"Has he done any harm to you personally?"
Do you have any index funds or technology stocks in your retirement portfolio? If so, the answer is quite possibly yes, he may have harmed you personally in terms of your finances.
"Sure the RIAA is still evil, but they're improving their tactics, and should be commended for that."
Um, no, they shouldn't be commended for the change in tactics. Commendation is only appropriate when someone has the opportunity to go about something the wrong way and willfully chooses not to take advantage of that opportunity. The RIAA is only pursuing this the right way now because that avenue (which they already tried to exploit) is no longer available to them because the courts put a stop to it.
Actually, the more common problem is that people don't understand how much to feed the fish, as this is actually far less than the average inexperienced fishkeeper thinks. The extra food results in extra waste which results in toxic ammonia levels in the aquarium, which in turn results in dead fish. The other really common mistake is overstocking, too many fish in too small an aquarium.
"Yay AT&T. I applaud you."
It's hard to applaud AT&T about a spam filter circumvention patent when they're one of the worst offenders in the realm of telemarketing. I think I'll hold my applause until they stop calling me at home.
Thus far, I've seen a lot of posts saying that this doesn't work or that if it works then it's a terrible thing because it gives advertisers the ability to manipulate the subconscious mind to make you buy stuff you don't need. But, there's a greater question of ethics here. Why are these advertisers being given access to a scarce medical research resource (magnet time) when there are so many other things that could be done with that resource for the benefit of humankind? How can someone's priorities be so screwed up as to give questionable advertising research precedence over other clearly legitimate scientific pursuits?
The molecular weight of compounds is today measured in Daltons, the weight of a hydrogen atom.
I studied Chemical Engineering for 3 1/2 years in college before switching majors and never heard the unit Dalton mentioned, ever. I highly doubt it's in common usage. It's not SI and it's not even listed in my copy of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 72nd edition. The atomic mass unit, on the other hand, is listed on page 1-1.
Don't forget Raid Over Moscow, F-15 Strike Eagle, Beach-Head, Marble Madness, Bruce Lee, and Space Taxi.
I can't even count the hours I spent playing Bard's Tale II: Destiny Knight and how l337 I felt upon discovering the message "Get out of my code you f*cking hacker" while digging through the disk with a hex editor, trying to figure out how to give my characters some extra HP and all the segments of the Destiny Wand. Lagoth Zanta is toast, dude!
Impossible Mission was a killer game too. I wish they'd re-release that one for the PC.
I disagree. If it's GPL'ed open source, then there is no vendor. Because you have the source and the right to create derivative works, you are perfectly capable of providing your own support for the product in-house if you have your own development staff. A number of organizations use in-house developed software in their clinical operations every day. For example, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital uses a homegrown HIS/RIS. The University of Michigan uses in-house developed RT software for their Radiation Oncology operations.
Alternately, there is nothing to prevent existing market players from acting like Red Hat, etc. by adopting the product and selling support. Open source software is already used in the medical market. For example, the current version of GE Medical Systems' flagship Advantage Workstation post-processing software runs on top of Linux.
I'd suggest you try contacting people at eFilm Medical. They developed PACS workstation software that, if I recall correctly, was funded by the Canadian government. You could also try contacting Bob Cox, who built a software package called AFNI for analysis of neurofunctional MRI data (an NIH funded project).
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to get NIH funding and/or grants from other sources to build a low-cost or freeware EMR system with a well-written proposal and a knowledgeable Principle Investigator directing the project (you probably need someone with a PhD in Medical Informatics or an M.D./D.O. to be your PI). If you don't have a qualified PI to head the project yet, find one. You don't want to be perceived as a novice. The people you contact will likely be far more helpful the more you sound like you know what you're doing.
Fresh from the axlotl tank...
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
"Minnie Mouse is Mickey's fiancee."
"We mustn't overdo it."
"No, we must overdo it. If we admit that in the whole universe there is even a single fact that does not reveal a mystery, then we violate hermetic thought."
"That's true. Minnie's in. And, if you'll allow me, I'll add a fundamental axiom: The Templars have something to do with everything."
"That goes without saying," Diotallevi agreed. - Umberto Eco
Clearly, the author of this enlightening treatise of biological science is a brilliant scientist, ahead of his time, worthy of publishing by the Manutius press.
