I'm currently working on a large CRUD application and we've selected postgres as the db of choice. The organization uses both oracle and mysql for other applications. I really don't like the fact that the only difference between users and roles is a --no-password flag. If you're deploying to aws you have to be very careful to setup your local master user with similar privs as the aws account. While automating builds, we've had some major hiccups scripting the schema creation/cleanup due to the fact that only a table 'owner' has the privs to delete a table unless explicitly granted. Put simply, just pay attention to the privs the aws master user has. Don't over engineer your roles and users. I prefer DBeaver over PGAdmin. Dropping a schema requires all users to be disconnected which means that you'll need to execute a snippet of sql to disconnect everyone. Over time one becomes accustomed to these nuances but they are a pain to deal with at the beginning.
Are the numbers you're using specific to the developed world? Adding a new tower on existing infrastructure is considerably cheaper than starting from scratch or redeveloping existing infrastructure.
The phrase tickles me to the core. I believe it was George W Bush that popularized it when he was talking about potential terrorist threats. President Obama carried the 'no mistake' torch. I'm hoping the next president will continue the epic phrase. We can play phrase bingo on inauguration day.
There are a lot of issues with your argument. You are misinformed regarding several points. There are studies that conclude that African American students do as well as their white counterparts when controlling for income (they just aren't as popular as the converse). Regardless, controlling for income isn't enough to explain the environment as a whole. Secondly, the data that serves as the basis for your premises is currently incomplete. We really don't have enough information to draw any conclusions about the performance of minorities versus their white counterparts. There has been much speculation but very little problem solving on the subject. In a sense, no child left behind is one experiment in a series of many. We are very much in a trial and error stage with no major successes and a very slow feedback loop (20+ years). Your implication (A) and your conclusion (B) does not follow. Assuming your statement is true we could say that if there are no incentives or opportunities to cheat then the grades and scores are not poor. If you really think about that statement, its absurd and contradictory. There are many schools where there are no opportunities to cheat and the grades are still poor. People may cheat for a plethora of reasons. You can swap scores for black or minority and the argument still doesn't follow. The picture is far more complicated than you think. The reason for cheating may even be varied from administrator to administrator (money, pressure, threats, personal gain, notoriety etc.). To reduce the premise to to 'scores' or 'race' is ignorant.
If you still want to see this absurdly racist movie in support of free speech and the like, I suggest you buy a ticket for another movie and sneak into The Interview. At least you won't be supporting Sony and you also won't be succumbing to North Korean threats. There probably won't be enough people there to fill each showing so no harm done to others. Buy some crappy popcorn to make the movie theater happy and every one wins except for you (that's time you'll never get back and money poorly spent).
I am a little shocked out how quickly racist jokes surfaced regarding the topic of artificial intelligence and the demise of mankind as we know it. The psychological weakness exposed here is troubling in that there are a minority of you that have hastily classified AI as a threat and subsequently associated that threat with that which is black. Universally, one might view AI as being a new and completely separate race. This concept of race should not be conflated with the social construct we use today which serves as a breeding ground to exact the very insults interwoven into this comment section. What I find astounding is the method in which your subconscious quickly disassociated AI from being in any way human and automatically assigned this non human characteristic to black people. The result being that one perceived 'race' of people is sub human in your mind and the non existent but much anticipated AI 'race' is also sub human. Both are the target of your hate. In the mind's eye of a racist, one is presumably god like, while the other is cast below as a modern slave. Yet an association between the two 'sub humans' is made and regardless of the fact that blacks hold no more innate power than the next homo sapien, the fear originating from that which is black causes the racist to lash out in a most irrational manner.
I read a lot of the posts (almost every single one) and I agree with your comment. I am African American. I work in tech and I've had a lot of different experiences in the same region (east coast).
I do agree with a lot of what the author is saying but at the same time there is a disturbing cognitive dissonance about her conclusions. I have been subjected to a number of really rude comments. It is very difficult to facilitate group inclusion in some companies. I won't list the reasons why being 'one of the guys' is important (we all know it helps ascend the ladder). I've been working in this field for about a decade and a few years ago I came to the conclusion that I won't be able to achieve what I want through normal means. As an African American the hard truth is that if you really can't assimilate and feel comfortable enough to live your life or work diligently for the 40+ years necessary to maintain your lifestyle, then you must take it upon yourself to create your own environment. For many African Americans, entrepreneurship will be our only solace, however difficult and arduous that endeavor may be.
