The experiment to see if it can be done is always fun, but I wonder what practicality can come out of this? It's expensive as can be and equipment lifetime costs are high due to frequent failures. I've done some overclocking in my time, but it has always been sort of a hobby thing to see if I could do it. Several years ago I was impressed when I actually got to visit a couple of Cray clusters we had been submitting work to. They had little windows on the ends where you could see liquid (fluorocarbons) flowing over the components to keep things cool, but this was a multi-million dollar facility doing classified work.
I guess I am wondering if there are there any users seriously pushing the limits of commodity hardware by overclocking to extremes?
Hobbyists and engineers could much better appreciate and understand the Apple ][ and if one so wished he could engineer his own fancy graphics and sound boards as it had a proper expansion bus and internal slots
Also, each Apple ][ came with complete schematics and diagrams showing the design. Talk about open source! I remember thinking how cool it was that I could simply build my own if I wanted or build cool light boxes driven by my computer or make a robot with my Apple ][ as the brains (the mind of a 12 year old at the time).
Apple constantly pushes the envelope forward with newer features (FW 800, bluetooth, 17 inch laptop), and the rest of the pack try to clone their offerings in a Windows world.
Not only these products, but we have Apple to thank for Firewire, being the first to install built in networking in their computers, the first to include CD-ROM drives in computers, the first to include GUI in consumer computers, the first to include plug and play hardware configuration (remember setting all those damn switches when installing hardware cards?), the first to include color support in their computers, their first to......well, you get the idea. One could go on and on here, but I agree. If any company has been responsible for driving growth in the personal computing market, it has certainly been Apple.
I must say the biggest deal for Apple this year has been the advent of the G5 with significant help from IBM. Throughout the G4's life, I had been a supporter of Apple and in particular OS X because of the efficiencies that the OS provides. However, in raw number crunching power, the G4 simply did not scale in performance leaving me to do much of my hard core scientific computing on Intel or AMD hardware. However, now we have G5's, there is simply no comparison. I can now have the most efficient OS and the fastest CPU available in one platform. Apple needed the G5 and that I would say is the single biggest product Apple has come out with this year.
That means there's about a 1 in 700 chance that Beagle actually landed in it. There's probably, a say, 1 in 10 chance that the landing bags blew up on landing.
Or......a 1 in say.....20 chance that the aliens got this one too. They are starting to build quite the collection.:-)
No. You don't just form strengthen one new connection for every memory. If we knew enough to erase memories, we would know enough to back them up too.
Actually, memories are formed from consolidations of neuronal connections most likely in a somewhat regionally loosely distributed fashion. Think of it as distributed storage of files on particular subnetworks. Of course we neuroscientists do not really know exactly how this is done or even how specific thoughts are encoded. But it is thought by some/many camps that consciousness and memories are an emergent phenomenon that arises out of networks of neuronal connections. The two categories can also be subdivided into consciousness and two forms of memory, long term and short term. (Of course there are those who believe that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts but....this is science we are talking about). Disruptions of memory are often due to strategic loss of connections in particular portions of cortex, thus pathology becomes critically informative in the study of memory and consciousness.
O.K., hopefully this will put to bed all those folks who cry about Apple computers being so damned expensive. Feature for feature, the G5 is about $600 cheaper than the Opteron. I certainly found this out when I was pricing workstations from Dell and other Wintel manufacturers and the G5's from Apple. I went with a fully loaded G5 and the price delta was $1200 cheaper going with the G5. Plus, OS X is soooooo nice.
You mean like the Apple Lisa and Apple Newton? I'm sorry, but Apple has shipped "Microsoft Bob" level mistakes just like any other company...
Ah, yes. But the Apple Lisa begat the Macintosh and the Apple Newton showed the rest of the world the way towards hand-held computing. In fact, many would argue that the Newton is still king of the hill in functionality with features that still blow away Palm and WinCE devices. The Newtons significant shortcoming was its price. Now, what has Microsoft Bob given us?
For technophiles, failing fast (working harder) has another distinct advantage: it's more fun.
Oh, I absolutely agree. My point was simply that many people have no idea how hard it is to actually run your own business. You cognitively never leave it and are always thinking about it (why I like science, because like your own business, one can always think about science at all hours of the day). Some folks simply like the idea of being a business owner, but they dont actually like working that hard. A work ethic is pretty hard to teach someone. They either have it or they do not.
One of the keys to a successful business, as Thomas J. Watson once said, was to double the rate of failures.
