Most fields need people who have an advanced understanding of the field and the computer technology to go with it.
I agree. In my experience, though, the role of IT-savvy physicians is to participate at high levels; you don't get to code much.
And it can be kind of frustrating to have an MD and an understanding of the field. For example, it's a pain to do research using most hospital infomation systems. The current paradigm is to manually look up patients and cut and paste results into Excel by hand. In my experience, asking for a SQL or ODBC connection to the database marks you as a bad guy.
That said, those hospitals that do get it really do seem to get it and you get to have a lot of fun.
To explain Ruby on Rails, I could say it is a highly integrated model-view-controller type web application framework. That would be like saying a Ferrari is a 4 wheeled internal combustion vehicle: true, but misses the point.
There are even better introductory materials coming. Dave Thomas (of Pragmatic Programmers) is working on a Rails book, chapters are being reviewed presently.
Rails is powerful an flexible. More importnatly, it's a lot of fun. If you are a programmer who want to enjoy web-based application development, please do take a look at Rails.
I am frightened of Congressional regulation. Everybody I know thinks they know what it means, but they all have different definitions. Does anybody know how congress will define P2P? Will P2P be defined as a program that a "user" uses to "share" content? An evil computer that is configured so it can "download" and "upload" at the same time?
When the jackbooted thugs knock at your door, will you be able to explain why your system is running Apache and Mozilla at the same time?
Most people don't understand why hospitals would use this: every hospital I have worked in would be interested.
Cell phones, even by being on can affect drug infusion pumps: it is not good to have the infusion rate spontaneously jump from 1 mL/min to 100mL/min. What's worse is that some people don't know the difference between "standby" and "off" - they think just not using it will turn off the transceiver. (Yeah, yeah, Snopes says it's not a big problem. They're FOS on this one: it really does happen).
Some visitors argue it is a problem with the medical equipment and they should get to keep their phone on: 1) possibly a valid point, but the fact is that patient health is threatened by the phone, and 2) the historic FCC position is that RF shall not interfere with other equipment. (Incidenally, new medical equipment is better shielded (hinted at on the FDA website).
Finally, to the genius who wants to point out that many hospitals are using wireless for notebook computing and wireless monitoring: 1) those in use are on different frequencies than cell phones, and 2) they are very carefully tested before implementation, (Also, I'm not sure on this point, but I believe they are probably less powerful than cell phones; this is why repeaters are in every hallway rather than just one on the roof. If the wallpaper is just on the exterior of the building, I doubt it would not interfere with current use).
There is no such thing as a sentient non-homosapien.
RRrriiight.
The few people I know who have ever taken that position were Christian. Are you? Does that mean God is a homo sapien? Or is he non-sentient? And don't forget angels: Happy, non-sentient robots of God.
What evidence is there for non-sentience? Statements of the form "there are no..." tend to assume 'absense of evidence' equates to 'evidence of absense'. In my book, making that comment about sentience equates to 'evidence of absense.'
Damn! I'm feeding the trolls again... final proof of my non-sentience.
You should look at"Processing", even though it is in Alpha.
It is a simple "programming language", useful for graphics and some math. (The "compiler" creates Java from your sourcecode: see their info page).
It is also somewhat useful: I had attempted to teach my wife binary several times to no avail. Buyt my first Processing project, a binary demonstrator, made the binary-decimal relationship clear. She can now even read the binary clock she bought for my birthday.
There are a several demos with source on the website.
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/msc-essay/node5.h tml clearly states: The Web Server may be down, too busy, or...You may wish to try again at a later time.
Heh.
Here's the content:
Game Theoretic Analysis
Preliminary academic research into poker actually started very early in the computer age. In the book ``Theory of Games and Economic Behavior'' (the founding work of game theory [101]), John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern used mathematical models to analyze certain greatly simplified games of ``poker''. Among other things, they demonstrated the fact that bluffing is an absolutely essential component of poker, and that any sound strategy must include bluffing with a certain frequency. While this was interesting, and useful as an example of the application of game theoretic principles, the games studied were too far removed from real poker to be of much practical value.