IANAL, but it seems to me that this information will only remain secret until somebody files a Freedom of Information Act request to get it. Unless they can come up with some National Security reason to make this data classified I don't see how they can prevent it's release if someone is willing to take them to court. My guess is that this is exactly what the salvage companies will do.
Pick two. This old principle applies to information as well as it applies to other goods and services. Sure Google is fast and it's free, but the quality of the information you get is low. You don't necessarily know if the information you're getting is really about the person or if it's someone else with the same name. The information generally lacks context. Was it posted in jest, but you just don't happen to be in on the joke? Is the language ambiguous such that it could be misinterpreted as something else (an unintended double entendre)? The true authorship of the information is unknown so you don't really know if it comes from someone with an axe to grind.
Sure, it sounds like it might be a useful technique for someone who is an intelligent, discriminating reader and doesn't take anything at face value, but rather carefully evaluates sources for quality, context, and bias. But, frankly, that sounds like an awful lot of work and, let's face it, most people do have a tendency to take things at face value without scrutinizing the accuracy and bias of the source. Observed behavior is far more valuable information than what Google can offer regarding what a person is really like. What's their body language saying? What are their friends like? How do they treat friends, strangers, and family? What is their family of origin like? If you need help recognizing behavioral cues, pick up a good psychology/sociology/self-help book written by a credible expert.
As for employers making hiring decisions based on info from a Google search, that sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen. I'd want to be certain that Mr. Otherwise-Exceptionally-Qualified-Applicant-But-We -Found-Bad-Things-On-Google-Associated-With-His-Na me really did/said those things before I turned him down for a job because of it.
Clearly, you just don't get it. Your attitude toward users shows it. The big failures of HCI have little to do with user training. The big failures are inconsistencies within user interfaces. Take Mac OS's trash can for example. Normally one drags something into the trash can to delete it. And most of the time Apple's interface does exactly that, as the user expects. Then Apple made the usability mistake of having the trash can also be the way to eject a floppy disk. Typical users are confused and concerned with that behaviour (fearing that their floppy disk might be erased) because it absolutely violates the metaphor of a trash can. It's not because they're stupid or lazy. It's because they're actually smart enough to know what a trash can is for (and Apple Computer wasn't). Visit the Interface Hall of Shame and pick up a clue.
Reading speed is really not the big problem of human-computer interaction. Vision is a human being's highest bandwidth channel. Ordinary people typically read at least 150 words per minute and it's not unusual for an experienced speed-reader to read over 1000 words per minute. Computer output is not the problem. The low bandwidth channels that need augmentation are the ones necessary for data input (voice, finger movement). Even the best typists can't enter data as fast as they can read it. Voice recognition, assuming we can bring the accuracy up to near 100%, would be a big improvement, but humans still can't talk as fast as they can read.
Display technology has vastly improved. I'm now just waiting for the price to come down on IBM's T221 LCD so I can have one on my desktop. We purchased one at my workplace and it just blew me away. It is the first display I have ever seen that can be reasonably compared to quality laser printing on paper for its rendering of sharp, crisp, readable text. 9.2 million pixels in the thing and NOT ONE OF THEM IS DEAD. Yep, none, nada, zilch.
As far as interaction goes though, I doubt we're going to see much improvement. Programmers do a terrible job of UI design and a lot of companies are just too cheap or ignorant to hire professional user interface designers or else provide in-depth training for whoever is doing the UI design regarding usability issues. Most companies are also too cheap to do real usability testing. They might test out the new UI on the guy three cubicles away, but he's hardly representative of your customers. Until that changes, human-computer interaction is not going to improve.
In short, yes. I used to buy a lot of technical books for work from Fatbrain.com. One of the big advantages of Fatbrain was that they had a helluva selection and they gave discounts and free expedited shipping to large customers (corporations, universities, etc.). When Barnes & Nobles bought Fatbrain, they discontinued the discounts and shipping perks and lost our business. Big mistake for them because I and others in our IT department bought a shitload of books from them on a regular basis and their cut of that pie went from almost 100% to nothing. Now, we buy from buy.com because they offer the kind of service that Fatbrain used to offer.
