff on our network server screwing things up for me all day long. (I can't think how else I would have gotten it; I haven't had a virus infection since Windows 98se.) Spybot S&D nuked it no problem, and using the Immunize tool prevented it from reinstalling itself afterward.
I only consider Bribery truly immoral if its to commit an immoral act. To write? Writing isn't immoral under any circumstances, you can write as much as you bloody want and it won't hurt anyone physically, and if its hurts them in any other regard its their own fault.
So if someone writes something libelous against me, it's my own fault if it causes me to lose my job or my spouse or my life?
I think you underestimate the power of the written word.
[off topic rant] Could somebody in charge of this site please read a book on programming and then fix the site. I can't stay logged in half the time in any browser and pretty much nothing works right under IE. (And no you can't play this "IE doesn't support standards" card. This site fails validation.) [/off topic rant]
I have no problem with staying logged in, and most everything works fine for me (mostly using Chrome on Windows XP). But one day, they broke Preview. It no longer shows extra line breaks properly. After you submit, they work fine, but in Preview, all the paragraphs are right together no matter how many times you hit enter, or insert <p> or <br> tags. Sort of defeats the point of Preview.
As far as the woman being offended by a "win a date with a booth babe" promotion... I can't honestly say how that's offensive in the least. She needn't partake in the promo, and quite frankly, a lot of people would like a date with some of them. I wonder if she's also offended by shows like the Bachelor or More to Love (win a marriage with a good looking guy, or win a marriage with a fat guy, respectively).
There are game shows about hooking up with rich or attractive or whatever men, and reciprocal shows where the "prizes" are women. They're separate games, with different audiences. Some folks find them all pretty disgusting. You want to talk about making a mockery of the institution of marriage, leave Massachusetts alone... just look up the Bachelor(ette) et al.
There wasn't a "win a date with a booth stud" option. As has historically been the case, they chose to objectify ONLY women, not attractive people in general. I remember when I first started playing EQ, and it struck me that the female characters started off in thongs and pasties, but the male characters at MOST bared their chests under an open smock. Maybe there was one race that had shirtless guys. But it's supposed to be UNDERWEAR, folks... how about a loincloth? What, it's only okay to display naked women? Why? Because guys think it's "gay" if there are naked men? How are the female players supposed to feel about the scantily-clad women models? Nice double-standard you got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it, you know?
More and more women are spending more and more money on games these days. It results in more men spending money on them too, because girlfriends and wives who game are far more tolerant of the men in their lives doing so; one no longer has to choose between computer games and getting laid. The way they implemented this promotion sent a distinct message that they really weren't interested in that segment of the business, though. It's short-sighted and narrow-minded.
In comparison, when I walk into a store and see a "god bless america" sign or some such, I often walk right out again. Maybe it gets them more business from the ~70% of the population that believes in a god that doesn't mind having his name used for commercial ventures, but it clearly tells me, as an atheist, that they don't want my god-forsaken money. Why would you narrow your market like that, unless you really WANTED to? A Christian bookstore has no need to worry about offending non-Christians, but for the rest of the world, it's just hobbling yourself.
Why does everyone think it's normal for mice, to eat partially digested and rotten (with the help of bacteria) cow milk? What do you think they do without humans? Suck on tits of dead cows? ^^
For that matter, why does anyone think it's normal for humans to eat cow secretions?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, that helps. What you point out though is a need for doctor access to patient records and doctor access to the internet, but not necessarily simultaneously from the same terminal, virtual machine, or other sandbox. Patient data should be prevented from flowing to or accessed by parts of systems connected to the internet.
Except that patient data is frequently gained from the internet as well. Except in large hospitals which can support very large IT departments, most EHR and practice management systems are hosted at third-party sites accessed via an Internet connection. Many don't even use a VPN, just SSL encryption.
So you're talking about having two separate machines, connected to the Internet in different ways. You're rapidly approaching infeasibility for a small-to-medium practice or even hospital.
I'd like to understand more about your workflow.
How did you manage to do your work back when:
a) medical records were on paper or on a mainframe with dedicated terminals or
b) Google and whatever databases you're searching didn't exist yet?
