One might even argue that, in the long run, there would be substantial savings if salutogenesis as an element of a holistic concept of health care was more emphasized.
... the article gives an answer:
TFA: "also means more time wasted looking for the right information"
If looking for the 'right information' is considered 'waste of time', how do you think 'deciding which information is appropriate', i.e. actually thinking (no outside activity to be observed, mind that) is valued?
Much better to quickly produce a dupe of some blurb to add up to overload.
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/TDSNanocubic.jsp
"Imagine one data cartridge, small enough to fit into a shirt pocket, being able to store the equivalent of 200 two-hour movies, 50,000 trees made into paper, 100,000,000 web pages or all the X-ray films in a large hospital! NANOCUBIC technology makes this possible."*
*I know they are not talking 'master-copy', but still
But that is what you get in the not so distant future:
* Performance: o Access time -- 30 to 100 microseconds o Burst transfer rate -- 300 MB/sec. o Sustained transfer rate -- up to 100 MB/sec. o I/O operations per second -- Up to 20,000 * Environmental specifications: o Operating temperature 0-70 degrees C ("commercial" range), -40 to +85 degrees C ("industrial" range) o Shock (operating) -- 1,250 G o Vibration (operating) -- 16.4 G rms * Reliability: o MTBF -- 1.9 million hours, minimum o Error correction -- corrects up to 9 random bit errors per 528-byte block o Data integrity -- up to ten years o Read endurance -- unlimited * Physical specifications: o Form-factor -- 2.5-inch HDD o Dimensions -- 2.75 x 3.95 x 0.93 inches (69.85 x 100.45 x 23.55 mm) maximum, storage capacities 64 GB and below are 0.33 inches thick o Weight -- 2.9 to 7.8 ounces (83 to 221 grams)
Then instead of skipping over the parts that don't directly compare to state of health and health coverage/care, we can have an accurate comparison.
While I might follow your argument regarding transportation accidents, I see that exclusion of 'idiosyncratic' skews would not stop there, homicide and drug use up next. Thus I am more prone to argue that the comparison is targetting a construct to be defined like 'efforts of society to keep citizens in a healthy condition' instead of 'health care system'.
UK and AU and JP
You need not look that far (assuming location US), CA would do (and DE, which is where I reside, would be interesting).
Make not mistake, socializing medicine in America will not make it cheaper.... And chances are, with as much power and influence they have, they will end up taking the money from you somehow.
I sign this, and basically this leads (me) to the conclusion that all these comparisons distract from the most basic flaw which is probably common to all systems — overpriced products from globally operating corporations and consequentially a focus on pathogenesis/diagnosis and post–facto cure instead of salutogenesis and prevention. Unsurprisingly, as the latter would facilitate distributed systems with less of a chance to concentrate power in only a few hands (and, this way, would be much more in the 'spirit' conveyed by 'socialising').
... it seems that the first (per movie) is about reasonable, the second is for justifying high prices, quote:"
"Right now the best available cost estimate, when we look at our total cost of ownership for storing on disk, which is accessible all the time, is about $1,500 per terabyte per year," says Moore. The cost for archival tape is considerably less, about $500 per terabyte per year, with retrieval time (or latency) in minutes."
The entire point of stats aren't to give credit to your cause. While that is the popular thing to use them for, it is to see where the problems are or the trends
This may be seen as only different facets of the same intention. It is no argument in favour of reducing complexity into one dimension by arbitrarily selecting one variable for comparison, in this case, life expectancy.
So yes, it is entirely appropriate to make a fair comparison. Even when it doesn't agree with your world view.
Hopefully, you have patented that.
Besides, I have the strong assumption that you can normalize all the way you want, the US-system will stay the most expensive[FLASH].
Yep, the US-health-care system (like anything US) is so much superior to what all of the rest of the population of the world (some ~95%) can offer that it would be much wiser to enforce it there instead of giving it an overhaul.
Those who think otherwise do not have inhaled enough of patriotism and threaten the overwhelming majority of those 'in the know' with angst and terror, quote: "In spite of the rising health care costs that provide the illusion of improving health care, the American people do not enjoy good health, compared with their counterparts in the industrialized nations. Among thirteen countries including Japan, Sweden, France and Canada, the U.S. was ranked 12th, based on the measurement of 16 health indicators such as life expectancy, low-birth-weight averages and infant mortality. In another comparison reported by the World Health Organization that used a different set of health indicators, the U.S. also fared poorly with a ranking of 15 among 25 industrialized nations."