If there exists more to humanity than the physical, then computational theory does not claim that Turing machines can compute it. But the brain at least, and all of its adaptability to new situations and new problems, are computable.
Once again, the discussion of AI arrives at one of the fundamental questions of human existence, the question of free will. If the human brain is deterministic, then certainly a computer can be constructed to perform the same computation. However, it is quite likely that the computations performed by the human brain are not deterministic. Random quantum mechanical processes are likely to be a factor in the computations that the brain performs. So, in order to emulate a human brain, the computer must be constructed such that the computation is perturbed by some small amount of random noise. In essence, you have to have a computer that is fundamentally non-deterministic. Another potentially important issue is that, unlike digital computers, the human brain has no clock to synchronize all the simultaneous parallel computations that are going on. So, to emulate a human brain, you may need to implement your massively parallel computer through analog logic, rather than the digital logic that is used in nearly every computer produced today.
Then, once you have a massively parallel analog computer with random noise perturbing the computations of the each neuron, the question of human free will comes to the forefront. Is there something else involved in human thought processes or are we just analog computers with random quantum noise in the chemical reactions of our neurotransmitters?
They already did that movie (and it's sequel) in the 1980's. Remember "Mannequin"?
"I would never bother you when you're getting it with a piece of wood." -Holly Wood
Togethersoft (recently bought by Borland) has much better software but it is very expensive
Did Rational lower their prices in the last year or so on Rose? When I was investigating Rational Rose and Together Enterprise the price quotes I got were quite comparable. I ended up purchasing TogetherSoft's product because it's feature set was superior (particularly the round-trip engineering features). Price had little to do with it because there wasn't much difference in price (both were expensive).
If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a ride home, buy an item you're trying to sell, or consider you as dating material.
Do you really need the computer for this? If the people are right there next to you, couldn't you... gasp... try actually talking to them? Regarding the dating thing, I would think that the fact that you are wearing a wearable computer would kinda decrease your chances of being considered dating material since the fact that you feel compelled to wear a computer clearly labels you as a dork.
Slashdot Mirror
"Has he done any harm to you personally?" Do you have any index funds or technology stocks in your retirement portfolio? If so, the answer is quite possibly yes, he may have harmed you personally in terms of your finances.
Um, no, they shouldn't be commended for the change in tactics. Commendation is only appropriate when someone has the opportunity to go about something the wrong way and willfully chooses not to take advantage of that opportunity. The RIAA is only pursuing this the right way now because that avenue (which they already tried to exploit) is no longer available to them because the courts put a stop to it.
8.5"x11" sheets of microfiche perhaps? Or perhaps they went all the way for 'legal' size and used 8.5"x14" sheets?
Actually, the more common problem is that people don't understand how much to feed the fish, as this is actually far less than the average inexperienced fishkeeper thinks. The extra food results in extra waste which results in toxic ammonia levels in the aquarium, which in turn results in dead fish. The other really common mistake is overstocking, too many fish in too small an aquarium.
"Yay AT&T. I applaud you." It's hard to applaud AT&T about a spam filter circumvention patent when they're one of the worst offenders in the realm of telemarketing. I think I'll hold my applause until they stop calling me at home.
Thus far, I've seen a lot of posts saying that this doesn't work or that if it works then it's a terrible thing because it gives advertisers the ability to manipulate the subconscious mind to make you buy stuff you don't need. But, there's a greater question of ethics here. Why are these advertisers being given access to a scarce medical research resource (magnet time) when there are so many other things that could be done with that resource for the benefit of humankind? How can someone's priorities be so screwed up as to give questionable advertising research precedence over other clearly legitimate scientific pursuits?
I studied Chemical Engineering for 3 1/2 years in college before switching majors and never heard the unit Dalton mentioned, ever. I highly doubt it's in common usage. It's not SI and it's not even listed in my copy of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 72nd edition. The atomic mass unit, on the other hand, is listed on page 1-1.
Don't forget Raid Over Moscow, F-15 Strike Eagle, Beach-Head, Marble Madness, Bruce Lee, and Space Taxi.
I can't even count the hours I spent playing Bard's Tale II: Destiny Knight and how l337 I felt upon discovering the message "Get out of my code you f*cking hacker" while digging through the disk with a hex editor, trying to figure out how to give my characters some extra HP and all the segments of the Destiny Wand. Lagoth Zanta is toast, dude!