The problem is compounded by the fact that those who were successful in the previous generation did so via education. Even though they earned eighty cents for every dollar their white equivalent made they were leaps and bounds ahead of the last generation. As a whole, the millennials (regardless of race) are generally concerned that we won’t have as much as our parents and this realization is certainly not lost on those African Americans coming from middle class families.
Are you actually consuming healthcare via ACA? My co-payment is $20 and my prescriptions are less than $5. My monthly insurance payment is 25% less than what it was with my last company. Perhaps my story is a bit of a unicorn but I did nothing special. I went to the website, picked a similar plan compared to the one I would be giving up and it just so happens that the fine print has really worked out in my favor. I have a few friends with similar experiences. We are tech workers, above average incomes. We're not eligible for some of the tax breaks. I don't *think* we are the ones people are upset about subsidizing. My payments is completely out of pocket with no incentives, but I'm saving $150 per month and paying far less for regular doctor visits (about 4-5 times a year).
It is not correct to say that correlations mean nothing. The fallacy most arguments fall victim to is for some correlation between X and Y and some correlation between Y and Z someone mistakenly correlates or even jumps to causation of X and Z. Correlations are meaningful in that we know that some relationship exists and the relationship becomes stronger the more acute that secant angle becomes. Correlations are not a solution but they are small pieces of a big puzzle. If we could gather enough data and generate a vast array of correlations and begin to sift through those that are stronger, we may be able to deduce something meaningful. The problem being solved using big data sets is that we get a shot at analyzing lots of correlations. Our status quo merely has us picking a few variables and seeing if they correlate and when we find one we jump up and down. Find the set of all relevant correlations for a given problem and we can move on from the misuses of correlation.
I'm not recommending that every person have their own format. What I'm suggesting is more along the lines of a few vendors creating client/server applications to be installed locally (not the cloud). Many organizations are tackling the unstructured data problem present in medical records. There should be a standard for conversion (reading) but not necessarily for record submission (writing). If every patient is responsible for his/her data, then the requirement to convert information is left to the person that cares about it the most. Furthermore, this model leaves the door wide open for companies/consultants that are good at converting unstructured data to a standard format. The difference here is that it won't be one or two consulting firms converting Terabytes of data that can't really be verified, it'll be a business to consumer relationship where the customer drops off (or electronically submits) his/her medical data in various formats and the result is the same data in several of the most widely accepted data formats. Naturally, some people will be able to convert their own records. The relationship would work much like a tax agent. After the records are in one or more acceptable formats, they can be made available on the client/server application. Users could control read access at the click of button.
I'm sure there are a lot of hurdles but the reality of the current situation is that this semi-centralized method for converting data to a standard that has been coupled with expensive software/hardware has to go. There must be competing standards to force evolution of existing data structures. The standards to read must be decoupled from the ability to obtain data in its raw format (major failure of HL7). The most important stakeholders (the patients) should own, maintain and share the data. You might think that this would just create a bunch of different standards but if we assume that this process is built on a business to consumer relationship-- the market would easily weed out the losers.
I've worked with OpenMRS and a few other EMRs. These applications are not good at converting unstructured/raw data. There are companies that can transform data, but EMRs don't integrate the right technology. Once you have the data in a structured format, EMRs do a decent job of switching between formats. Lastly, they're bloated and clunky and the business model is geared towards installing a suite of tools or even a hardware setup.
HL7 lacks a lot of features and the upgrade model is expensive. The larger problem is the smaller disparate medical offices that can't stay compliant or afford to invest in a comprehensive IT infrastructure. Microsoft tried to come out with an XML based standard but couldn't get enough widespread support. There is also still a major problem with the taxonomy between specialists and generalist, hand written documents (so we need better improvements in Natural Language Processing). A top down approach has been tried time and time again. Its time to explore a distributed solution where the patients take ownership of the data.
