So, this is based on the current sharepoint installation at a Fortune 25 company.
Automatic notifications of changes are great. Workflows might be ok, but I've seen very few sites using them internally.
There is no collaborating on a document at the same time. There's a checkin/checkout model. While Excel offers true simultaneous editing of a file on a shared drive, that's gone if it goes in a sharepoint. Documents with OLE linking don't work. It has some limited BI capabilities, which is nice, but it's hard to embed real BI solutions (BizObj, Tableau, etc) into sharepoint so there are either links or we're dropping exported files in a document library. It would be nice to send links to people outside our company (and you can define federated identity) but that definitely requires a lot of configuration to make happen. (It's not currently set up in our company.)
As it is, since everything in Sharepoint seems to site-based, we have hundreds of individual sites across multiple sharepoint farms. There's no global way to search all share points. When there is a search, it's really, really bad compared to what people get from Google. (And glacially slow compared to google, but I suppose if we dedicated google-scale infrastructure to sharepoint, it might be better.) As a result, people do not use search. It's almost never a successful tactic. There's no automatic clustering of content like "See Also" or "Related documents".
Most groups end up using a single document library as a shared drive and maybe add a shared calendar. Meeting sites are set up by very few groups only for standing meetings, because it's a lot of work for each meeting. If one is set up, that information is siloed away from everything else. The wiki pages work, even though they aren't as easy to use as a normal wiki.
I'm sure that all of these problems could be fixed by working hard enough. That's my point: Sharepoint is a tool that groups could use to build a decent information sharing platform, with suitable care, planning, adoption of third party apps, etc. It's not a good information sharing or knowledge management tool out of the box.
[quote]Sharepoint does that have search functionality. It is used for storing documents. Unusable for sharing information[/quote]
You have absolutely no idea what you're taking about. SharePoint is an amazing product. Also there are billions of dollars in development behind it and it's mature.
I have never seen an installation of sharepoint which was good for sharing information. It's probably possible to build something that people find usable with it, but it's like recommending a hammer and lumber to someone asking for a house.
You think a license makes people honest? There are plenty of doctors and lawyers and other licenses and bonded professionals that behave unethically and even criminally. A license doesn't solve this problem. All a license does is attempt to ensure a base level of functional competence. It doesn't ensure honesty one bit.
The license does two things: it gives the individual more of an incentive to be honest (to avoid revocation) and it gives them leverage against pressures from management. If an engineer can say "I'm not doing that, and if you try to make me, the state board will hear about it and you won't have any (legally mandated) engineers to approve your designs" there is a lot better change they'll get people to back down. It won't stop a dishonest engineer, but it can help an honest engineer who is in a tight spot.
Looks like the Mac version is pretty close to a normal Mac app. The frameworks include ReactiveCocoa, Swift, Rebel, TwUI. I don't see anything visible that points to a cross-platform dev framework: if it's there, there's still plenty of platform-specific thinking in there.
If journalists stop asking because they could expend all the time, money and labor to dig up the information without being able to get any reward on the expose, then the public will be hurt. Since fewer people will be asking, less information will be released.
A short delay before putting the information public would leave an incentive for journalists to keep investigating, while still making all of the results available to the public.
Well, you can use it already for point-to-point connections. I think the problem with doing it on a LAN would be developing hubs/switches/routers that support it.
Take a look at the big body shops. Accenture: average salary $66k. Cognizant: $60k. In the tens of thousands of people they sponsor each year, a lot of them are neither highly skilled nor highly paid.
If for example, Samsung and LG make decent Android devices and provide support for them, you could buy from them and get a decent consistant Android device and support.
If that were the case, you'd be safe. I don't know of a manufacturer that consistently provides bug-free devices and support for them for, say, 2 years back.
You are generally safe with Nexus devices, since you have the best chance of upgrading to the latest OS. This helps with vulnerabilities which won't be fixed in older versions of Android. But because Nexus devices shuffle between different manufacturers, you lack consistency from a hardware standpoint.
The US has protection that prevents patients from being identified by the companies that make the drugs. There is no federal law preventing DOCTORS from being identified as prescribing a drug. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have laws to further limit this practice.
I doubt it. I think it is far more likely that the pharmacy sells this information to insurance, pharmaceutical, and marketing companies. Big data is big business these days. So long patient confidentiality.