One of the other keys I have found to a successful business is to work your ass off. This could certainly be seen as doubling failure rates. Interestingly though in the software business many companies appear to be adopting Microsofts model by releasing all of their failures to the public and letting the public sort them out. Other companies (like Apple) certainly have their share of failed products, but they do not foist them on the public. Rather they work them until they are good, or they do not release them. Also, often I have seen in my consulting, businesses that start out strong through insight, hard work and luck get run into obscurity through the next round of managers who take over the company. (it also happens when parents turn their businesses over to their kids who do not have nearly the same work ethic.
Shoot, I should tell you about strained silicon. That overclocking experiment I did a couple years ago went horribly wrong when the water pump failed and smoke started pouring out of the case. THAT was decidedly strained silicon.:-)
Do you expect a succesful CEO in a cut-throat business to be a cheerful guy? Ellison is paranoid (San Jose airport out to get me), arrogant (we're going to take on Microsoft) and often clumsy (Peoplesoft), but he is also still the king of database software (for the time being).
I cannot claim to know him well, but I have met him once and found him to be intelligent, well spoken, and......rather cheerful.
Look, becoming the CEO of the worlds second largest software company is bound to tick a few folks off here and there and being worth as much money as that also tends to isolate one from certain realities that result in a few eccentricities. The San Jose airport thing applies to everyone and I am sure he is wealthy enough to pay the fines that result from flying in past certain hours. The Microsoft thing applies to everyone in software who is not Microsoft (since Microsoft apparently wants to compete with everyone else), and the Peoplesoft thing is simply product diversification. If Oracle could not be all things to all people, other companies are bound to spring up to fill needs.
Armadillo Aerospace states that some US teams are hindered more by regulatory hassles, than technical issues.
It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space or even where the Wright Bros. would be if they had to constantly check with local authorities every time they wanted to make a flight.
When my grandfather learned how to fly, planes had three or four instruments and they simply ran the engine up and took off and landed wherever they wanted. Times change of course and when I learned, we had significant classroom time talking about all sorts of regulations before we could even get into planes. Granted, some of this control is simply because of crowded airspace, but it seems sometimes that our fear of terrorism is actually hampering development of a whole variety of technologies and progress in fields as disparate as aerospace to biology. Where to draw the line?
This whole "Windows patches suck" issue has been done to death, people.
Yeah, it did our computer to death.
Yes, there were instances in the past where things went really wrong.
Funny, because this same patch killed a computer in the lab across the hall as well. We only found out at a departmental meeting when we were talking "computers".
Yes, there were instances in the past where things went really wrong. However, Microsoft HAS gotten better from NT to W2K, and will presumably continue to get better.
This was a bone stock W2k system with no third party software on it.
That's why it is important to do at least some rudimentary testing of a patch before applying it on a system.
Our lab does not have hundreds of computers with "testing" systems. Rather, we have a number of systems that are in place in order to actually accomplish work. If Microsoft cannot create a system that will work reliably and not require huge investments of time to manage, then we will use better tools. Right now those tools are OS X.
What you can claim accurately is that Apple fixes holes promptly and fairly quickly, and that the MacOS X architecture does not have flaws which result in two or three active IE holes in the wild right now.
The other thing that you can claim is that Apple appears to perform more thorough testing of their security patches. I have been using OS X since beta and I have yet to have applied a patch that has caused any real pain. Windows on the other hand......Well, I cannot count the wasted hours I have spent either rolling back an update or scrubbing the hard drive clean and doing a reinstall due to Windows either seriously corrupting things or even worse, outright killing a machine. In fact, at our lab it was a W2k security update that killed a machine dead that was responsible for us replacing all of our W2k systems with 17in iMacs running OS X. I simply got tired of the grief associated with maintaining a Windows computer. We use our systems to get work done, not to goof around with maintaining Windows.
'The future of voice communications will be based on the Internet',
How long did it take these guys to figure this one out? VOIP has been around for a while now and a number of folks have been using it rather successfully. We have been using iChat to video conference from North America to New Zealand for remote collaboration for a while now leading me to wonder which companies are in control of all that excess fiber bandwidth that is sitting around.
However none of that has anything to do with having a PhD.