Per the comments about using crowd-funding for start up companies-- the best solution on the table is to have third party verification systems like www.crowdtrust.com. The market can't police itself. It would be quite difficult if platforms like kickstarter and those interested in equity crowd funding spent all their time doing background checks.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm currently working on a large CRUD application and we've selected postgres as the db of choice. The organization uses both oracle and mysql for other applications. I really don't like the fact that the only difference between users and roles is a --no-password flag. If you're deploying to aws you have to be very careful to setup your local master user with similar privs as the aws account. While automating builds, we've had some major hiccups scripting the schema creation/cleanup due to the fact that only a table 'owner' has the privs to delete a table unless explicitly granted. Put simply, just pay attention to the privs the aws master user has. Don't over engineer your roles and users. I prefer DBeaver over PGAdmin. Dropping a schema requires all users to be disconnected which means that you'll need to execute a snippet of sql to disconnect everyone. Over time one becomes accustomed to these nuances but they are a pain to deal with at the beginning.
the hard drive crashes you!
Are the numbers you're using specific to the developed world? Adding a new tower on existing infrastructure is considerably cheaper than starting from scratch or redeveloping existing infrastructure.
The phrase tickles me to the core. I believe it was George W Bush that popularized it when he was talking about potential terrorist threats. President Obama carried the 'no mistake' torch. I'm hoping the next president will continue the epic phrase. We can play phrase bingo on inauguration day.
There are a lot of issues with your argument. You are misinformed regarding several points. There are studies that conclude that African American students do as well as their white counterparts when controlling for income (they just aren't as popular as the converse). Regardless, controlling for income isn't enough to explain the environment as a whole. Secondly, the data that serves as the basis for your premises is currently incomplete. We really don't have enough information to draw any conclusions about the performance of minorities versus their white counterparts. There has been much speculation but very little problem solving on the subject. In a sense, no child left behind is one experiment in a series of many. We are very much in a trial and error stage with no major successes and a very slow feedback loop (20+ years). Your implication (A) and your conclusion (B) does not follow. Assuming your statement is true we could say that if there are no incentives or opportunities to cheat then the grades and scores are not poor. If you really think about that statement, its absurd and contradictory. There are many schools where there are no opportunities to cheat and the grades are still poor. People may cheat for a plethora of reasons. You can swap scores for black or minority and the argument still doesn't follow. The picture is far more complicated than you think. The reason for cheating may even be varied from administrator to administrator (money, pressure, threats, personal gain, notoriety etc.). To reduce the premise to to 'scores' or 'race' is ignorant.
On the contrary, he may have to do quite a bit of slurping.
This is a fantastic idea until pirates show up. Now what have you? The plank, aye!
If you still want to see this absurdly racist movie in support of free speech and the like, I suggest you buy a ticket for another movie and sneak into The Interview. At least you won't be supporting Sony and you also won't be succumbing to North Korean threats. There probably won't be enough people there to fill each showing so no harm done to others. Buy some crappy popcorn to make the movie theater happy and every one wins except for you (that's time you'll never get back and money poorly spent).
I am a little shocked out how quickly racist jokes surfaced regarding the topic of artificial intelligence and the demise of mankind as we know it. The psychological weakness exposed here is troubling in that there are a minority of you that have hastily classified AI as a threat and subsequently associated that threat with that which is black. Universally, one might view AI as being a new and completely separate race. This concept of race should not be conflated with the social construct we use today which serves as a breeding ground to exact the very insults interwoven into this comment section. What I find astounding is the method in which your subconscious quickly disassociated AI from being in any way human and automatically assigned this non human characteristic to black people. The result being that one perceived 'race' of people is sub human in your mind and the non existent but much anticipated AI 'race' is also sub human. Both are the target of your hate. In the mind's eye of a racist, one is presumably god like, while the other is cast below as a modern slave. Yet an association between the two 'sub humans' is made and regardless of the fact that blacks hold no more innate power than the next homo sapien, the fear originating from that which is black causes the racist to lash out in a most irrational manner.
I read a lot of the posts (almost every single one) and I agree with your comment. I am African American. I work in tech and I've had a lot of different experiences in the same region (east coast). I do agree with a lot of what the author is saying but at the same time there is a disturbing cognitive dissonance about her conclusions. I have been subjected to a number of really rude comments. It is very difficult to facilitate group inclusion in some companies. I won't list the reasons why being 'one of the guys' is important (we all know it helps ascend the ladder). I've been working in this field for about a decade and a few years ago I came to the conclusion that I won't be able to achieve what I want through normal means. As an African American the hard truth is that if you really can't assimilate and feel comfortable enough to live your life or work diligently for the 40+ years necessary to maintain your lifestyle, then you must take it upon yourself to create your own environment. For many African Americans, entrepreneurship will be our only solace, however difficult and arduous that endeavor may be. The problem is compounded by the fact that those who were successful in the previous generation did so via education. Even though they earned eighty cents for every dollar their white equivalent made they were leaps and bounds ahead of the last generation. As a whole, the millennials (regardless of race) are generally concerned that we won’t have as much as our parents and this realization is certainly not lost on those African Americans coming from middle class families.