Not that I endorse Clinton (or any upcoming U.S-President, for the foreseeable future).
Haven't you guys read 1984 or Brave New World? Be thankful that is not the world we live in today!
No, more like...
A.E. van Vogt, Computerworld, 1983 (... the story of our world under the cold and emotionless eye of the almighty computers...(not brilliant, but rather anticipatory and fits in here))
... in another story today someone made the '+5 insightful' proposition that a 64bit OS could address 'enough' memory during 'our lifetime'. Well, figure it.
I was on the German competition, a TELEFUNKEN TR440, which, as I just looked up, was upgraded with a second core (800.000 op/sec), (very fast !!) drum memory (20ms, 24 Mio. Bytes) and a (fast !!) hard drive (39ms, 83 Mio, Bytes) for a whopping Deutschmark 3.5 Mio. in 1975, the whole thing initially being bought at a price of 18 Mio. in 1969 and installed in 1971.
dont we have more pressing issues as humanity to worry about
Perhaps there would be relief from the perceived pressure if humanity would overcome anthropocentrism on a much broader scale than already suggested by some, and maybe cosmology helps to attain that.
... with regard to security as expressed by the faith that pure frequencies are a proper means of assessing OS vulnerabilities must inevitably lead to misuse, since any use of such measurements is.
Living in Europe, I do not see that this is the end of the story.
Quote: "The European Commission, as it proceeds in evaluating the Google-DoubleClick deal, may have concerns with whether challenging the merger will ultimately be overturned by the European Court of First Instance, which serves as an appeals court.... The Commission is seeking to make its (merger) clearances, as well as its prohibitions, as appeal-proof as possible," (emphasis mine)
I always found it hard to label complex entities, but 'my model' does not fit in neither category. Call it 'taoist cybernetism' and think of 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K. LeGuin (you may include elements of a kibbutz).
change
It seems the quote is attributed to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr:(
Book of Ecclesiastes
Can not say much here, as I am a totally blank sheet.
Technology is a variable, the human spirit is a constant.
Hmm, cross-cultural studies tell otherwise, a striking example is given by the Pirahã people, IMHO.
Bureaucratic systems, unlike well engineered physical ones, tend to lack good negative feedback loops, as too many people discover power within inefficiency.
Again what I would call a 'tree-like' structure (also, perhaps, a cause for long lead times before and after the fact).
There is no reason that (networks of) humans can not be 'social engineered' (in fact society is, IMHO); equally, in a network of small enough nodes that rely on each others resources, feedback must emerge if not pre-designed.
stifle what I'll call the human spirit
Now that this is explicitly the 'opinion'-section, I might add that I have experienced (and I am still learning) that a more holistic approach to things (trying to attain equilibrium implies to look at the whole) does the contrary. In engineering terms this could perhaps be said like "the less energy you have to assign to maintenance of the structure of a system the more you can invest into (the improvement of) its dynamics".
... I also don't see how falsifiability is a requirement for something to be scientific.
Rest assured, once there is (more) evidence for a? (configuration? of) multiverse(s) the concept must inevitably be refined, assuming that ''scientific'' ''laws'' are not consistent across universes.
Current epistemological (to give it a label) consensus may even be conceived of as 'obsolete' once a 'scientific revolution' has taken place.
Just imagine how sf-concepts have moved into physics.
if the fundamental laws of the universe are changing (as some posit), how would we know?
Version 1: They do, and we (could) know, as we are the effectors.
Simply: The fundament of reality is what you perceive (some might argue: measure). You perceptions are subject to how you distribute and focus attention (alternatively: funding). Attention, in turn, can be perceived (intentionally cycling here:) as controlled by intention (research objectives, theory of science). Thus, your reality (and thus the laws therein) constantly changes.
Now, to get the bigger picture, increase size/quality of the perceiving agent as well as time-frame.
Introduce (meta-level)processes that monitor change.
Version 2: You can not, since change is universal. leaving no evidence — hardly testable.
Personally, I stick to Wittgenstein: "What is thinkable is possible too."
Slashdot Mirror
preventative care
One might even argue that, in the long run, there would be substantial savings if salutogenesis as an element of a holistic concept of health care was more emphasized.
CC.
require even more stupidity then normal
You did not yet realize everything is about growth?
CC.
... the article gives an answer:
TFA: "also means more time wasted looking for the right information"
If looking for the 'right information' is considered 'waste of time', how do you think 'deciding which information is appropriate', i.e. actually thinking (no outside activity to be observed, mind that) is valued?