How so? As dasmegabyte stated, a Ph.D. is a certification of sorts that demonstrates an ability to solve problems and communicate those problems to the community. Granted, lots of folks solve problems every day without that certification, and they might be very good at it, but if I were hiring a person to accomplish a particularly difficult job that required a certain degree of background knowledge, in many cases, someone with a Ph.D. would get the nod over someone who did not have that certification. All other things being equal of course.
It applies equally to anyone in any field. Hopefully we all understand that PhDs are not the only ones who are taught to work a problem until they have the answer.
I agree, but one has to admit that having a Ph.D. gives one a certain degree of credibility because they have a certification of sorts that says "I have identified a problem or question and either solved or investigated that problem to a degree that helps the rest of the world understand a little more than we did before." Furthermore, that degree demonstrates to me that this person can work hard, can solve problems and communicate. Ph.D.s are difficult to obtain because they require hard work and dedication. I value people that work hard, are independent and have a passion for what they do, and that includes folks with and without "degrees", but don't disparage someone because you might think you are an intellectual elitist. After all, the first thing groups like the nazis and the communists do is get rid of those who are independent thinkers because they represent a threat to the established way of thought and are harder to manipulate intellectually than those who are uneducated. We need folks who can think, so give props where due, eh?
Holy crap, when are they going to learn that a Ph.D. doesn't give people complete insight into all things. Hell, most of the time they don't have insight beyond the scope of their own disseration.
Ah, but we are taught to work a problem until we have the answer. And I should remind you that the dissertation is only the beginning. Most of us finish the dissertation and then begin work on completely different projects that will set the course for the rest of our careers and the smartest of us will not only be able to discuss problems in great depth within our field, but we will also be able to draw upon broad training in a number of other fields. For instance, my training is in neuroscience, medicine and physiology, but there is also significant background in computer science and image analysis that has allowed our lab to make significant headway in the field of molecular phenotyping using a combination of fields of study including neuroscience, physiology, molecular biology, genetics, computer science and chemistry along with image forensics and analysis.
There are a great many labs around with incredibly smart individuals in them that would scare the pants off of many of us with their intelligence, so don't sell someone short simply because you don't know what they know.
But still worth a gander for anyone who spends most of their day in their inbox.
Who spends most of their day in the inbox? Seriously though, a decent email client is found in OS X with good junk mail filters and nesting etc... Most times it gets near 98% of the junk email and I have yet to have it reject a valid email.
Also from the article: Pressure to Respond Quickly. People report feeling pressure to be more responsive to their email. Messages arrive continuously throughout the day, contributing to the sense of urgency to respond quickly.
Why reinvent the wheel? If the message is not urgent enough to pick up the phone or in our case, ring someone up on iChatAV, then the paradigm does not need changing.
Do you think a Doctor should fleece the well-off just a little bit in order to provide the neccessary treatment for those who can't afford it? (I know nothing about your situation)
I don't think anybody should be "fleeced" and honesty is the best policy. However, to answer your question about those who cannot afford health care, my mothers practice had the highest percentage of Medicaid and Medicare patients in the city at the time for a private practice. We calculated that ten years ago she was giving away 50% or well over $100k a year in free and un-reimbursed costs. Remember, this is a small single doctor family practice about ten years ago making that a major portion of her income. She believed that we owe a debt to society to help those less well off and that was reflected in the quality of care she provided to her patients and the amount of charity she gave back to the community. She did not drive anything fancy when she practiced medicine as her last car was twenty years old before she gave it away and she did not overbill anybody, even those who could certainly afford it. She simply gave more of herself to her practice than many others were willing to do. The problem with this was that with HMO's and insurance costs, she could no longer afford to make a living and provide this level of care to the community as an independently practicing physician. Something had to give (especially when the HMO's came calling) and her practice closed down when the HMO that also provided the insurance refused to allow their patients to go to a physician outside their corporation.
Apple is dying... has got to be my favorite for a number of reasons including most significantly, Apple has been the company that the rest of the industry has depended upon. Apple has been the personal computer industries R&D lab now ever since the Apple I. Just think about all of the firsts in Apple computers. First to build in color support, first to build in CDROM drives, first to include built in networking presaging the Internet, first to include a GUI, first to create the modern laptop format with palmrests up front, first to include a built in pointing device in laptops, first to etc....etc.....etc..... You get the point.
Slashdot Mirror
The experiment to see if it can be done is always fun, but I wonder what practicality can come out of this? It's expensive as can be and equipment lifetime costs are high due to frequent failures. I've done some overclocking in my time, but it has always been sort of a hobby thing to see if I could do it. Several years ago I was impressed when I actually got to visit a couple of Cray clusters we had been submitting work to. They had little windows on the ends where you could see liquid (fluorocarbons) flowing over the components to keep things cool, but this was a multi-million dollar facility doing classified work.
