When I left the hospital IT in the last decade, they were still writing everything in a niche language developed in-house by a power company in the next state. Nothing in the way of data integrity developed since the 60's with relational databases, and all of the productivity of a 40 year old language. This was the largest healthcare organization in the state.
Oh, they were going to upgrade to Visual Basic for some of the new code when I bolted for the door. Those who understood computer science were reviled for proposing technology the bosses couldn't themselves operate (monetary and patient-safety business cases were dismissed as irrelevant).
Last I heard from the grapevine they were going to trash the whole thing and fork-lift upgrade to a vendor's product. At least that vendor would have had to compete on his merits in the marketplace.
Oh, yeah, the point: don't try to apply normal IT thinking to healthcare, it's about politics, not IT.
I had to look it up, it's hard to keep track of who's starting the wars and who's responding. Nokia sued and sued again. Apple counter-sued in the middle there.
Remember, government tax rates above ~17.3% of GDP reduce total revenues by slowing growth and the US is already at about 27%.
Amazing notion, given that for the period of our nation's greatest economic growth (post WWII to the 1970s), the top tax bracket was never below 70%, and was at times over 90%.
Based on this period of time you identify as optimal, what should be the federal spending as % of GDP? It looks to average at about 18%. Can we agree we're talking about roughly the same number then?
A climb to over 20% results in the end of that period of prosperity.
This is old news, really. You could read Art Laffer's paper, watch Dan Mitchell's excellent series on the Laffer Curve on YouTube, or if you're into the math, there's an econ. paper on the US House website that derives the value.
Imagine how much more physics would get done if somebody worked out an 'open source' model for physics. Computer people used to do clever things and then publish their results in journals, sometimes with source.
I won't pretend to be clever enough to know what that model is, but it probably exists.
We have plenty of wealth. This idea that we're broke is a right-wing lie to excuse robbing the poor and giving to the rich.
The US entitlement programs for the next half century ('unfunded liabilities') will cost somewhere around $140T. The GDP of the US is about $13T. The 'GDP' of the entire world is $59T. Not taxes, total production.
What's your plan? Remember, government tax rates above ~17.3% of GDP reduce total revenues by slowing growth and the US is already at about 27%.
it's not a full-strength/range nor good enough to support audio
Right, there's effectively no antenna yet. The chipset in the Nook shares a common antenna between WiFi and Bluetooth, but to enable Bluetooth to connect to the antenna requires some chipset instructions that apparently aren't publicly available.
As the customer, the Nook developers could presumably request this information, but then again Bluetooth isn't a feature of the Nook.
Um, yeah... I was using Netflix this afternoon - is it rolled out to everybody at this point? I didn't notice either. I don't usually use it on my netbook, so maybe I just expected things to look a little different? If I did see the new version then it's really not a big deal.
The DVD queue javascript is still punishingly slow - they could have fixed their O(n^n) problems there if they were doing a redesign!
Yeah, really good point, but I don't think it's because we're running out of wood and leather so much but that if somebody needs a cabinet they can't afford to buy a nice one like they used to.
So fixed size of the money pool, growth of the economy or wages, something has to give.
This would just increase the price of silver (or the 'deflation' Keynesians so fear). It's like property in Manhattan - there's only so much of it so the price keeps going up. But it's not destroyed (typically...), so it's a fairly good store of value.
With silver, more of it does come out of the ground, but generally not faster than population increases. The more in demand silver becomes (as its value rises) the more incentive there is for further mining, which brings the price down. This gets to an approximate equilibrium.
Well, most commodity prices are very constant over time.
Relative to each other, sure, but not to a fiat currency. Look at the USD prices of gold, silver, wheat, oil, corn, sugar soy, coffee, etc. over the past couple years. 2.5x multiplier on the non-metal commodities, 1.5x on the metals. 5% used to be considered a big move for a year, now we're talking over 100%.
Store your wealth in USD if you want, but I'm sure not.
Silver is not a commodity, but computers are. Everything cheap available for the masses is a commodity, not something that is shifting in price every day according to market demands or exploration findings.