Impossible Mission was a killer game too. I wish they'd re-release that one for the PC.
Did you have a Koala Pad?
SYS 64738
I disagree. If it's GPL'ed open source, then there is no vendor. Because you have the source and the right to create derivative works, you are perfectly capable of providing your own support for the product in-house if you have your own development staff. A number of organizations use in-house developed software in their clinical operations every day. For example, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital uses a homegrown HIS/RIS. The University of Michigan uses in-house developed RT software for their Radiation Oncology operations.
Alternately, there is nothing to prevent existing market players from acting like Red Hat, etc. by adopting the product and selling support. Open source software is already used in the medical market. For example, the current version of GE Medical Systems' flagship Advantage Workstation post-processing software runs on top of Linux.
I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to get NIH funding and/or grants from other sources to build a low-cost or freeware EMR system with a well-written proposal and a knowledgeable Principle Investigator directing the project (you probably need someone with a PhD in Medical Informatics or an M.D./D.O. to be your PI). If you don't have a qualified PI to head the project yet, find one. You don't want to be perceived as a novice. The people you contact will likely be far more helpful the more you sound like you know what you're doing.
It's time for a tasty meal of roast slig meat.
"Minnie Mouse is Mickey's fiancee."
"We mustn't overdo it."
"No, we must overdo it. If we admit that in the whole universe there is even a single fact that does not reveal a mystery, then we violate hermetic thought."
"That's true. Minnie's in. And, if you'll allow me, I'll add a fundamental axiom: The Templars have something to do with everything."
"That goes without saying," Diotallevi agreed.
- Umberto Eco
Clearly, the author of this enlightening treatise of biological science is a brilliant scientist, ahead of his time, worthy of publishing by the Manutius press.
*smirk*
IANAL, but it seems to me that this information will only remain secret until somebody files a Freedom of Information Act request to get it. Unless they can come up with some National Security reason to make this data classified I don't see how they can prevent it's release if someone is willing to take them to court. My guess is that this is exactly what the salvage companies will do.
Pick two. This old principle applies to information as well as it applies to other goods and services. Sure Google is fast and it's free, but the quality of the information you get is low. You don't necessarily know if the information you're getting is really about the person or if it's someone else with the same name. The information generally lacks context. Was it posted in jest, but you just don't happen to be in on the joke? Is the language ambiguous such that it could be misinterpreted as something else (an unintended double entendre)? The true authorship of the information is unknown so you don't really know if it comes from someone with an axe to grind.
e -Found-Bad-Things-On-Google-Associated-With-His-Na me really did/said those things before I turned him down for a job because of it.
Sure, it sounds like it might be a useful technique for someone who is an intelligent, discriminating reader and doesn't take anything at face value, but rather carefully evaluates sources for quality, context, and bias. But, frankly, that sounds like an awful lot of work and, let's face it, most people do have a tendency to take things at face value without scrutinizing the accuracy and bias of the source. Observed behavior is far more valuable information than what Google can offer regarding what a person is really like. What's their body language saying? What are their friends like? How do they treat friends, strangers, and family? What is their family of origin like? If you need help recognizing behavioral cues, pick up a good psychology/sociology/self-help book written by a credible expert.
As for employers making hiring decisions based on info from a Google search, that sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen. I'd want to be certain that Mr. Otherwise-Exceptionally-Qualified-Applicant-But-W
Clearly, you just don't get it. Your attitude toward users shows it. The big failures of HCI have little to do with user training. The big failures are inconsistencies within user interfaces. Take Mac OS's trash can for example. Normally one drags something into the trash can to delete it. And most of the time Apple's interface does exactly that, as the user expects. Then Apple made the usability mistake of having the trash can also be the way to eject a floppy disk. Typical users are confused and concerned with that behaviour (fearing that their floppy disk might be erased) because it absolutely violates the metaphor of a trash can. It's not because they're stupid or lazy. It's because they're actually smart enough to know what a trash can is for (and Apple Computer wasn't). Visit the Interface Hall of Shame and pick up a clue.