I suspect that this was information retrieved by the ePrescribe network. The NCPDP SCRIPT standard defines a transaction to retrieve a prescription history. The standard is not publicly available so we can't see what data elements are required to request a medication history, but I'm guessing that this is how PillPack retrieved the info.
That, tons of acquisitions, and explicit attempts to destroy the HP culture as it was. I'd hate to see her string of damage attributed to a single mistake.
If they begin to become an existential threat to the US, we have a big nuclear arsenal to keep them off our shores.
But they aren't even close right now. The challenge is to defeat them without killing tons of people in "collateral damage" that ends up turning people into militants who weren't before.
In my Fortune 25 company, we have a department of people devoted to resolving issues of people who contact the CEO, President, or other members of senior staff. This method absolutely will light a fire under the IT staff to fix it. I don't know whether he reads every incoming letter or email, but I do know that each one is handled by the presidential escalation team, and tracked, and reported out regularly.
We also have a Chief Information Security Officer who will personally latch onto this like a bulldog and ensure that it's fixed. We had a breach a number of years ago and it's still used as a reminder that "That will NOT happen again."
"Companies that make products must show that their products work," Amaral said in the Northwestern release. "They must be certified."
This researcher is completely out of touch with what's sold in the marketplace. No wonder he doesn't understand that flawed solutions can still be useful.
It's one thing not to sell in China, but what if the government cracked down on production? Pretty much every hardware company could lose their production instantly.
The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember her from school as well, from ACM. Always enjoyed her analyses of electronic voting and it's awesome to keep seeing her in the news.
The people in the large contracting firms/body shops that the USG hires aren't as competent as most of those in industry, either.
So, this is based on the current sharepoint installation at a Fortune 25 company.
Automatic notifications of changes are great. Workflows might be ok, but I've seen very few sites using them internally.
There is no collaborating on a document at the same time. There's a checkin/checkout model. While Excel offers true simultaneous editing of a file on a shared drive, that's gone if it goes in a sharepoint. Documents with OLE linking don't work. It has some limited BI capabilities, which is nice, but it's hard to embed real BI solutions (BizObj, Tableau, etc) into sharepoint so there are either links or we're dropping exported files in a document library. It would be nice to send links to people outside our company (and you can define federated identity) but that definitely requires a lot of configuration to make happen. (It's not currently set up in our company.)
As it is, since everything in Sharepoint seems to site-based, we have hundreds of individual sites across multiple sharepoint farms. There's no global way to search all share points. When there is a search, it's really, really bad compared to what people get from Google. (And glacially slow compared to google, but I suppose if we dedicated google-scale infrastructure to sharepoint, it might be better.) As a result, people do not use search. It's almost never a successful tactic. There's no automatic clustering of content like "See Also" or "Related documents".
Most groups end up using a single document library as a shared drive and maybe add a shared calendar. Meeting sites are set up by very few groups only for standing meetings, because it's a lot of work for each meeting. If one is set up, that information is siloed away from everything else. The wiki pages work, even though they aren't as easy to use as a normal wiki.
I'm sure that all of these problems could be fixed by working hard enough. That's my point: Sharepoint is a tool that groups could use to build a decent information sharing platform, with suitable care, planning, adoption of third party apps, etc. It's not a good information sharing or knowledge management tool out of the box.
And yes, there's a reason that it's used by tens of millions: it integrates with the Office products and is sold alongside the other MS enterprise offerings, and is therefore bought by lots of IT departments where the purchasers of the software are separate from the people who end up having to use it.
[quote]Sharepoint does that have search functionality. It is used for storing documents. Unusable for sharing information[/quote]
You have absolutely no idea what you're taking about. SharePoint is an amazing product. Also there are billions of dollars in development behind it and it's mature.
I have never seen an installation of sharepoint which was good for sharing information. It's probably possible to build something that people find usable with it, but it's like recommending a hammer and lumber to someone asking for a house.
You think a license makes people honest? There are plenty of doctors and lawyers and other licenses and bonded professionals that behave unethically and even criminally. A license doesn't solve this problem. All a license does is attempt to ensure a base level of functional competence. It doesn't ensure honesty one bit.
The license does two things: it gives the individual more of an incentive to be honest (to avoid revocation) and it gives them leverage against pressures from management. If an engineer can say "I'm not doing that, and if you try to make me, the state board will hear about it and you won't have any (legally mandated) engineers to approve your designs" there is a lot better change they'll get people to back down. It won't stop a dishonest engineer, but it can help an honest engineer who is in a tight spot.