You're welcome to use that definition, but just be aware that most everybody else uses a different one:
That is absurd. Do you really think ounces of silver is a good measure of prosperity or capital?
Yes, it's very constant over time. Much more reliable than most other measures for smooth data. Certainly there are short-term variations but these average.
How much did an iPhone cost in 1964?... , cancer treatments, etc?
I think what you're getting at is that technology constantly increases which improves living conditions. There can be no argument against that. That doesn't mean that earnings are irrelevant - nobody in 1964 had to budget for a smartphone either.
What did an ounce of silver buy in 1964 in terms of food
A loaf of bread was about 5 grams of silver in 1964. Today it's about 2.5 grams. This is consistent with the improvement in farm and factory technology.
clothes
This is the textbook example. A fine men's suit has been, with short-term averaging, an ounce of gold for thousands of years. A nice belt has been an ounce of silver for the same period of time.
TV
An average TV was about $100. Today that's about $600 - much cheaper today - win for technology.
Is the median person in 2011 really 60% worse off than the median person in 1964?
Nominal home prices are about 10x, rents are about 10x, food is about 10x, stamps are about 10x, and income is about 10x. But, if we look at the areas where technology has had a prices impact, those are down, inflation adjusted, about 60%. So, without the inflation factor, prices ought to be down about 60% across the board (or people should be able to work 60% less due to technological improvements) - see, we've yielded no real improvements from technology, including computerizing everything, jacking productivity through the roof, etc. except to transfer the wealth away from the middle class. It's not that we're 60% worse off, it's that we should be 60% better off, and we aren't.
And you think this is due to the Fed?
By definition, they're the only ones who can inflate the currency. If inflation has a negative impact on lifestyle, it has to be the Fed.
My wife keeps saying this, but at ~35 dollars an ounce, I think it's already a bubble price. Serious question: what's the real price of silver, in say, movie tickets or bags of groceries, and what's it going to be 18-24 months from now?
In 1964 a silver quarter bought a gallon of gas. Today it buys not quite two gallons of gas. Given all the advancement in exploration and production technology, this is about right. Just like computers get cheaper with better technology and higher production, all commodities follow the same trends, only computers are advancing at such a rate that their improvement (and thus prices) can outpace the rate of inflation.
Interestingly, average wages are only 10x of what they were in 1964 while commodities, like silver are up 25x or so. If the currency had been kept sound, today's wages would be seen to have decreased by about 60%. This is the erosion of the middle class that the Federal Reserve helps hide by inflating the Dollar.
The War on Drugs is not a good idea. It has resulted in billions of wasted Dollars, millions of incarcerations, tens of thousands of deaths, and a huge crime spree. Which is an entirely predictable result. Just look at all the warring going on among the wine and beer cartels.
And this doesn't even account for the healthcare denied to addicts because of the legal stigma. That's perhaps the most unconscionable part.
I personally think that the country would be a better place if we could stop using all of these substances, however, we have already tried prohibition of alcohol and it proved unworkable.
would you madvise MADV_DONTNEED for a cache memory block and then when you want to access the cache do a MADV_WILLNEED on the block and check for ENOMEM, rebuilding the cache in that instance?
Any idea what they called it? I'm not getting hits for "inside macintosh" "soft references" except some patents that reference the memory manager document (which I have on a CD somewhere...)
Slashdot Mirror
how do you integrate 9 and 10 digit data
ICD-9 and ICD-10 are revisions of the standard, not field lengths.
ICD-9 is 3-5 characters in length, ICD-10 is 3-7 characters.
IIRC, ICD-9 will start with 'E' or 'V', else it's ICD-10.
When I left the hospital IT in the last decade, they were still writing everything in a niche language developed in-house by a power company in the next state. Nothing in the way of data integrity developed since the 60's with relational databases, and all of the productivity of a 40 year old language. This was the largest healthcare organization in the state.
Oh, they were going to upgrade to Visual Basic for some of the new code when I bolted for the door. Those who understood computer science were reviled for proposing technology the bosses couldn't themselves operate (monetary and patient-safety business cases were dismissed as irrelevant).
Last I heard from the grapevine they were going to trash the whole thing and fork-lift upgrade to a vendor's product. At least that vendor would have had to compete on his merits in the marketplace.
