I work at a hospital which has the objective of going paperless in the next decade; We've implemented many systems and are considered as early adopters in many of the different EMR systems.
I will say that although most healthcare professionals are resistant to change, we've forced these changes onto them. The result is that after the initial dissonance involved in changine the workflow, most adapt to the new systems and, at the worst, perform just as well as before the systems were adopted. At best, there are visible improvements, which are recognized as saving patient lives.
One example is that the number of negative drug interaction and allergic reactions had decreased; another is reduced amounts of improper dosages due to misread prescriptions; on computerized systems, these are trivial checks.
Regarding the poster's comments, I have to disagree that the obstacle is the added time in documentation, though that might be due to the system they are using; at my hospital, we have a transcription service for documentation; providers dial a phone number and make their notes over the phone, which are transcribed digitally (overseas where it's cheap to do so), which is double-checked by the provider before recorded into the patients' charts. This actually saves much more time than if notes were written by hand.
I think that the poster's issues stem more from their implementation of the available systems, or lack of knowledge of what's out there; I've seen successes and failures at my hospital. But where the failures occurred, it is because of improper implementation. A bit of due diligence on available technologies might be the answer to his/her issues.
If they sell these fish, once they die, what do you think people will do with their dead fish? Not all people will be responsible about disposal--one flush down the toilet, or one dumping into a creek, and this genetic modification is now in the environment. Bigger fish comes by and eats it. Now what?
This is only one of a plethora of examples that may (and probably will) happen. What happens when an organism ingests this GM fish? Will it cause cancer? Bastard prions causing a new vCJD? New flu virus that no one has seen before? No one knows. This is why it needs to be regulated.
As opposed to having it in a small, portable device? Because you can misplace your phone/pda or whatever device it is, and it's much easier to steal. It's much harder to lose a piece of clothing that you're wearing.
A buddy of mine goes by the name of "Kissy Bear" when he was playing Q3A. When asked why he chose that name, he had a great reply: "It sucks to be killed by a Kissy Bear."
When he would play drunk, he'd go by the name "Drunk Kissy Bear" because "It sucks even worse to be killed by a drunk Kissy Bear."
No amount of law-making or law enforcement will make these people pay hundreds of U.S. dollars for Adobe Photoshop. However, advertise that you need someone who knows how to use Photoshop, and hundreds will apply. Is this a bad thing?
If hundreds upon thousands of people in China know how to use Photoshop yet still pirate it, how does that improve Adobe's situation? Market adoption is great to have, but what good is it for Adobe if they won't ever profit from it?
A lot of people who have commented against Adobe's decision have failed to realize that Adobe is in business to make money. If you're a business, and you're not making money, you quickly find out what chapter 11 means.
>why did AOL buy Netscape unless simply to scuttle it completely??
There's actually an interesting strategic reason that they purchased Netscape--so that AOL could couple advertising with its browser:
AOL shelled out 4.2 billion for Netscape (in a common stock transactaion). At the time of the acquisition, Netscape had an installed user base of 28 million users worldwide. Divide that and you come out with $150 per person. They couple the browser with AIM--whose user base had exploded to 35 million users, and was rising fast--in order to attract more users to AIM. Stick the ads for AOL on those and in Netscape, and you have one very large way of putting eyeballs on your advertisements, at a very low dollar per capita rate.
Interesting that it all comes down to marketing your product.
Slashdot Mirror
I work at a hospital which has the objective of going paperless in the next decade; We've implemented many systems and are considered as early adopters in many of the different EMR systems.
I will say that although most healthcare professionals are resistant to change, we've forced these changes onto them. The result is that after the initial dissonance involved in changine the workflow, most adapt to the new systems and, at the worst, perform just as well as before the systems were adopted. At best, there are visible improvements, which are recognized as saving patient lives.
One example is that the number of negative drug interaction and allergic reactions had decreased; another is reduced amounts of improper dosages due to misread prescriptions; on computerized systems, these are trivial checks.
Regarding the poster's comments, I have to disagree that the obstacle is the added time in documentation, though that might be due to the system they are using; at my hospital, we have a transcription service for documentation; providers dial a phone number and make their notes over the phone, which are transcribed digitally (overseas where it's cheap to do so), which is double-checked by the provider before recorded into the patients' charts. This actually saves much more time than if notes were written by hand.
I think that the poster's issues stem more from their implementation of the available systems, or lack of knowledge of what's out there; I've seen successes and failures at my hospital. But where the failures occurred, it is because of improper implementation. A bit of due diligence on available technologies might be the answer to his/her issues.
If they sell these fish, once they die, what do you think people will do with their dead fish? Not all people will be responsible about disposal--one flush down the toilet, or one dumping into a creek, and this genetic modification is now in the environment. Bigger fish comes by and eats it. Now what?
This is only one of a plethora of examples that may (and probably will) happen. What happens when an organism ingests this GM fish? Will it cause cancer? Bastard prions causing a new vCJD? New flu virus that no one has seen before? No one knows. This is why it needs to be regulated.
To a consumer who cares more about unit size, than hard disk size, the mini iPod is better and cheaper
So wait, smaller is better? That's not what my last girlfriend told me...
WHY would I want to wear a computer?
As opposed to having it in a small, portable device? Because you can misplace your phone/pda or whatever device it is, and it's much easier to steal. It's much harder to lose a piece of clothing that you're wearing.
1) One button mouse
I work in a hospital where a majority of users (nurses, admin staff) get confused when they're told to right-click with their mouse.
I for one would welcome a one-button mouse.
Try thinking of women as mature adults instead of a pink dress, shopping machine demographic an see what happens.
Is this why Legally Blonde 2 did moderately well its opening weekend?
A buddy of mine goes by the name of "Kissy Bear" when he was playing Q3A. When asked why he chose that name, he had a great reply: "It sucks to be killed by a Kissy Bear."
When he would play drunk, he'd go by the name "Drunk Kissy Bear" because "It sucks even worse to be killed by a drunk Kissy Bear."
and I can guarantee that every piece of software I have in the wild has at least one bug.
Let me guess, you work for MS?
I have free time, I just dont have money.
Three words: Get a job.
Because I don't get paid as much as Yao and Mini-Me.
Any Windows machine would be useless without a copy of solitaire, although you will need Python.
...do you hire a plumber?
If hundreds upon thousands of people in China know how to use Photoshop yet still pirate it, how does that improve Adobe's situation? Market adoption is great to have, but what good is it for Adobe if they won't ever profit from it?
A lot of people who have commented against Adobe's decision have failed to realize that Adobe is in business to make money. If you're a business, and you're not making money, you quickly find out what chapter 11 means.
There's actually an interesting strategic reason that they purchased Netscape--so that AOL could couple advertising with its browser:
AOL shelled out 4.2 billion for Netscape (in a common stock transactaion). At the time of the acquisition, Netscape had an installed user base of 28 million users worldwide. Divide that and you come out with $150 per person. They couple the browser with AIM--whose user base had exploded to 35 million users, and was rising fast--in order to attract more users to AIM. Stick the ads for AOL on those and in Netscape, and you have one very large way of putting eyeballs on your advertisements, at a very low dollar per capita rate.
Interesting that it all comes down to marketing your product.