I can't speak for the PP, but in general:
- Hospitals and some large outpatient offices spent (spend) a TON on transcription of voice-recorded notes into machine-readable text
- Doctors saw (see) fewer patients per day, without being able to spend more time with them
- The body of medical knowledge was smaller, with more of it personally known to the physician, and with changes happening with less frequency. The nature of communication in the Internet era also means that doctors have the ability to stay on top of the latest literature, knowing that this or that lab result should be interpreted differently according to a new study, or that this symptom constellation may be indicative of this other previously-underdiagnosed condition. The entire approach toward diagnosis is evolving, from a knowledge of symptoms and their causes, to a research skill. At the same time, we remain as litigious as ever, and patients are also able to search for the same information, which means that if they find something that the doctor "should have," they may sue for malpractice. And win. And quite possibly *should* win... if the information is out there, and available enough that even the patient found it, shouldn't the doctor be able to?
The expectations of medical practice have evolved with technology. The offices that are still using paper charts are struggling to keep up, and will mostly go by the wayside by 2014. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
She should get fired for doing her private stuff on a hospital computer that ended up being compromised,
She should, *IF* it was a violation of her employer's policies. Some work environments allow personal use on personal time, and you can't fire someone for doing that if you don't have a rule against it.
In a hospital no less.
What happened to the geek who setup the transparent web proxy that allowed that?
how would it know what's going through an https session?
Yahoo Mail uses https?
How long ago was that? The billing, labs, pharmacy, etc. systems use standard internet connections now (with SSL encryption) for the most part. There's some stuff that's implemented via VPN, but a lot that isn't.
Because, for smaller hospitals, it's not feasible to have the practice management and (if available) EHR tools served locally. They're hosted by outside companies and accessed via the Internet.
A home/ISP virus scanner probably have to let those through, but not a corporate one. You can try sending me a passworded zip, it won't get through as the scanner will reject it.
Whereas where I work, we have a policy that we must password-protect any files we email that have clients' information in them. Why? Because we're providing health care, and have to comply with HIPAA.
So if you've got a 66,000-row CSV file to get from one person to another, you pretty much have to do a password-protected ZIP.
camperdave submits his /. posts from an IBM Selectric.
Because clearly, Facebook needs MORE traffic. After all, it works normally probably 18 out of every 24 hours for most users.
What exactly makes this different from any of the other hundreds of sites with the same popup? Is it just because this is a large, well-known website like the New York Times?
More to the point, because it's a large, reputable, trusted site. The sort of site that people who don't go to certain sites for security reasons wouldn't think twice about hitting.
We who are about to pull our hair out (from our families not listening to the words "Don't go to this site") salute you ....
Seriously? You already warned your family off of NYTimes.com?
That's the problem with this one... it's a very reputable site. Lots of people will get hit that wouldn't normally be at risk, because they DO listen to the warnings of their tech-savvy family and friends.
Why the browser manufacturers can't simply build in whitelisting for sites, instead of the current "all or nothing" approach, is beyond me.
The problem isn't the browser, so much as the advertising companies. Why *they* aren't scanning every ad placed through them for legitimacy boggles my mind. Are they so short-sighted that they'd rather get the dough from the malware ads now, even though it will convert thousands of new users to blocking their ads in the future?
It's like if the newspaper didn't bother to *read* the classified ads before printing them, and ended up printing all kinds of obscene or libelous or otherwise inappropriate material.
So, is it any wonder that people are suckered in by the "You have a virus! Click here to remove!" nonsense? To many people those "alerts" look exactly like every other Windows alert they've ever seen, and since Windows is always suggesting to download random garbage, they think this is normal. That's why I say Windows actively encourages this kind of stupidity.
This. I'm a pretty savvy user. My last virus was on Windows 98se. I apologize to my computer anytime I launch IE (which is only to run Windows Update or to access certain Federal Government grant application websites that ONLY work in IE). At home I run Ubuntu on my main machine.
And I got hit by the NYTimes thing, because I knew that our Exchange server was doing stupid McCaffee stuff, and I don't have full control of this machine or this network, so when this thing popped up, I hit the wrong button somewhat reflexively. I was hoping that this *might* have been triggered by the IT department's attempts to stop email attachments from getting randomly nuked as "corrupt content". I realized my mistake pretty quickly, but by then, my machine was all but unusable. Fortunately the malware only took down the browser I was using when it hit (Chrome) and I was able to download Spybot S&D from Firefox and get rid of the crap, but it was a mess.
And if I hadn't been dealing with the vagaries of stupid AV software someone else installed on the network, I would have been immediately suspicious of the popup and wouldn't have clicked anything until I felt like I knew what it was.
Spybot S&D usually takes care of everything. I'll keep a watch out for this AntiVirus 2010.