Much better to quickly produce a dupe of some blurb to add up to overload.
CC.
Maybe they're going with something like a DAT tape system.
Probably.
http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060516_magnetic.html
"6.67 billion bits per square inch lays foundation for future tape storage improvements"
http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/TDSNanocubic.jsp
"Imagine one data cartridge, small enough to fit into a shirt pocket, being able to store the equivalent of 200 two-hour movies, 50,000 trees made into paper, 100,000,000 web pages or all the X-ray films in a large hospital! NANOCUBIC technology makes this possible."*
*I know they are not talking 'master-copy', but still
CC. CC.
but I am WAY more worried about Google than I am about Microsoft
So am I.
Google is quickly becoming the private sector equivalent to the CIA
If you hove a bend towards conspiracy theories, you may say it is the CIA expanding its brand into the private sector.
Would be worth researching their history a little deeper.
CC.
But that is what you get in the not so distant future:
CC.
Then instead of skipping over the parts that don't directly compare to state of health and health coverage/care, we can have an accurate comparison.
... And chances are, with as much power and influence they have, they will end up taking the money from you somehow.
:) holidays anyway.
While I might follow your argument regarding transportation accidents, I see that exclusion of 'idiosyncratic' skews would not stop there, homicide and drug use up next. Thus I am more prone to argue that the comparison is targetting a construct to be defined like 'efforts of society to keep citizens in a healthy condition' instead of 'health care system'.
UK and AU and JP
You need not look that far (assuming location US), CA would do (and DE, which is where I reside, would be interesting).
Make not mistake, socializing medicine in America will not make it cheaper.
I sign this, and basically this leads (me) to the conclusion that all these comparisons distract from the most basic flaw which is probably common to all systems — overpriced products from globally operating corporations and consequentially a focus on pathogenesis/diagnosis and post–facto cure instead of salutogenesis and prevention. Unsurprisingly, as the latter would facilitate distributed systems with less of a chance to concentrate power in only a few hands (and, this way, would be much more in the 'spirit' conveyed by 'socialising').
Happy (healthy
CC.
... it seems that the first (per movie) is about reasonable, the second is for justifying high prices, quote:" "Right now the best available cost estimate, when we look at our total cost of ownership for storing on disk, which is accessible all the time, is about $1,500 per terabyte per year," says Moore. The cost for archival tape is considerably less, about $500 per terabyte per year, with retrieval time (or latency) in minutes."
CC.
The entire point of stats aren't to give credit to your cause. While that is the popular thing to use them for, it is to see where the problems are or the trends
This may be seen as only different facets of the same intention. It is no argument in favour of reducing complexity into one dimension by arbitrarily selecting one variable for comparison, in this case, life expectancy.
So yes, it is entirely appropriate to make a fair comparison. Even when it doesn't agree with your world view.
Hopefully, you have patented that.
Besides, I have the strong assumption that you can normalize all the way you want, the US-system will stay the most expensive[FLASH].
CC.
Yes, 'the only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself' - Winston Churchill
For comparisons of complex systems, it is indeed most appropriate to single out one variable as a basis if one wants to look good.
CC.
'socialized medicine'
Yep, the US-health-care system (like anything US) is so much superior to what all of the rest of the population of the world (some ~95%) can offer that it would be much wiser to enforce it there instead of giving it an overhaul.
Those who think otherwise do not have inhaled enough of patriotism and threaten the overwhelming majority of those 'in the know' with angst and terror, quote: "In spite of the rising health care costs that provide the illusion of improving health care, the American people do not enjoy good health, compared with their counterparts in the industrialized nations. Among thirteen countries including Japan, Sweden, France and Canada, the U.S. was ranked 12th, based on the measurement of 16 health indicators such as life expectancy, low-birth-weight averages and infant mortality. In another comparison reported by the World Health Organization that used a different set of health indicators, the U.S. also fared poorly with a ranking of 15 among 25 industrialized nations."
Not that I endorse Clinton (or any upcoming U.S-President, for the foreseeable future).
CC.
Haven't you guys read 1984 or Brave New World? Be thankful that is not the world we live in today!
...
...(not brilliant, but rather anticipatory and fits in here))
No, more like
A.E. van Vogt, Computerworld, 1983 (... the story of our world under the cold and emotionless eye of the almighty computers
CC.
... in another story today someone made the '+5 insightful' proposition that a 64bit OS could address 'enough' memory during 'our lifetime'. Well, figure it.