Are you actually consuming healthcare via ACA? My co-payment is $20 and my prescriptions are less than $5. My monthly insurance payment is 25% less than what it was with my last company. Perhaps my story is a bit of a unicorn but I did nothing special. I went to the website, picked a similar plan compared to the one I would be giving up and it just so happens that the fine print has really worked out in my favor. I have a few friends with similar experiences. We are tech workers, above average incomes. We're not eligible for some of the tax breaks. I don't *think* we are the ones people are upset about subsidizing. My payments is completely out of pocket with no incentives, but I'm saving $150 per month and paying far less for regular doctor visits (about 4-5 times a year).
It is not correct to say that correlations mean nothing. The fallacy most arguments fall victim to is for some correlation between X and Y and some correlation between Y and Z someone mistakenly correlates or even jumps to causation of X and Z. Correlations are meaningful in that we know that some relationship exists and the relationship becomes stronger the more acute that secant angle becomes. Correlations are not a solution but they are small pieces of a big puzzle. If we could gather enough data and generate a vast array of correlations and begin to sift through those that are stronger, we may be able to deduce something meaningful. The problem being solved using big data sets is that we get a shot at analyzing lots of correlations. Our status quo merely has us picking a few variables and seeing if they correlate and when we find one we jump up and down. Find the set of all relevant correlations for a given problem and we can move on from the misuses of correlation.
I'm not recommending that every person have their own format. What I'm suggesting is more along the lines of a few vendors creating client/server applications to be installed locally (not the cloud). Many organizations are tackling the unstructured data problem present in medical records. There should be a standard for conversion (reading) but not necessarily for record submission (writing). If every patient is responsible for his/her data, then the requirement to convert information is left to the person that cares about it the most. Furthermore, this model leaves the door wide open for companies/consultants that are good at converting unstructured data to a standard format. The difference here is that it won't be one or two consulting firms converting Terabytes of data that can't really be verified, it'll be a business to consumer relationship where the customer drops off (or electronically submits) his/her medical data in various formats and the result is the same data in several of the most widely accepted data formats. Naturally, some people will be able to convert their own records. The relationship would work much like a tax agent. After the records are in one or more acceptable formats, they can be made available on the client/server application. Users could control read access at the click of button. I'm sure there are a lot of hurdles but the reality of the current situation is that this semi-centralized method for converting data to a standard that has been coupled with expensive software/hardware has to go. There must be competing standards to force evolution of existing data structures. The standards to read must be decoupled from the ability to obtain data in its raw format (major failure of HL7). The most important stakeholders (the patients) should own, maintain and share the data. You might think that this would just create a bunch of different standards but if we assume that this process is built on a business to consumer relationship-- the market would easily weed out the losers. I've worked with OpenMRS and a few other EMRs. These applications are not good at converting unstructured/raw data. There are companies that can transform data, but EMRs don't integrate the right technology. Once you have the data in a structured format, EMRs do a decent job of switching between formats. Lastly, they're bloated and clunky and the business model is geared towards installing a suite of tools or even a hardware setup.
HL7 lacks a lot of features and the upgrade model is expensive. The larger problem is the smaller disparate medical offices that can't stay compliant or afford to invest in a comprehensive IT infrastructure. Microsoft tried to come out with an XML based standard but couldn't get enough widespread support. There is also still a major problem with the taxonomy between specialists and generalist, hand written documents (so we need better improvements in Natural Language Processing). A top down approach has been tried time and time again. Its time to explore a distributed solution where the patients take ownership of the data.
Per the comments about using crowd-funding for start up companies-- the best solution on the table is to have third party verification systems like www.crowdtrust.com. The market can't police itself. It would be quite difficult if platforms like kickstarter and those interested in equity crowd funding spent all their time doing background checks.