Oh, yeah, the point: don't try to apply normal IT thinking to healthcare, it's about politics, not IT.
I had to look it up, it's hard to keep track of who's starting the wars and who's responding. Nokia sued and sued again. Apple counter-sued in the middle there.
reasonable regulation might actually be a good use of the "general welfare" clause,
The rest of Article 1 Section 8 wasn't meant as an "EXAMPLES" section.
I follow the rest, but:
Various Virtual Machine Providers
do you mean as a relay or to do some brute forcing? Perhaps something else?
Remember, government tax rates above ~17.3% of GDP reduce total revenues by slowing growth and the US is already at about 27%.
Amazing notion, given that for the period of our nation's greatest economic growth (post WWII to the 1970s), the top tax bracket was never below 70%, and was at times over 90%.
% of GDP. Here's the data you're talking about.
Based on this period of time you identify as optimal, what should be the federal spending as % of GDP? It looks to average at about 18%. Can we agree we're talking about roughly the same number then?
A climb to over 20% results in the end of that period of prosperity.
A bold assertion. Evidence ?
This is old news, really. You could read Art Laffer's paper, watch Dan Mitchell's excellent series on the Laffer Curve on YouTube, or if you're into the math, there's an econ. paper on the US House website that derives the value.
Imagine how much more physics would get done if somebody worked out an 'open source' model for physics. Computer people used to do clever things and then publish their results in journals, sometimes with source.
I won't pretend to be clever enough to know what that model is, but it probably exists.
We have plenty of wealth. This idea that we're broke is a right-wing lie to excuse robbing the poor and giving to the rich.
The US entitlement programs for the next half century ('unfunded liabilities') will cost somewhere around $140T. The GDP of the US is about $13T. The 'GDP' of the entire world is $59T. Not taxes, total production.
What's your plan? Remember, government tax rates above ~17.3% of GDP reduce total revenues by slowing growth and the US is already at about 27%.
it's not a full-strength/range nor good enough to support audio
Right, there's effectively no antenna yet. The chipset in the Nook shares a common antenna between WiFi and Bluetooth, but to enable Bluetooth to connect to the antenna requires some chipset instructions that apparently aren't publicly available.
As the customer, the Nook developers could presumably request this information, but then again Bluetooth isn't a feature of the Nook.
Nearly every major historic scientific publication can be found on the internet nowadays.
Stop eating my lawn!
I didn't even realize it was a redesign.
Um, yeah... I was using Netflix this afternoon - is it rolled out to everybody at this point? I didn't notice either. I don't usually use it on my netbook, so maybe I just expected things to look a little different? If I did see the new version then it's really not a big deal.
The DVD queue javascript is still punishingly slow - they could have fixed their O(n^n) problems there if they were doing a redesign!
A few of the engineers in fact are quite supportive of it.
Ah, good to hear. Now, if only they'd tell us how to turn on the bluetooth antenna! :)
Yeah, really good point, but I don't think it's because we're running out of wood and leather so much but that if somebody needs a cabinet they can't afford to buy a nice one like they used to.
So fixed size of the money pool, growth of the economy or wages, something has to give.
This would just increase the price of silver (or the 'deflation' Keynesians so fear). It's like property in Manhattan - there's only so much of it so the price keeps going up. But it's not destroyed (typically...), so it's a fairly good store of value.
With silver, more of it does come out of the ground, but generally not faster than population increases. The more in demand silver becomes (as its value rises) the more incentive there is for further mining, which brings the price down. This gets to an approximate equilibrium.
Well, most commodity prices are very constant over time.
Relative to each other, sure, but not to a fiat currency. Look at the USD prices of gold, silver, wheat, oil, corn, sugar soy, coffee, etc. over the past couple years. 2.5x multiplier on the non-metal commodities, 1.5x on the metals. 5% used to be considered a big move for a year, now we're talking over 100%.
Store your wealth in USD if you want, but I'm sure not.
Silver is not a commodity, but computers are. Everything cheap available for the masses is a commodity, not something that is shifting in price every day according to market demands or exploration findings.
