I read the linked Harvard study (I know, unprecedented!). I found the measurements a little misleading -- and I'd appreciate any contrary opinions on this. The degree of computerization was measured by taking the number of electronic systems that the hospital uses and dividing it by 24 (the total number of computer systems they measured). These computer systems included things like "patient billing", "staff scheduling", and "materials management". Not that those things are unimportant in and of themselves, but when we count those towards being a "computerized" hospital, it tends to water down the importance of other computer systems. For example, a hospital that uses a computer to make their nurse schedules and credit collection is considered as computerized as a hospital that uses computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and electronic medical records (EMR). I don't think you can group those two together and say they belong in the same category when analyzing quality of healthcare at a hospital.
The study actually presents a sub-analysis of quality measures for hospital that use CPOE and EMR and shows that there are significant quality improvements when these systems are used. I think that when we talk about computerizing hospital processes, these are the systems that we consider -- not whether HR uses computers for payroll. I think it is a little disengenuous for the conclusions of this study (and reporting thereof) to state that there is no relationship between computerization and quality of care.
Disclaimer: Without CPOE and EMR, I would be unemployed:)
Okay, so the odds of dying are 1 in 129 and there are only 83 astronauts. As long as they never get more than 128 astronauts I don't see what the big deal is.
I would also be considered an Inclusionist and for the same reasons. I do think, however, that there could be some simple technical solutions that could satisfy Exclusionists. Why is there no system in Wikipedia to rate notability? This is an honest question, I'm really not knowledgeable enough to contribute much to Wikipedia content so I'm not really in the loop. My opinion on this matter is malleable.
Notability is not a binary function. Notability is not even an external characteristic -- each person feels that something is notable. To me it is very notable that my bank's software security is weak, somewhat notable that my car only gets 8.1L/100km, and not so notable that some bird in Arizona might be extinct next year. It's notable to me that I've needed a haircut for about a week, but probably not so much to you. Instead of marking something considered non-notable for deletion, why is there not a "mod down, non-notable". Similarly for articles that are only half baked an in progress -- "mod down, needs work". As articles get fleshed out and their importance becomes more apparent, let it be modded back up to the general search. Give users the option of searching Wikipedia to include a lower spectrum of notability. Maybe I want to have a little fun and learn about some garage band from Flint, MI that I saw last night and set my notability filter to 5% and look up "rock scene flint". If I find that the article is poorly written, I can contribute some grammatical fixes and maybe add some citations. [NB: I'm not actually cool enough to go check out indie bands.]
As you mentioned, there is no concern with storage, and as long as people know that what they're searching for on Wikipedia isn't really a great article by Admin standards, I don't see any harm done to end users or to Wikipedia itself.
Although it is entirely possible that the story played out exactly as this woman and her lawyer claim, this may not be the entire story. The news article contains quotes almost entirely from the woman and her lawyer. The insurance company declined to comment (which is smart during a lawsuit) besides a written statement that "We would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on websites such as Facebook."
Maybe they are lying and some overzealous office jockey wanted to get himself a bonus by revoking her disability pay. But maybe there is more information about her case that she is not disclosing. Maybe she is trying to sensationalize her case in the media to try to embarrass the insurance company into not canceling her disability pay. It is unfortunate if she really is getting hosed, and I'm confident that if that is the case then the courts will right it, but I have a nagging feeling that we're being taken for a ride on this one. It's difficult to tell when we get reporting from only one side of an adversarial (insurer, insuree) relationship.
Hello. I have noticed you have made a mention of RealAudio in some way, shape, or form. As a member of teh intarnets, I am required to make at least one "Buffering" joke at the expen -- [buffering...]
Currently, coming up with a dangerous combination of caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol is not easy. Add THC into the mix and if one uses it carelessly with alcohol, it is a recipe for death from the synergistic effects of the two chemicals or for extremely impaired driving.
[citation needed]
It also doesn't help that long term abuse of THC can cause psychosis.
I have a friend who feels that we should ban all forms of firearms for civilians and government and that it should be mandated that all people carry and know how to use a sword. It would be a serious crime to interfere in a sword-fighting duel. Obviously unworkable, but it's fun to think about.