Other fundamental works into the study of simplified poker were developed by John Nash and Lloyd Shapley [61] and by Samuel Karlin [51, 52]. Collections of related papers on the theory of games are also available [2, 3, 4], as well as an excellent treatise on the analysis of all games [23, 24].
An attempt to adapt these mathematical models to more realistic versions of poker was made by Newman [62], but with only a limited degree of success. More recently, this approach has been revisited and more fully explained by Sakaguchi [71]. Beyond this, there has been little development of the original ideas, probably because they were originally intended as a lesson in the use of game theory, rather than as a serious investigation of poker dynamics.
Consequently, the models which have been developed to date are severely limited with respect to the real game of poker, and are of little use to the practical problem of writing a computer algorithm to play a strong game of poker. Nevertheless, general game theoretic notions can be applied to the practical problem, and the original references may be helpful in directing that method of thought.
There are at least two potentially useful ideas stemming from game theory. The first is the techniques used for determining certain optimal betting strategies. The second is the utilization of optimal bluffing and calling strategies. In both cases, the `pure' solutions to the simplified problems must be adapted to be applicable to the real game, but the underlying principles constitute a solid starting point from which to develop a sound approach.
An optimal betting strategy for pot-limit poker was developed in a paper by William Cutler [32]. Like previous studies, this analysis was based on a simplified poker game with only one betting round and no draw. However, the analysis method is generalized to include games where any number of re-raises are permitted, which is more realistic than the usual no-raise or one-raise scenario. Furthermore, the manner in which the optimal frequencies were computed should still be applicable to a more realistic poker setting, once the effects of multiple betting rounds and the drawing of cards is taken into account.
We now look at two books which undertake a complete game theoretic analysis of real poker games, albeit with limited degrees of success.
Yeah, it was low and leaking and sloshing about and would usually first come on during a prolonged right turn, like at a freeway on-ramp. I'd just add a little oil now and then to make it go away, so my experience is not universal...just pointing out that you don't always come to an expensive stop seconds later.
If the oil light comes on, and you don't stop immediately, you will stop in a very expensive way seconds later.
False.
The oil light in my 1990 trooper used to come on regularly because of low oil pressure. After I while, I quit topping it off, always thinking "I'll take care of it tomorrow." The situation went on for weeks before the engine finally siezed.
Of course, the above is strong evidence that I am an idiot.
The problem of spam is NOT a technical one. It is a moral one and its solution therefore lies in the legal system.
What are you, a lawyer?
I feel sorry for people who believe that solutions to moral problems lie in the legal system. I don't think it's immoral to drive 16 mph in a 15 mph zone. I do cruelty is immoral, even when "legal." Please tell me, exactly how does the legal system solve moral problems?
The problem with spam on Simple Mail Transport Protocol is that the it doesn't require authentication (Read the Fine RFC). It's ridiculous to cry and ask the government for help just because somebody is using the protocol within specifications. We're never going to get rid of all the SMTP spammers.
If you don't like SMTP, don't use it. If you don't like spam, use a whitelist, get PGP, quit using e-mail, or, better yet, write a new mail transport protocol.
I know of a reasonably good solution. It takes a couple of steps, but in practice there isn't that much overhead:
1) Define internet access as a privilege, (rather than a right).
2) Require signature from students that they will perform required software maintenance.
3) Have DHCP only give leases to pre-registered MAC addresses.
4) When problem arises, pull student's access. First chance to prove it has been fixed is in a month. The first one or two will whine and complain. Everyone else will fix their machines.:)
Sorry, this sounds aggressive; it is not meant to be. (Please) assume the message is meant charitably...
Can you imagine the potential security issues there,
I'm sure there are security issues, but can you name some actual issues? The issues I can think of are no different than what you see with *any* anonymous internet use. For administrators, I see a need to be sure campus machines are relatively secure: Don't you already do that? Would it resolve the issues if the wireless network sat outside the campus firewall?