I got "Anti-Virus Remover 2009" on Friday, probably through NYT, then clicking the wrong button because there's been stupid McCaffee stuff on our network server screwing things up for me all day long. (I can't think how else I would have gotten it; I haven't had a virus infection since Windows 98se.) Spybot S&D nuked it no problem, and using the Immunize tool prevented it from reinstalling itself afterward.
I only consider Bribery truly immoral if its to commit an immoral act. To write? Writing isn't immoral under any circumstances, you can write as much as you bloody want and it won't hurt anyone physically, and if its hurts them in any other regard its their own fault.
So if someone writes something libelous against me, it's my own fault if it causes me to lose my job or my spouse or my life?
I think you underestimate the power of the written word.
[off topic rant]
Could somebody in charge of this site please read a book on programming and then fix the site. I can't stay logged in half the time in any browser and pretty much nothing works right under IE. (And no you can't play this "IE doesn't support standards" card. This site fails validation.)
[/off topic rant]
I have no problem with staying logged in, and most everything works fine for me (mostly using Chrome on Windows XP). But one day, they broke Preview. It no longer shows extra line breaks properly. After you submit, they work fine, but in Preview, all the paragraphs are right together no matter how many times you hit enter, or insert <p> or <br> tags. Sort of defeats the point of Preview.
As far as the woman being offended by a "win a date with a booth babe" promotion... I can't honestly say how that's offensive in the least. She needn't partake in the promo, and quite frankly, a lot of people would like a date with some of them. I wonder if she's also offended by shows like the Bachelor or More to Love (win a marriage with a good looking guy, or win a marriage with a fat guy, respectively).
There are game shows about hooking up with rich or attractive or whatever men, and reciprocal shows where the "prizes" are women. They're separate games, with different audiences. Some folks find them all pretty disgusting. You want to talk about making a mockery of the institution of marriage, leave Massachusetts alone... just look up the Bachelor(ette) et al.
There wasn't a "win a date with a booth stud" option. As has historically been the case, they chose to objectify ONLY women, not attractive people in general. I remember when I first started playing EQ, and it struck me that the female characters started off in thongs and pasties, but the male characters at MOST bared their chests under an open smock. Maybe there was one race that had shirtless guys. But it's supposed to be UNDERWEAR, folks... how about a loincloth? What, it's only okay to display naked women? Why? Because guys think it's "gay" if there are naked men? How are the female players supposed to feel about the scantily-clad women models? Nice double-standard you got there. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it, you know?
More and more women are spending more and more money on games these days. It results in more men spending money on them too, because girlfriends and wives who game are far more tolerant of the men in their lives doing so; one no longer has to choose between computer games and getting laid. The way they implemented this promotion sent a distinct message that they really weren't interested in that segment of the business, though. It's short-sighted and narrow-minded.
In comparison, when I walk into a store and see a "god bless america" sign or some such, I often walk right out again. Maybe it gets them more business from the ~70% of the population that believes in a god that doesn't mind having his name used for commercial ventures, but it clearly tells me, as an atheist, that they don't want my god-forsaken money. Why would you narrow your market like that, unless you really WANTED to? A Christian bookstore has no need to worry about offending non-Christians, but for the rest of the world, it's just hobbling yourself.
It's kind of like getting a check from Knuth.
...In the way that meeting the guy who sings for the band playing at the mall on Labor Day is like meeting Bono.
No, because they're levitating above the blades.
Why? Bats are mostly herbivorous.
Why does everyone think it's normal for mice, to eat partially digested and rotten (with the help of bacteria) cow milk? What do you think they do without humans? Suck on tits of dead cows? ^^
For that matter, why does anyone think it's normal for humans to eat cow secretions?
Well, here's a much more detailed discusssion:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-viruses-alive-2004
Not conclusive one way or another, but it certainly informs the debate.
uh? it's not less alive, per-say, than a single celled amoeba or an atom. They didn't say sentient.
It is less alive than a single-celled organism, since it outsources all the metabolic processes even a single-celled organism does in house.
It is more alive than an atom, though.
virus DNA, eg, can not only be frozen solid for millions of years, but it can be CRYSTALIZED!
Do THAT to a tadpole, why dontchya!
Ok, viruses are not animals, like tadpoles.
But human sperm and ova can be frozen and then used for reproduction. So... are they alive, or not?
Plant seeds and insect eggs can lie dormant for years and then sprout or hatch when conditions are right. Are they alive, or not?
The question of whether viruses are living things is far from clear-cut.
Apparently they've also seen Tron once or twice.