I guess I am wondering if there are there any users seriously pushing the limits of commodity hardware by overclocking to extremes?
Hobbyists and engineers could much better appreciate and understand the Apple ][ and if one so wished he could engineer his own fancy graphics and sound boards as it had a proper expansion bus and internal slots
Also, each Apple ][ came with complete schematics and diagrams showing the design. Talk about open source! I remember thinking how cool it was that I could simply build my own if I wanted or build cool light boxes driven by my computer or make a robot with my Apple ][ as the brains (the mind of a 12 year old at the time).
Apple constantly pushes the envelope forward with newer features (FW 800, bluetooth, 17 inch laptop), and the rest of the pack try to clone their offerings in a Windows world.
Not only these products, but we have Apple to thank for Firewire, being the first to install built in networking in their computers, the first to include CD-ROM drives in computers, the first to include GUI in consumer computers, the first to include plug and play hardware configuration (remember setting all those damn switches when installing hardware cards?), the first to include color support in their computers, their first to......well, you get the idea. One could go on and on here, but I agree. If any company has been responsible for driving growth in the personal computing market, it has certainly been Apple.
I must say the biggest deal for Apple this year has been the advent of the G5 with significant help from IBM. Throughout the G4's life, I had been a supporter of Apple and in particular OS X because of the efficiencies that the OS provides. However, in raw number crunching power, the G4 simply did not scale in performance leaving me to do much of my hard core scientific computing on Intel or AMD hardware. However, now we have G5's, there is simply no comparison. I can now have the most efficient OS and the fastest CPU available in one platform. Apple needed the G5 and that I would say is the single biggest product Apple has come out with this year.
That means there's about a 1 in 700 chance that Beagle actually landed in it. There's probably, a say, 1 in 10 chance that the landing bags blew up on landing.
:-)
Or......a 1 in say.....20 chance that the aliens got this one too. They are starting to build quite the collection.
No. You don't just form strengthen one new connection for every memory. If we knew enough to erase memories, we would know enough to back them up too.
Actually, memories are formed from consolidations of neuronal connections most likely in a somewhat regionally loosely distributed fashion. Think of it as distributed storage of files on particular subnetworks. Of course we neuroscientists do not really know exactly how this is done or even how specific thoughts are encoded. But it is thought by some/many camps that consciousness and memories are an emergent phenomenon that arises out of networks of neuronal connections. The two categories can also be subdivided into consciousness and two forms of memory, long term and short term. (Of course there are those who believe that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts but....this is science we are talking about). Disruptions of memory are often due to strategic loss of connections in particular portions of cortex, thus pathology becomes critically informative in the study of memory and consciousness.
O.K., hopefully this will put to bed all those folks who cry about Apple computers being so damned expensive. Feature for feature, the G5 is about $600 cheaper than the Opteron. I certainly found this out when I was pricing workstations from Dell and other Wintel manufacturers and the G5's from Apple. I went with a fully loaded G5 and the price delta was $1200 cheaper going with the G5. Plus, OS X is soooooo nice.
You mean like the Apple Lisa and Apple Newton? I'm sorry, but Apple has shipped "Microsoft Bob" level mistakes just like any other company...
Ah, yes. But the Apple Lisa begat the Macintosh and the Apple Newton showed the rest of the world the way towards hand-held computing. In fact, many would argue that the Newton is still king of the hill in functionality with features that still blow away Palm and WinCE devices. The Newtons significant shortcoming was its price. Now, what has Microsoft Bob given us?
For technophiles, failing fast (working harder) has another distinct advantage: it's more fun.
Oh, I absolutely agree. My point was simply that many people have no idea how hard it is to actually run your own business. You cognitively never leave it and are always thinking about it (why I like science, because like your own business, one can always think about science at all hours of the day). Some folks simply like the idea of being a business owner, but they dont actually like working that hard. A work ethic is pretty hard to teach someone. They either have it or they do not.
P.S.....I like your sig.
One of the keys to a successful business, as Thomas J. Watson once said, was to double the rate of failures.