Looks like the Mac version is pretty close to a normal Mac app. The frameworks include ReactiveCocoa, Swift, Rebel, TwUI. I don't see anything visible that points to a cross-platform dev framework: if it's there, there's still plenty of platform-specific thinking in there.
Microsoft wasn't a Silicon Valley company. It started in Albuquerque and moved to Redmond.
Safari 9.0 in the OS X 10.11 beta does this. So it'll be a race!
If journalists stop asking because they could expend all the time, money and labor to dig up the information without being able to get any reward on the expose, then the public will be hurt. Since fewer people will be asking, less information will be released.
A short delay before putting the information public would leave an incentive for journalists to keep investigating, while still making all of the results available to the public.
Well, you can use it already for point-to-point connections. I think the problem with doing it on a LAN would be developing hubs/switches/routers that support it.
Take a look at the big body shops. Accenture: average salary $66k. Cognizant: $60k. In the tens of thousands of people they sponsor each year, a lot of them are neither highly skilled nor highly paid.
If for example, Samsung and LG make decent Android devices and provide support for them, you could buy from them and get a decent consistant Android device and support.
If that were the case, you'd be safe. I don't know of a manufacturer that consistently provides bug-free devices and support for them for, say, 2 years back.
You are generally safe with Nexus devices, since you have the best chance of upgrading to the latest OS. This helps with vulnerabilities which won't be fixed in older versions of Android. But because Nexus devices shuffle between different manufacturers, you lack consistency from a hardware standpoint.
The US has protection that prevents patients from being identified by the companies that make the drugs. There is no federal law preventing DOCTORS from being identified as prescribing a drug. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont have laws to further limit this practice.
I doubt it. I think it is far more likely that the pharmacy sells this information to insurance, pharmaceutical, and marketing companies. Big data is big business these days. So long patient confidentiality.
Definitely not. Pharmacies and PBMs are prohibited from selling patient health information. PBMs sell aggregated information to pharma companies, so they can understand the drug trends in an area. They sell doctor-identified data as well. This is a pretty good summary of the data that PBMs and pharmacies can and cannot sell
I suspect that this was information retrieved by the ePrescribe network. The NCPDP SCRIPT standard defines a transaction to retrieve a prescription history. The standard is not publicly available so we can't see what data elements are required to request a medication history, but I'm guessing that this is how PillPack retrieved the info.
Price gouging laws predominately apply in a period of civil emergency and only to items that that are necessary for survival.
Well, James Tiptree Jr would disagree with "never been exclusionary".
That, tons of acquisitions, and explicit attempts to destroy the HP culture as it was. I'd hate to see her string of damage attributed to a single mistake.
If they begin to become an existential threat to the US, we have a big nuclear arsenal to keep them off our shores.
But they aren't even close right now. The challenge is to defeat them without killing tons of people in "collateral damage" that ends up turning people into militants who weren't before.
In my Fortune 25 company, we have a department of people devoted to resolving issues of people who contact the CEO, President, or other members of senior staff. This method absolutely will light a fire under the IT staff to fix it. I don't know whether he reads every incoming letter or email, but I do know that each one is handled by the presidential escalation team, and tracked, and reported out regularly.
We also have a Chief Information Security Officer who will personally latch onto this like a bulldog and ensure that it's fixed. We had a breach a number of years ago and it's still used as a reminder that "That will NOT happen again."
"Companies that make products must show that their products work," Amaral said in the Northwestern release. "They must be certified."
This researcher is completely out of touch with what's sold in the marketplace. No wonder he doesn't understand that flawed solutions can still be useful.
Find a rusty railroad spike. Shove it through your eyeball over and over again. That's what IBM products are like.
It's one thing not to sell in China, but what if the government cracked down on production? Pretty much every hardware company could lose their production instantly.
No telecoms have a government-mandated monopoly. The FCC preempted exclusive franchise agreements in 2007.
The only barriers now are that it is a huge initial capital expense and large incumbents who will try every dirty trick to block new entrants.
These laws have been passed because certain municipalities have been able to successfully cover the cost and maintenance of their own networks.
Exclusive franchises for cable companies have been prohibited by the FCC..
The Communications Act authorizes local franchising authorities to grant one or more franchises within their jurisdiction. However, a local franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise, and may not unreasonably withhold its consent for new service.