We appreciate that you are encouraging the incumbent oligopolists to "make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible" by providing them with an incentive to do the exact opposite. I guess that's what happens when friends regulate friends.
I wonder if this means that my US Kindle 2 will be able to search the Wikipedia when I'm in the EU. If that's the case, then I think it's totally worth the extra price that they will be paying for their books.
I live ~12 hours east of Quebec and there are French-speaking towns around here. Further east on the prairies there are Metis (French-aboriginal) communities. New Brunswick is an officially bilingual province.
Well, that depends on what we would like the purpose of punishment to be. If we want to put these people in jail to get revenge on them for stealing money then cost is not an issue. If we want to decrease the money lost in phishing, then we can focus efforts on making it more risky for people to steal or teach people and banks how to prevent theft.
If we want to make it more risky, here's some calculations based on a minimum of research [emphasis on minimum]: Total annual amount lost in phishing in the US is $3.2 billion, if you'll believe some estimates (and I don't). So here's a back-of-envelope calculation with some assumptions:
1. The US government is always this efficient in arresting phishers.
2. All phishing groups are equally as effective (these weren't the dumbest phishers).
3. Phishing groups are socialist (i.e. all members receive an equal share of what is stolen).
100 people stole $1.5 million. Let's assume they managed to do this over a 1-year period so each has a salary of $15k. If the entire market of phishing theft is $3.2B and everyone steals the same amount, then there are about 2.1 million phishers in any given year. If they are caught at a rate of 100/2 years or 50/year, then you have a probability of being caught of about 0.00238% each year. Personally, I am highly risk-averse, so I wouldn't participate in this even if I knew the right people and knew the odds were this low -- discounting the moral argument, of course. Given a large enough population, I think that even if you doubled the risk of being caught there would be no short supply of phishers.
If we take a lower damage estimate of $60M, then there are 4000 phishers with a 1.25% change of getting caught every year. More risky, but I don't think we're taking a huge chunk out of the number of people who would be willing to get into this line of "work".
It is distasteful for me as well to let people steal with impunity, but I'd prefer that we use the resources to efficiently stop theft, not on making it look like we're doing something to stop theft. I got all of my data from TFA and wikipedia, so feel free to call BS if you know more (not-an-expert disclaimer).
They spent 2+ years of US and Egyptian government resources to prosecute 100 people for tricking other people out of 1.5 million dollars. They will spend more resources on each of the 100 peoples' court cases. If their cases hold up in court they will spend more government resources to keep them in jail for up to 20 years each. They didn't state a dollar amount spent on this initiative in TFA, but wouldn't it be more efficient to use that money to educate online banking users on how to avoid phishing scans?
Over the decades, yes, it has been taking longer to go from discovery to clinical implementation. Back before 1906, there were no regulations on the sale of drugs from a safety standpoint. A number of medication safety events led to the complex framework fo regulations currently in place. Concern about shady salesmen selling snake oil without safety or effectiveness, the thalidomide tragedy, the Vioxx debacle, and other events formed the public support for regulating drugs and biologicals. Right now there are 4 phases of human trials that drugs have to go through for approval (in the USA, anyway) -- on healthy volunteers, on a small sample of "sick" people, on a large sample of "sick" people, then follow-up from post-clinical studies. And that has to be preceded by specific animal studies with approval of an IND. There are a number of work-arounds for expediating cancer drugs, and the FDA is always finding ways to streamline and expediate the approval process without hindering the safety evaluation they are charged with. For further info: On clinical trials History of FDA oversight On the Current act
Again, I apologize for the US-centric linkage. Also, I do not work for the FDA:)
I just don't understand why a company would expend those kinds of resources to do something that provides nobody with a positive benefit. Nintendo really needs to reallocate some of the resources they're spending trying to stop people from modding their system into investing in good games. Maybe then then my Wii would serve a purpose other than dust collection.
Slashdot Mirror
I like to swim.