One of the other keys I have found to a successful business is to work your ass off. This could certainly be seen as doubling failure rates. Interestingly though in the software business many companies appear to be adopting Microsofts model by releasing all of their failures to the public and letting the public sort them out. Other companies (like Apple) certainly have their share of failed products, but they do not foist them on the public. Rather they work them until they are good, or they do not release them. Also, often I have seen in my consulting, businesses that start out strong through insight, hard work and luck get run into obscurity through the next round of managers who take over the company. (it also happens when parents turn their businesses over to their kids who do not have nearly the same work ethic.
Well, I did not get ANYTHING for Christmas, you insensitive clod! :-)
Shoot, I should tell you about strained silicon. That overclocking experiment I did a couple years ago went horribly wrong when the water pump failed and smoke started pouring out of the case. THAT was decidedly strained silicon. :-)
Do you expect a succesful CEO in a cut-throat business to be a cheerful guy? Ellison is paranoid (San Jose airport out to get me), arrogant (we're going to take on Microsoft) and often clumsy (Peoplesoft), but he is also still the king of database software (for the time being).
I cannot claim to know him well, but I have met him once and found him to be intelligent, well spoken, and......rather cheerful.
Look, becoming the CEO of the worlds second largest software company is bound to tick a few folks off here and there and being worth as much money as that also tends to isolate one from certain realities that result in a few eccentricities. The San Jose airport thing applies to everyone and I am sure he is wealthy enough to pay the fines that result from flying in past certain hours. The Microsoft thing applies to everyone in software who is not Microsoft (since Microsoft apparently wants to compete with everyone else), and the Peoplesoft thing is simply product diversification. If Oracle could not be all things to all people, other companies are bound to spring up to fill needs.
O.K., coffee flavor is good, but what about caffeine? ...........must......have.......CAFFEINE!
Armadillo Aerospace states that some US teams are hindered more by regulatory hassles, than technical issues.
It really makes one wonder where we would be if Goddard had restrictions on fuel sources and flight space or even where the Wright Bros. would be if they had to constantly check with local authorities every time they wanted to make a flight.
When my grandfather learned how to fly, planes had three or four instruments and they simply ran the engine up and took off and landed wherever they wanted. Times change of course and when I learned, we had significant classroom time talking about all sorts of regulations before we could even get into planes. Granted, some of this control is simply because of crowded airspace, but it seems sometimes that our fear of terrorism is actually hampering development of a whole variety of technologies and progress in fields as disparate as aerospace to biology. Where to draw the line?
This whole "Windows patches suck" issue has been done to death, people.
Yeah, it did our computer to death.
Yes, there were instances in the past where things went really wrong.
Funny, because this same patch killed a computer in the lab across the hall as well. We only found out at a departmental meeting when we were talking "computers".
Yes, there were instances in the past where things went really wrong. However, Microsoft HAS gotten better from NT to W2K, and will presumably continue to get better.
This was a bone stock W2k system with no third party software on it.
That's why it is important to do at least some rudimentary testing of a patch before applying it on a system.
Our lab does not have hundreds of computers with "testing" systems. Rather, we have a number of systems that are in place in order to actually accomplish work. If Microsoft cannot create a system that will work reliably and not require huge investments of time to manage, then we will use better tools. Right now those tools are OS X.
What you can claim accurately is that Apple fixes holes promptly and fairly quickly, and that the MacOS X architecture does not have flaws which result in two or three active IE holes in the wild right now.
The other thing that you can claim is that Apple appears to perform more thorough testing of their security patches. I have been using OS X since beta and I have yet to have applied a patch that has caused any real pain. Windows on the other hand......Well, I cannot count the wasted hours I have spent either rolling back an update or scrubbing the hard drive clean and doing a reinstall due to Windows either seriously corrupting things or even worse, outright killing a machine. In fact, at our lab it was a W2k security update that killed a machine dead that was responsible for us replacing all of our W2k systems with 17in iMacs running OS X. I simply got tired of the grief associated with maintaining a Windows computer. We use our systems to get work done, not to goof around with maintaining Windows.
'The future of voice communications will be based on the Internet',
How long did it take these guys to figure this one out? VOIP has been around for a while now and a number of folks have been using it rather successfully. We have been using iChat to video conference from North America to New Zealand for remote collaboration for a while now leading me to wonder which companies are in control of all that excess fiber bandwidth that is sitting around.
However, until the day comes that everyone uses Linux (or finds a way around Billy Boy's "evil empire"),
:-)
Its here and its called OS X
However none of that has anything to do with having a PhD.
