The key to breaking down computer phobia among doctors is husband/wife doctor/technologist teams. The technologist will go mad listening to the bitching and moaning coming from the doctor half of the marriage and will push technological useage forward just to make the pain stop.
Actually, thumping and listening are still practiced in a lot of other countries where the money isn't plentiful to order these kinds of tests at the drop of a hat. The insurance companies would probably reduce their costs tremendously if they had annual competitions on stethescope/other old(cheap) methods of diagnosis. A few million yearly in prize money would be chump change compared to reducing the number of diagnostic tests performed because these basic skills were once again emphasized.
Doctors as a whole are likely completely unaware of this database. If you took the article and gave it to your doctor and asked him if he ever even heard of this stuff, he'd probably say no. The problem is that once doctors get out into practice they have to keep up with the current standard of care or they end up buried by lawsuits. Medicine is a fast moving profession that is getting squeezed by penny pinching govt. programs who keep reducing payments but expecting more service for the money and who *also* are even more conservative than individual doctors.
The system is in use at the DoD. Get your congressman to make it reimbursable via medicare and watch how doctor resistance to it melts away.
1 patient walks in the door and is given the most cursory of care, a simple Rx refill perscription (perhaps for a dangerous narcotic that's a controlled substance). The time spent dealing with that patient costs $20 in time and resources, mostly salaries. If you don't pay at least $20 for that, eventually, there won't be that extra nurse (laid off) to take care of you right away and you spend half an hour waiting until the overworked staff gets to you.
Care costs money no matter what the system. If it's not paid for, how anybody can stay operating is the real question. There's lots of case studies available in countries that have 'free' care. All of it is rationed in one way or another and a great deal of it is a much lower quality of care which is why most people with money to burn who can be cared anywhere fly to the US for specialized, best in the world care.
I think you misunderstand my point. It's not copyright law per se that I'm going after but the ability of the RIAA to sue and threaten anybody who wants to create technology that among legitimate uses (burn your own music or non-copyrighted music) may also have uses that are illegal (illegal copying of copyrighted works).
If there was no fear of bankruptcy by interminable lawsuit, Roxio would likely not have made this move as it is certain to hurt their own bottom line.
If the punitive lawsuits were rectified, a reasonable balance on the entire copyright discussion might ensue. As long as the massive financial resources of the RIAA/MPAA can bankrupt companies that bring legal disruptive technologies to market, the intention of the copyright clause, to advance the arts and sciences, is being perverted.
The DMCA is unconstitutional because its draconian penalties hold back the arts and sciences, the only purpose for which copyright and patent is legitimate.
No, the entire society pays and due to the payment being filtered through "I don't care" bureaucrats, the aggregate cost of medical education is generally higher there than in areas where such costs are easily identifiable and people can fight for cost savings.
The fact that the beneficiary of a service doesn't pay for that service increases the likelihood that the service is actually more expensive and will be more often wasted.
If you're working with a boob of a physician who won't give you a diagnosis, take your medical records (he's usually legally obligated to give them to you) and go elsewhere. There are plenty of OTC medicines that have warnings 'not to be taken by people who have' xyz condition. This doctor would have patients dropping all the time if he actually exists because his patients would be felled by taking medicines they wouldn't have if they knew what condition they had.
I can't imagine how such a physician would stay in practice.
At point 4, you could stand to go to the bathroom yourself. What gives people the right to use the state to stop other people from copying their works? The US Constitution does for the specific purpose of 'advancing the arts and sciences'. The only reason that the *temporary* monopoly exists is in order to advance the pool of knowledge and the pool of arts available to our society.
It's certainly a legitimate question whether the RIAA/MPAA actions against fair use/unsanctioned copying are advancing or hindering the arts. Are their enforcement mechanisms raising costs so much that artists are actually being paid less? There's a study that isn't going to have industry sponsorship anytime soon.
I would say that the original subject of the thread (Roxio crippling their burner program) hinders the arts and sciences by crippling the ability to copy music files whether or not such copying is legitimate (the program can't tell the difference). To the extent that Roxio is doing so under legal pressure from the RIAA, such pressure is constitutionally suspect.
When you abuse a privilege you screw it up for everybody. Rights are remain such even when people screw them up. Take a look at a majority of the US bill of rights for examples. 1st amendment heroes are very often scumbags. By your logic we should eliminate free speech on legitimate topics such as elections because some jerks distribute child porn.
http://www.sente.ch/software/GPGMail/ is probably your best front end for GPG right now. Given the limitations of encryption in various countries, I would guess that GPG would not be available in the default install until a lot more countries get their act together and remove encryption restrictions.
Then again, I'd be much more interested in a Fink GUI (which would get me GPG et al) first.
I would expect that as Apple's market shifts, its industrial design will shift too. Take a look at XServe, all brushed metal and easy to look at rack mount front plate and certainly no translucent plastic because it would be a negative for the market.