I read the linked Harvard study (I know, unprecedented!). I found the measurements a little misleading -- and I'd appreciate any contrary opinions on this. The degree of computerization was measured by taking the number of electronic systems that the hospital uses and dividing it by 24 (the total number of computer systems they measured). These computer systems included things like "patient billing", "staff scheduling", and "materials management". Not that those things are unimportant in and of themselves, but when we count those towards being a "computerized" hospital, it tends to water down the importance of other computer systems. For example, a hospital that uses a computer to make their nurse schedules and credit collection is considered as computerized as a hospital that uses computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and electronic medical records (EMR). I don't think you can group those two together and say they belong in the same category when analyzing quality of healthcare at a hospital. :)
The study actually presents a sub-analysis of quality measures for hospital that use CPOE and EMR and shows that there are significant quality improvements when these systems are used. I think that when we talk about computerizing hospital processes, these are the systems that we consider -- not whether HR uses computers for payroll. I think it is a little disengenuous for the conclusions of this study (and reporting thereof) to state that there is no relationship between computerization and quality of care.
Disclaimer: Without CPOE and EMR, I would be unemployed
Okay, so the odds of dying are 1 in 129 and there are only 83 astronauts. As long as they never get more than 128 astronauts I don't see what the big deal is.
I would also be considered an Inclusionist and for the same reasons. I do think, however, that there could be some simple technical solutions that could satisfy Exclusionists. Why is there no system in Wikipedia to rate notability? This is an honest question, I'm really not knowledgeable enough to contribute much to Wikipedia content so I'm not really in the loop. My opinion on this matter is malleable.
Notability is not a binary function. Notability is not even an external characteristic -- each person feels that something is notable. To me it is very notable that my bank's software security is weak, somewhat notable that my car only gets 8.1L/100km, and not so notable that some bird in Arizona might be extinct next year. It's notable to me that I've needed a haircut for about a week, but probably not so much to you. Instead of marking something considered non-notable for deletion, why is there not a "mod down, non-notable". Similarly for articles that are only half baked an in progress -- "mod down, needs work". As articles get fleshed out and their importance becomes more apparent, let it be modded back up to the general search. Give users the option of searching Wikipedia to include a lower spectrum of notability. Maybe I want to have a little fun and learn about some garage band from Flint, MI that I saw last night and set my notability filter to 5% and look up "rock scene flint". If I find that the article is poorly written, I can contribute some grammatical fixes and maybe add some citations. [NB: I'm not actually cool enough to go check out indie bands.]
As you mentioned, there is no concern with storage, and as long as people know that what they're searching for on Wikipedia isn't really a great article by Admin standards, I don't see any harm done to end users or to Wikipedia itself.
Although it is entirely possible that the story played out exactly as this woman and her lawyer claim, this may not be the entire story. The news article contains quotes almost entirely from the woman and her lawyer. The insurance company declined to comment (which is smart during a lawsuit) besides a written statement that "We would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on websites such as Facebook."
Maybe they are lying and some overzealous office jockey wanted to get himself a bonus by revoking her disability pay. But maybe there is more information about her case that she is not disclosing. Maybe she is trying to sensationalize her case in the media to try to embarrass the insurance company into not canceling her disability pay. It is unfortunate if she really is getting hosed, and I'm confident that if that is the case then the courts will right it, but I have a nagging feeling that we're being taken for a ride on this one. It's difficult to tell when we get reporting from only one side of an adversarial (insurer, insuree) relationship.
What?
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Unfortunately, that isn't the case in Canada: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc67/2004scc67.html
I have a friend who feels that we should ban all forms of firearms for civilians and government and that it should be mandated that all people carry and know how to use a sword. It would be a serious crime to interfere in a sword-fighting duel. Obviously unworkable, but it's fun to think about.
Good sir or madam, you are in luck. By reading this post you have been cured of chronic headaches. *POW!*
Where do I sign up? ub?
A 4x HD Rick Roll?
Thanks for the link. According to the law, I can read a book while I wait at a traffic light, but will be charged $500 if it's an e-book.
There may be a significant cost in converting from Letter size to A4.
We appreciate that you are encouraging the incumbent oligopolists to "make investments to increase network capacity as much as possible" by providing them with an incentive to do the exact opposite. I guess that's what happens when friends regulate friends.