For the users of the network, I see no issues. The University I work at also bans wireless routers. Please educate me: Why, Really?
or virus outbreaks?
As opposed to the total lack of viruses we are seeing now? Several thousand users are going to be very happy with this wireless network. What's the problem? Do you think you will be liable if one of them releases a virus there instead of over at Starbucks?
From personal repeat experience: Reality is harsh.
The only people who might appreciate and help fix the flaw are (1) the actual system administrators, (2) the actual coders for the manufacturer, or (3) CS profs.
Anyone else will be upset: both the software company and the University rely on their reputation for security. The CS staff/profs rely on their reputation for cleverness.
If you're school is like mine, administration will want to know what you were doing "messing around with that stuff" instead of learning your (Introduction to Whateverology 101).
1) The exploit needs fixing.
2) The company needs to know.
3) They aren't going to give you money just because you found a flaw.
4) If you start by reporting to news/slashdot/whatever, you are being unfair to the school and the company.
5) If you go through regular school or company channels, you will be very lonesome.
6) If you report openly, your grades will be carefully scrutinized. If you try to report anonymously, but your ID gets out, you will be scrutinized closely as a probable bad guy.
The Prof is a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
they were in school and not institutionalized....
Guess they weren't MIT students then?
Most fields need people who have an advanced understanding of the field and the computer technology to go with it.
I agree. In my experience, though, the role of IT-savvy physicians is to participate at high levels; you don't get to code much.
And it can be kind of frustrating to have an MD and an understanding of the field. For example, it's a pain to do research using most hospital infomation systems. The current paradigm is to manually look up patients and cut and paste results into Excel by hand. In my experience, asking for a SQL or ODBC connection to the database marks you as a bad guy.
That said, those hospitals that do get it really do seem to get it and you get to have a lot of fun.
Tait
To explain Ruby on Rails, I could say it is a highly integrated model-view-controller type web application framework. That would be like saying a Ferrari is a 4 wheeled internal combustion vehicle: true, but misses the point.
For more info, see RubyOnRails.com. An good alternative tutorial is at http://rails.homelinux.org/.
There are even better introductory materials coming. Dave Thomas (of Pragmatic Programmers) is working on a Rails book, chapters are being reviewed presently.
Rails is powerful an flexible. More importnatly, it's a lot of fun. If you are a programmer who want to enjoy web-based application development, please do take a look at Rails.
Reading my usual comics, I accidentally went to http://www.dilber.com one day, (warning: ad for an "Amateurs" site...).
Careful what you type at work!
I Call BS.
FYI, some of our local schools (MD) are teaching Ender's game as required reading this year.
Now, instead of being indifferent to science-fiction, non-nerds will hate it. Yeah.
All MS patches/service packs have an automatic CRC check routine before installation. If it installs it is from a valid source, i.e. MS.
If it installs, it is from a valid source?!? Hey, that gives me a great idea:
Alert! Microsoft just released a brand new critical patch.
If you'll just post your e-mail address, I'll get a "friend" to e-mail it to you. Don't worry: it's perfectly safe.
There's a built in checksum.
Sheesh.
I am frightened of Congressional regulation. Everybody I know thinks they know what it means, but they all have different definitions. Does anybody know how congress will define P2P? Will P2P be defined as a program that a "user" uses to "share" content? An evil computer that is configured so it can "download" and "upload" at the same time?
When the jackbooted thugs knock at your door, will you be able to explain why your system is running Apache and Mozilla at the same time?
- teidou
I agree; it's just that the machines do come with Windows XP and that's how most people set it up.
Ctrl-Alt-Del switch
No, not particularly. Most large-scale Windows rollouts require Ctrl-Alt-Delete to bring up the login.
what would you say about Windows XP, where you have an EULA and data gets transferred to and from Microsoft regularly ... Is that the same thing?