How so? As dasmegabyte stated, a Ph.D. is a certification of sorts that demonstrates an ability to solve problems and communicate those problems to the community. Granted, lots of folks solve problems every day without that certification, and they might be very good at it, but if I were hiring a person to accomplish a particularly difficult job that required a certain degree of background knowledge, in many cases, someone with a Ph.D. would get the nod over someone who did not have that certification. All other things being equal of course.
It applies equally to anyone in any field. Hopefully we all understand that PhDs are not the only ones who are taught to work a problem until they have the answer.
I agree, but one has to admit that having a Ph.D. gives one a certain degree of credibility because they have a certification of sorts that says "I have identified a problem or question and either solved or investigated that problem to a degree that helps the rest of the world understand a little more than we did before." Furthermore, that degree demonstrates to me that this person can work hard, can solve problems and communicate. Ph.D.s are difficult to obtain because they require hard work and dedication. I value people that work hard, are independent and have a passion for what they do, and that includes folks with and without "degrees", but don't disparage someone because you might think you are an intellectual elitist. After all, the first thing groups like the nazis and the communists do is get rid of those who are independent thinkers because they represent a threat to the established way of thought and are harder to manipulate intellectually than those who are uneducated. We need folks who can think, so give props where due, eh?
Holy crap, when are they going to learn that a Ph.D. doesn't give people complete insight into all things. Hell, most of the time they don't have insight beyond the scope of their own disseration.
Ah, but we are taught to work a problem until we have the answer. And I should remind you that the dissertation is only the beginning. Most of us finish the dissertation and then begin work on completely different projects that will set the course for the rest of our careers and the smartest of us will not only be able to discuss problems in great depth within our field, but we will also be able to draw upon broad training in a number of other fields. For instance, my training is in neuroscience, medicine and physiology, but there is also significant background in computer science and image analysis that has allowed our lab to make significant headway in the field of molecular phenotyping using a combination of fields of study including neuroscience, physiology, molecular biology, genetics, computer science and chemistry along with image forensics and analysis.
There are a great many labs around with incredibly smart individuals in them that would scare the pants off of many of us with their intelligence, so don't sell someone short simply because you don't know what they know.
PHB's at large corporations,
:-) , but PHB is lost on me.....
PHB's? What's that? I know what a Ph.D. is
But still worth a gander for anyone who spends most of their day in their inbox.
Who spends most of their day in the inbox? Seriously though, a decent email client is found in OS X with good junk mail filters and nesting etc... Most times it gets near 98% of the junk email and I have yet to have it reject a valid email.
Also from the article: Pressure to Respond Quickly. People report feeling pressure to be more responsive to their email. Messages arrive continuously throughout the day, contributing to the sense of urgency to respond quickly.
Why reinvent the wheel? If the message is not urgent enough to pick up the phone or in our case, ring someone up on iChatAV, then the paradigm does not need changing.
Do you think a Doctor should fleece the well-off just a little bit in order to provide the neccessary treatment for those who can't afford it? (I know nothing about your situation)
I don't think anybody should be "fleeced" and honesty is the best policy. However, to answer your question about those who cannot afford health care, my mothers practice had the highest percentage of Medicaid and Medicare patients in the city at the time for a private practice. We calculated that ten years ago she was giving away 50% or well over $100k a year in free and un-reimbursed costs. Remember, this is a small single doctor family practice about ten years ago making that a major portion of her income. She believed that we owe a debt to society to help those less well off and that was reflected in the quality of care she provided to her patients and the amount of charity she gave back to the community. She did not drive anything fancy when she practiced medicine as her last car was twenty years old before she gave it away and she did not overbill anybody, even those who could certainly afford it. She simply gave more of herself to her practice than many others were willing to do. The problem with this was that with HMO's and insurance costs, she could no longer afford to make a living and provide this level of care to the community as an independently practicing physician. Something had to give (especially when the HMO's came calling) and her practice closed down when the HMO that also provided the insurance refused to allow their patients to go to a physician outside their corporation.
Apple is dying... has got to be my favorite for a number of reasons including most significantly, Apple has been the company that the rest of the industry has depended upon. Apple has been the personal computer industries R&D lab now ever since the Apple I. Just think about all of the firsts in Apple computers. First to build in color support, first to build in CDROM drives, first to include built in networking presaging the Internet, first to include a GUI, first to create the modern laptop format with palmrests up front, first to include a built in pointing device in laptops, first to etc....etc.....etc..... You get the point.