Well, there are certainly rules. Despite these rules, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ended up collecting $300,000 in envelopes stuffed with cash in secret hotel room meetings as kickbacks while he was in office. We only know this because he got caught.
I wonder if this means that my US Kindle 2 will be able to search the Wikipedia when I'm in the EU. If that's the case, then I think it's totally worth the extra price that they will be paying for their books.
I live ~12 hours east of Quebec and there are French-speaking towns around here. Further east on the prairies there are Metis (French-aboriginal) communities. New Brunswick is an officially bilingual province.
Back up. Can you talk a little more about these Japanese teenagers?
Well, that depends on what we would like the purpose of punishment to be. If we want to put these people in jail to get revenge on them for stealing money then cost is not an issue. If we want to decrease the money lost in phishing, then we can focus efforts on making it more risky for people to steal or teach people and banks how to prevent theft.
If we want to make it more risky, here's some calculations based on a minimum of research [emphasis on minimum]: Total annual amount lost in phishing in the US is $3.2 billion, if you'll believe some estimates (and I don't). So here's a back-of-envelope calculation with some assumptions:
1. The US government is always this efficient in arresting phishers.
2. All phishing groups are equally as effective (these weren't the dumbest phishers).
3. Phishing groups are socialist (i.e. all members receive an equal share of what is stolen).
100 people stole $1.5 million. Let's assume they managed to do this over a 1-year period so each has a salary of $15k. If the entire market of phishing theft is $3.2B and everyone steals the same amount, then there are about 2.1 million phishers in any given year. If they are caught at a rate of 100/2 years or 50/year, then you have a probability of being caught of about 0.00238% each year. Personally, I am highly risk-averse, so I wouldn't participate in this even if I knew the right people and knew the odds were this low -- discounting the moral argument, of course. Given a large enough population, I think that even if you doubled the risk of being caught there would be no short supply of phishers.
If we take a lower damage estimate of $60M, then there are 4000 phishers with a 1.25% change of getting caught every year. More risky, but I don't think we're taking a huge chunk out of the number of people who would be willing to get into this line of "work".
It is distasteful for me as well to let people steal with impunity, but I'd prefer that we use the resources to efficiently stop theft, not on making it look like we're doing something to stop theft. I got all of my data from TFA and wikipedia, so feel free to call BS if you know more (not-an-expert disclaimer).
They spent 2+ years of US and Egyptian government resources to prosecute 100 people for tricking other people out of 1.5 million dollars. They will spend more resources on each of the 100 peoples' court cases. If their cases hold up in court they will spend more government resources to keep them in jail for up to 20 years each. They didn't state a dollar amount spent on this initiative in TFA, but wouldn't it be more efficient to use that money to educate online banking users on how to avoid phishing scans?
Contact info here.
Over the decades, yes, it has been taking longer to go from discovery to clinical implementation. Back before 1906, there were no regulations on the sale of drugs from a safety standpoint. A number of medication safety events led to the complex framework fo regulations currently in place. Concern about shady salesmen selling snake oil without safety or effectiveness, the thalidomide tragedy, the Vioxx debacle, and other events formed the public support for regulating drugs and biologicals. Right now there are 4 phases of human trials that drugs have to go through for approval (in the USA, anyway) -- on healthy volunteers, on a small sample of "sick" people, on a large sample of "sick" people, then follow-up from post-clinical studies. And that has to be preceded by specific animal studies with approval of an IND. There are a number of work-arounds for expediating cancer drugs, and the FDA is always finding ways to streamline and expediate the approval process without hindering the safety evaluation they are charged with. For further info: :)
On clinical trials
History of FDA oversight
On the Current act
Again, I apologize for the US-centric linkage. Also, I do not work for the FDA
It's true. I have one potential cause of unilateral arthritis open in the next tab.
I just don't understand why a company would expend those kinds of resources to do something that provides nobody with a positive benefit. Nintendo really needs to reallocate some of the resources they're spending trying to stop people from modding their system into investing in good games. Maybe then then my Wii would serve a purpose other than dust collection.