Yep.
Most people don't understand why hospitals would use this: every hospital I have worked in would be interested.
Cell phones, even by being on can affect drug infusion pumps: it is not good to have the infusion rate spontaneously jump from 1 mL/min to 100mL/min. What's worse is that some people don't know the difference between "standby" and "off" - they think just not using it will turn off the transceiver. (Yeah, yeah, Snopes says it's not a big problem. They're FOS on this one: it really does happen).
Some visitors argue it is a problem with the medical equipment and they should get to keep their phone on: 1) possibly a valid point, but the fact is that patient health is threatened by the phone, and 2) the historic FCC position is that RF shall not interfere with other equipment. (Incidenally, new medical equipment is better shielded (hinted at on the FDA website).
Finally, to the genius who wants to point out that many hospitals are using wireless for notebook computing and wireless monitoring: 1) those in use are on different frequencies than cell phones, and 2) they are very carefully tested before implementation, (Also, I'm not sure on this point, but I believe they are probably less powerful than cell phones; this is why repeaters are in every hallway rather than just one on the roof. If the wallpaper is just on the exterior of the building, I doubt it would not interfere with current use).
Teidou
Nice post. Had to read it 4 or 5 times to pick it all up.
I'm changing my sig...
There is no such thing as a sentient non-homosapien.
RRrriiight.
The few people I know who have ever taken that position were Christian. Are you? Does that mean God is a homo sapien? Or is he non-sentient? And don't forget angels: Happy, non-sentient robots of God.
What evidence is there for non-sentience? Statements of the form "there are no..." tend to assume 'absense of evidence' equates to 'evidence of absense'. In my book, making that comment about sentience equates to 'evidence of absense.'
Damn! I'm feeding the trolls again... final proof of my non-sentience.
It is a simple "programming language", useful for graphics and some math. (The "compiler" creates Java from your sourcecode: see their info page).
It is also somewhat useful: I had attempted to teach my wife binary several times to no avail. Buyt my first Processing project, a binary demonstrator, made the binary-decimal relationship clear. She can now even read the binary clock she bought for my birthday.
There are a several demos with source on the website.
-Teidou
http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~darse/msc-essay/node5.h tml clearly states: The Web Server may be down, too busy, or ...You may wish to try again at a later time.
Heh.
Here's the content:
Game Theoretic Analysis
Preliminary academic research into poker actually started very early in the computer age. In the book ``Theory of Games and Economic Behavior'' (the founding work of game theory [101]), John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern used mathematical models to analyze certain greatly simplified games of ``poker''. Among other things, they demonstrated the fact that bluffing is an absolutely essential component of poker, and that any sound strategy must include bluffing with a certain frequency. While this was interesting, and useful as an example of the application of game theoretic principles, the games studied were too far removed from real poker to be of much practical value.
Other fundamental works into the study of simplified poker were developed by John Nash and Lloyd Shapley [61] and by Samuel Karlin [51, 52]. Collections of related papers on the theory of games are also available [2, 3, 4], as well as an excellent treatise on the analysis of all games [23, 24].
An attempt to adapt these mathematical models to more realistic versions of poker was made by Newman [62], but with only a limited degree of success. More recently, this approach has been revisited and more fully explained by Sakaguchi [71]. Beyond this, there has been little development of the original ideas, probably because they were originally intended as a lesson in the use of game theory, rather than as a serious investigation of poker dynamics.
Consequently, the models which have been developed to date are severely limited with respect to the real game of poker, and are of little use to the practical problem of writing a computer algorithm to play a strong game of poker. Nevertheless, general game theoretic notions can be applied to the practical problem, and the original references may be helpful in directing that method of thought.
There are at least two potentially useful ideas stemming from game theory. The first is the techniques used for determining certain optimal betting strategies. The second is the utilization of optimal bluffing and calling strategies. In both cases, the `pure' solutions to the simplified problems must be adapted to be applicable to the real game, but the underlying principles constitute a solid starting point from which to develop a sound approach.