In fact, if there is any type of clone agreement that Steve Jobs might go for it would be a nice design shop that would simply design different cases in smaller runs than Apple would be comfortable doing. Imagine a 'Red Delicious, Inc.' that would simply design cases that have the same mount points as current models (and similar or superior cooling values) and put current model guts in them using channels that Apple is either uncomfortable using or is simply not feasible at the unit runs Apple would have to have.
Actually, they're testing to verify that if your admin knows what he's doing its securable as the OS is not inherently insecure by design (think Win9x for a broke by design example).
Re:Killing off the non Mac versions
on
Apple Buys Emagic
·
· Score: 2
Linux PPC on a Briq or other such device would work fine without recompilation. Also Darwin running GNUStep would be an alternate method. A McKinley emulating a G4 in software might be a third scenario and a PPC compatibility layer for Transmeta devices would be a fourth set of devices that didn't require binary recompilation.
PPCs are lower in heat and tend to have a smaller size. At a certain point of lost marketshare, Intel is going to sink to price parity and then become the more expensive solution. At that point, the el-cheapo whitebox solution will have a PPC chip in it, not an x86. 5-8 years is a lifetime in the hardware chip wars.
Since the XServe is aimed, first of all, for those Macintosh islands of creatives in corporate america as well as apple using scientific firms like genentech, Appleshare connections are very relevant indeed. I would expect that when Apple updates its UFS support to the modern spec and it gets a lot of other small details nailed cold, they'll branch out in their marketing but they're shooting for a specific target market right now and the benchmarks are relevant for that market.
I expect that when Samba 3 integrates perfectly with Active Directory, Apple is going to go after the workgroup file and print market that finds Linux too technically challenging and is sticking for the higher priced Windows solutions for that reason alone. At that point they'll have a track record and IS organizations won't be so nervous about the Apple label anymore.
That's mrq (most recent quarter). Since we're pretty much done with a quarter and they're going to report in another month with probably 7-8 cents profit that's another 25 million or so added that is in the bank but hasn't been reported yet.
Re:Killing off the non Mac versions
on
Apple Buys Emagic
·
· Score: 2
If you are worried about portability, keep an eye on GNUStep which used to be very compatible with NEXTStep and aims to remerge with Aqua/OS X Cocoa. In 5-8 years Mac OS X applications are likely to be cross platform whether they like it or not.
Actually, a EULA agreement is a legal agreement. You're looking to do a technical end run by running via crossover but that works only as long as there is no code in WMP to detect the difference and change the DRM download to something that will work in your environment. Since you've agreed, it's just a matter of time before they get around to penetrating your style of system as well.
The secular benefits of marriage (a religious act) are so well understood that it's also become a state act as well as a religious one. Social stability and lower criminality are general secular benefits of religious expression. This is why it's ok to promote belief over unbelief, it promotes the general social good. This is also why official US prayers (and we've had plenty) are all as generic/non-sectarian as possible. Promoting a particular religion is verboten, generic support of religion is not. And by the way, I've had Hindus explain their theology in the sense that there is a heirarchy of gods with the most enlightened understanding that they are all faces of one God though he chooses to split and present different aspects so you've got no problems from christians, jews, muslims, and hindus *at least* to the under God construction. Buddhists are free to mentally translate it as a flawed expression of Nirvana, nobody else will mind, etc.
What constitutes a church is in the tax code, I think 501(b)7 is the correct section but it's been awhile since I read USC 501 (about 10 years). The application is made and provisionally granted for 5 years if you do it right and then they review it at the end of the term to see whether you've gone nuts or you are acting consistent with your tax status.
Any taxation of churches would lead to the ability of a disfavored religion being shut down by punitive (100%+) taxation. That's been ruled unconstitutional and the reason that *any* of the nonprofits are exempt.
The defense is that it is not particular to one religion, that it promotes belief over unbelief, a permissible action, if not sectarian. Do muslims believe that a state should be under God? Yes. How about religious jews or christians? yep again. If you're not promoting one religion over the other, it's constitutionally kosher.
If not, I want 200 years of refunds for the chaplains salaries that never should have been authorized for the House/Senate/SC.
Actually strict segregation of religion and state has never been popular. It's always had appeal to minority elites only. Nobody wants to break the truce of religious peace between the many faiths of this country but pretty much everybody knows how to make non-sectarian prayers. When a new religion comes up with a formula that is superior in its non-sectarian nature its quite likely that the others will accomodate the new formula into their repertoire, not start a conflict over it.
Slashdot Mirror
The key to breaking down computer phobia among doctors is husband/wife doctor/technologist teams. The technologist will go mad listening to the bitching and moaning coming from the doctor half of the marriage and will push technological useage forward just to make the pain stop.
btw: I'm the technologist half of such a marriage
B-)
Actually, thumping and listening are still practiced in a lot of other countries where the money isn't plentiful to order these kinds of tests at the drop of a hat. The insurance companies would probably reduce their costs tremendously if they had annual competitions on stethescope/other old(cheap) methods of diagnosis. A few million yearly in prize money would be chump change compared to reducing the number of diagnostic tests performed because these basic skills were once again emphasized.