Reading speed is really not the big problem of human-computer interaction. Vision is a human being's highest bandwidth channel. Ordinary people typically read at least 150 words per minute and it's not unusual for an experienced speed-reader to read over 1000 words per minute. Computer output is not the problem. The low bandwidth channels that need augmentation are the ones necessary for data input (voice, finger movement). Even the best typists can't enter data as fast as they can read it. Voice recognition, assuming we can bring the accuracy up to near 100%, would be a big improvement, but humans still can't talk as fast as they can read.
Display technology has vastly improved. I'm now just waiting for the price to come down on IBM's T221 LCD so I can have one on my desktop. We purchased one at my workplace and it just blew me away. It is the first display I have ever seen that can be reasonably compared to quality laser printing on paper for its rendering of sharp, crisp, readable text. 9.2 million pixels in the thing and NOT ONE OF THEM IS DEAD. Yep, none, nada, zilch.
As far as interaction goes though, I doubt we're going to see much improvement. Programmers do a terrible job of UI design and a lot of companies are just too cheap or ignorant to hire professional user interface designers or else provide in-depth training for whoever is doing the UI design regarding usability issues. Most companies are also too cheap to do real usability testing. They might test out the new UI on the guy three cubicles away, but he's hardly representative of your customers. Until that changes, human-computer interaction is not going to improve.
Dead horses beat YOU!
In short, yes. I used to buy a lot of technical books for work from Fatbrain.com. One of the big advantages of Fatbrain was that they had a helluva selection and they gave discounts and free expedited shipping to large customers (corporations, universities, etc.). When Barnes & Nobles bought Fatbrain, they discontinued the discounts and shipping perks and lost our business. Big mistake for them because I and others in our IT department bought a shitload of books from them on a regular basis and their cut of that pie went from almost 100% to nothing. Now, we buy from buy.com because they offer the kind of service that Fatbrain used to offer.
If there exists more to humanity than the physical, then computational theory does not claim that Turing machines can compute it. But the brain at least, and all of its adaptability to new situations and new problems, are computable.
Once again, the discussion of AI arrives at one of the fundamental questions of human existence, the question of free will. If the human brain is deterministic, then certainly a computer can be constructed to perform the same computation. However, it is quite likely that the computations performed by the human brain are not deterministic. Random quantum mechanical processes are likely to be a factor in the computations that the brain performs. So, in order to emulate a human brain, the computer must be constructed such that the computation is perturbed by some small amount of random noise. In essence, you have to have a computer that is fundamentally non-deterministic. Another potentially important issue is that, unlike digital computers, the human brain has no clock to synchronize all the simultaneous parallel computations that are going on. So, to emulate a human brain, you may need to implement your massively parallel computer through analog logic, rather than the digital logic that is used in nearly every computer produced today.
Then, once you have a massively parallel analog computer with random noise perturbing the computations of the each neuron, the question of human free will comes to the forefront. Is there something else involved in human thought processes or are we just analog computers with random quantum noise in the chemical reactions of our neurotransmitters?
They already did that movie (and it's sequel) in the 1980's. Remember "Mannequin"? "I would never bother you when you're getting it with a piece of wood." -Holly Wood
Togethersoft (recently bought by Borland) has much better software but it is very expensive
Did Rational lower their prices in the last year or so on Rose? When I was investigating Rational Rose and Together Enterprise the price quotes I got were quite comparable. I ended up purchasing TogetherSoft's product because it's feature set was superior (particularly the round-trip engineering features). Price had little to do with it because there wasn't much difference in price (both were expensive).
...this kinda reminds me of an article in 2600, Fall 1999 that was essentially a hacker's travel guide for the backstage tunnels at the Magic Kingdom.
Hey, the ghost busters cleared that up already, remember?
Did they? Or are they just waiting it out until Hollywood movies sink low enough that Ghostbusters III seems like a good idea and gets VC funding?
If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a ride home, buy an item you're trying to sell, or consider you as dating material.
Do you really need the computer for this? If the people are right there next to you, couldn't you... gasp... try actually talking to them? Regarding the dating thing, I would think that the fact that you are wearing a wearable computer would kinda decrease your chances of being considered dating material since the fact that you feel compelled to wear a computer clearly labels you as a dork.