An optimal betting strategy for pot-limit poker was developed in a paper by William Cutler [32]. Like previous studies, this analysis was based on a simplified poker game with only one betting round and no draw. However, the analysis method is generalized to include games where any number of re-raises are permitted, which is more realistic than the usual no-raise or one-raise scenario. Furthermore, the manner in which the optimal frequencies were computed should still be applicable to a more realistic poker setting, once the effects of multiple betting rounds and the drawing of cards is taken into account.
We now look at two books which undertake a complete game theoretic analysis of real poker games, albeit with limited degrees of success.
If the oil light comes on, and you don't stop immediately, you will stop in a very expensive way seconds later.
False.
The oil light in my 1990 trooper used to come on regularly because of low oil pressure. After I while, I quit topping it off, always thinking "I'll take care of it tomorrow." The situation went on for weeks before the engine finally siezed.
Of course, the above is strong evidence that I am an idiot.
I think maybe I'll report a registered SCO licensee...
Mass is a universal value, whereas weight will be different, for example, on the moon.
On the other hand, since Amazon doens't appear to ship off-planet, do you think it might be OK?
teidou
What are you, a lawyer?
I feel sorry for people who believe that solutions to moral problems lie in the legal system. I don't think it's immoral to drive 16 mph in a 15 mph zone. I do cruelty is immoral, even when "legal." Please tell me, exactly how does the legal system solve moral problems?
The problem with spam on Simple Mail Transport Protocol is that the it doesn't require authentication (Read the Fine RFC). It's ridiculous to cry and ask the government for help just because somebody is using the protocol within specifications. We're never going to get rid of all the SMTP spammers.
If you don't like SMTP, don't use it. If you don't like spam, use a whitelist, get PGP, quit using e-mail, or, better yet, write a new mail transport protocol.
Oh, I get it, SCO employee's opportunity to get hired there is equal to their opportunity to get hired elsewhere... poor schmucks.
I actually do feel sorry for them. I'm sure it's the executives making the decisions.
1) Define internet access as a privilege, (rather than a right).
2) Require signature from students that they will perform required software maintenance.
3) Have DHCP only give leases to pre-registered MAC addresses.
4) When problem arises, pull student's access. First chance to prove it has been fixed is in a month. The first one or two will whine and complain. Everyone else will fix their machines. :)
(Flames from undergrads > /dev/null)
TeidouCan you imagine the potential security issues there,
I'm sure there are security issues, but can you name some actual issues? The issues I can think of are no different than what you see with *any* anonymous internet use. For administrators, I see a need to be sure campus machines are relatively secure: Don't you already do that? Would it resolve the issues if the wireless network sat outside the campus firewall?
For the users of the network, I see no issues. The University I work at also bans wireless routers. Please educate me: Why, Really?
or virus outbreaks?
As opposed to the total lack of viruses we are seeing now? Several thousand users are going to be very happy with this wireless network. What's the problem? Do you think you will be liable if one of them releases a virus there instead of over at Starbucks?
From personal repeat experience: Reality is harsh. The only people who might appreciate and help fix the flaw are (1) the actual system administrators, (2) the actual coders for the manufacturer, or (3) CS profs. Anyone else will be upset: both the software company and the University rely on their reputation for security. The CS staff/profs rely on their reputation for cleverness. If you're school is like mine, administration will want to know what you were doing "messing around with that stuff" instead of learning your (Introduction to Whateverology 101). 1) The exploit needs fixing. 2) The company needs to know. 3) They aren't going to give you money just because you found a flaw. 4) If you start by reporting to news/slashdot/whatever, you are being unfair to the school and the company. 5) If you go through regular school or company channels, you will be very lonesome. 6) If you report openly, your grades will be carefully scrutinized. If you try to report anonymously, but your ID gets out, you will be scrutinized closely as a probable bad guy. The Prof is a good idea.