You're welcome to use that definition, but just be aware that most everybody else uses a different one:
http://money.cnn.com/data/commodities/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Mercantile_Exchange
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity
That is absurd. Do you really think ounces of silver is a good measure of prosperity or capital?
Yes, it's very constant over time. Much more reliable than most other measures for smooth data. Certainly there are short-term variations but these average.
How much did an iPhone cost in 1964? ... , cancer treatments, etc?
I think what you're getting at is that technology constantly increases which improves living conditions. There can be no argument against that. That doesn't mean that earnings are irrelevant - nobody in 1964 had to budget for a smartphone either.
What did an ounce of silver buy in 1964 in terms of food
A loaf of bread was about 5 grams of silver in 1964. Today it's about 2.5 grams. This is consistent with the improvement in farm and factory technology.
clothes
This is the textbook example. A fine men's suit has been, with short-term averaging, an ounce of gold for thousands of years. A nice belt has been an ounce of silver for the same period of time.
TV
An average TV was about $100. Today that's about $600 - much cheaper today - win for technology.
Is the median person in 2011 really 60% worse off than the median person in 1964?
Nominal home prices are about 10x, rents are about 10x, food is about 10x, stamps are about 10x, and income is about 10x. But, if we look at the areas where technology has had a prices impact, those are down, inflation adjusted, about 60%. So, without the inflation factor, prices ought to be down about 60% across the board (or people should be able to work 60% less due to technological improvements) - see, we've yielded no real improvements from technology, including computerizing everything, jacking productivity through the roof, etc. except to transfer the wealth away from the middle class. It's not that we're 60% worse off, it's that we should be 60% better off, and we aren't.
And you think this is due to the Fed?
By definition, they're the only ones who can inflate the currency. If inflation has a negative impact on lifestyle, it has to be the Fed.
My wife keeps saying this, but at ~35 dollars an ounce, I think it's already a bubble price. Serious question: what's the real price of silver, in say, movie tickets or bags of groceries, and what's it going to be 18-24 months from now?
In 1964 a silver quarter bought a gallon of gas. Today it buys not quite two gallons of gas. Given all the advancement in exploration and production technology, this is about right. Just like computers get cheaper with better technology and higher production, all commodities follow the same trends, only computers are advancing at such a rate that their improvement (and thus prices) can outpace the rate of inflation.
Interestingly, average wages are only 10x of what they were in 1964 while commodities, like silver are up 25x or so. If the currency had been kept sound, today's wages would be seen to have decreased by about 60%. This is the erosion of the middle class that the Federal Reserve helps hide by inflating the Dollar.
so as long as you have the bills to pay the debt they have to accept it
That's true, but the prices will rise to match actual value.
On the other hand, we have historical precedents for what happens when drugs like cocaine (or worse heroine) are legalized.
We sure do.
That was not a good idea.
The War on Drugs is not a good idea. It has resulted in billions of wasted Dollars, millions of incarcerations, tens of thousands of deaths, and a huge crime spree. Which is an entirely predictable result. Just look at all the warring going on among the wine and beer cartels.
And this doesn't even account for the healthcare denied to addicts because of the legal stigma. That's perhaps the most unconscionable part.
I personally think that the country would be a better place if we could stop using all of these substances, however, we have already tried prohibition of alcohol and it proved unworkable.
100% agree on both counts.
How would this work?
would you madvise MADV_DONTNEED for a cache memory block and then when you want to access the cache do a MADV_WILLNEED on the block and check for ENOMEM, rebuilding the cache in that instance?
Any idea what they called it? I'm not getting hits for "inside macintosh" "soft references" except some patents that reference the memory manager document (which I have on a CD somewhere...)
Would Soft references be a better comparison?
So, how would this work? I think three syscalls would be needed:
1) store the data and return a handle
2) return the data given a handle (with a cache miss return code)
3) free the data given the handle
and maybe:
4) see if the data is valid given the handle (without returning)
but some of these seem hard to do atomically and usefully, I'm probably just not thinking it through.
Oh, come on now, Netscape 4 would have taken at least half a megabyte to show those pages!
Wait, that wasn't a good argument.