CC.
the first computer I worked on was a CDC Cyber
I was on the German competition, a TELEFUNKEN TR440, which, as I just looked up, was upgraded with a second core (800.000 op/sec), (very fast !!) drum memory (20ms, 24 Mio. Bytes) and a (fast !!) hard drive (39ms, 83 Mio, Bytes) for a whopping Deutschmark 3.5 Mio. in 1975, the whole thing initially being bought at a price of 18 Mio. in 1969 and installed in 1971.
Yes, times have changed.
CC.
dont we have more pressing issues as humanity to worry about
Perhaps there would be relief from the perceived pressure if humanity would overcome anthropocentrism on a much broader scale than already suggested by some, and maybe cosmology helps to attain that.
CC.
... to book at Milliways !!!
CC.
... with regard to security as expressed by the faith that pure frequencies are a proper means of assessing OS vulnerabilities must inevitably lead to misuse, since any use of such measurements is.
CC.
My results were a little better than yours, maybe 25%,
About what I get if I clean up and exclusively run the benchmark. But that is not a 'live' situation.
Anyway, this tells me that I do not need a new machine for what I do.
CC.
here
AMD Athlon 64 3200+, 1GB, Ubuntu 7.04, using FF for 4 hours, listening to last.fm.
CC.
Living in Europe, I do not see that this is the end of the story.
... The Commission is seeking to make its (merger) clearances, as well as its prohibitions, as appeal-proof as possible," (emphasis mine)
Quote: "The European Commission, as it proceeds in evaluating the Google-DoubleClick deal, may have concerns with whether challenging the merger will ultimately be overturned by the European Court of First Instance, which serves as an appeals court.
They will probably have a hard time doing so.
CC.
sig
:(
I always found it hard to label complex entities, but 'my model' does not fit in neither category. Call it 'taoist cybernetism' and think of 'The Dispossessed' by Ursula K. LeGuin (you may include elements of a kibbutz).
change
It seems the quote is attributed to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr
Book of Ecclesiastes
Can not say much here, as I am a totally blank sheet.
Technology is a variable, the human spirit is a constant.
Hmm, cross-cultural studies tell otherwise, a striking example is given by the Pirahã people, IMHO.
CC.
This is interesting, but I think there may be some fundamental disagreement between us on the nature of the human spirit.
:)
There must be some optimism hidden deep inside me
Where there is success (monestaries and the Amish) they are small, and have an overarching religious component
I am with you there. Though, I still believe that time will force an overhaul on the currently ubiquitous model of society.
CC.
Bureaucratic systems, unlike well engineered physical ones, tend to lack good negative feedback loops, as too many people discover power within inefficiency.
Again what I would call a 'tree-like' structure (also, perhaps, a cause for long lead times before and after the fact).
There is no reason that (networks of) humans can not be 'social engineered' (in fact society is, IMHO); equally, in a network of small enough nodes that rely on each others resources, feedback must emerge if not pre-designed.
stifle what I'll call the human spirit
Now that this is explicitly the 'opinion'-section, I might add that I have experienced (and I am still learning) that a more holistic approach to things (trying to attain equilibrium implies to look at the whole) does the contrary. In engineering terms this could perhaps be said like "the less energy you have to assign to maintenance of the structure of a system the more you can invest into (the improvement of) its dynamics".
CC.
... I also don't see how falsifiability is a requirement for something to be scientific.
Rest assured, once there is (more) evidence for a? (configuration? of) multiverse(s) the concept must inevitably be refined, assuming that ''scientific'' ''laws'' are not consistent across universes.
Current epistemological (to give it a label) consensus may even be conceived of as 'obsolete' once a 'scientific revolution' has taken place.
Just imagine how sf-concepts have moved into physics.
CC.
if the fundamental laws of the universe are changing (as some posit), how would we know?
:) as controlled by intention (research objectives, theory of science). Thus, your reality (and thus the laws therein) constantly changes.
Version 1: They do, and we (could) know, as we are the effectors.
Simply: The fundament of reality is what you perceive (some might argue: measure). You perceptions are subject to how you distribute and focus attention (alternatively: funding). Attention, in turn, can be perceived (intentionally cycling here
Now, to get the bigger picture, increase size/quality of the perceiving agent as well as time-frame.
Introduce (meta-level)processes that monitor change.
Version 2: You can not, since change is universal. leaving no evidence — hardly testable.
Personally, I stick to Wittgenstein: "What is thinkable is possible too."
CC.