Doctors as a whole are likely completely unaware of this database. If you took the article and gave it to your doctor and asked him if he ever even heard of this stuff, he'd probably say no. The problem is that once doctors get out into practice they have to keep up with the current standard of care or they end up buried by lawsuits. Medicine is a fast moving profession that is getting squeezed by penny pinching govt. programs who keep reducing payments but expecting more service for the money and who *also* are even more conservative than individual doctors.
The system is in use at the DoD. Get your congressman to make it reimbursable via medicare and watch how doctor resistance to it melts away.
1 patient walks in the door and is given the most cursory of care, a simple Rx refill perscription (perhaps for a dangerous narcotic that's a controlled substance). The time spent dealing with that patient costs $20 in time and resources, mostly salaries. If you don't pay at least $20 for that, eventually, there won't be that extra nurse (laid off) to take care of you right away and you spend half an hour waiting until the overworked staff gets to you.
Care costs money no matter what the system. If it's not paid for, how anybody can stay operating is the real question. There's lots of case studies available in countries that have 'free' care. All of it is rationed in one way or another and a great deal of it is a much lower quality of care which is why most people with money to burn who can be cared anywhere fly to the US for specialized, best in the world care.
I think you misunderstand my point. It's not copyright law per se that I'm going after but the ability of the RIAA to sue and threaten anybody who wants to create technology that among legitimate uses (burn your own music or non-copyrighted music) may also have uses that are illegal (illegal copying of copyrighted works).
If there was no fear of bankruptcy by interminable lawsuit, Roxio would likely not have made this move as it is certain to hurt their own bottom line.
If the punitive lawsuits were rectified, a reasonable balance on the entire copyright discussion might ensue. As long as the massive financial resources of the RIAA/MPAA can bankrupt companies that bring legal disruptive technologies to market, the intention of the copyright clause, to advance the arts and sciences, is being perverted.
The DMCA is unconstitutional because its draconian penalties hold back the arts and sciences, the only purpose for which copyright and patent is legitimate.
No, the entire society pays and due to the payment being filtered through "I don't care" bureaucrats, the aggregate cost of medical education is generally higher there than in areas where such costs are easily identifiable and people can fight for cost savings.
The fact that the beneficiary of a service doesn't pay for that service increases the likelihood that the service is actually more expensive and will be more often wasted.
If you're working with a boob of a physician who won't give you a diagnosis, take your medical records (he's usually legally obligated to give them to you) and go elsewhere. There are plenty of OTC medicines that have warnings 'not to be taken by people who have' xyz condition. This doctor would have patients dropping all the time if he actually exists because his patients would be felled by taking medicines they wouldn't have if they knew what condition they had.
I can't imagine how such a physician would stay in practice.
Yeah, everybody knows you should leave that to the guys from Chicago.
At point 4, you could stand to go to the bathroom yourself. What gives people the right to use the state to stop other people from copying their works? The US Constitution does for the specific purpose of 'advancing the arts and sciences'. The only reason that the *temporary* monopoly exists is in order to advance the pool of knowledge and the pool of arts available to our society.
It's certainly a legitimate question whether the RIAA/MPAA actions against fair use/unsanctioned copying are advancing or hindering the arts. Are their enforcement mechanisms raising costs so much that artists are actually being paid less? There's a study that isn't going to have industry sponsorship anytime soon.
I would say that the original subject of the thread (Roxio crippling their burner program) hinders the arts and sciences by crippling the ability to copy music files whether or not such copying is legitimate (the program can't tell the difference). To the extent that Roxio is doing so under legal pressure from the RIAA, such pressure is constitutionally suspect.
When you abuse a privilege you screw it up for everybody. Rights are remain such even when people screw them up. Take a look at a majority of the US bill of rights for examples. 1st amendment heroes are very often scumbags. By your logic we should eliminate free speech on legitimate topics such as elections because some jerks distribute child porn.
No. It just doesn't fly.
http://www.sente.ch/software/GPGMail/ is probably your best front end for GPG right now. Given the limitations of encryption in various countries, I would guess that GPG would not be available in the default install until a lot more countries get their act together and remove encryption restrictions.
Then again, I'd be much more interested in a Fink GUI (which would get me GPG et al) first.
I would expect that as Apple's market shifts, its industrial design will shift too. Take a look at XServe, all brushed metal and easy to look at rack mount front plate and certainly no translucent plastic because it would be a negative for the market.
In fact, if there is any type of clone agreement that Steve Jobs might go for it would be a nice design shop that would simply design different cases in smaller runs than Apple would be comfortable doing. Imagine a 'Red Delicious, Inc.' that would simply design cases that have the same mount points as current models (and similar or superior cooling values) and put current model guts in them using channels that Apple is either uncomfortable using or is simply not feasible at the unit runs Apple would have to have.
Actually, they're testing to verify that if your admin knows what he's doing its securable as the OS is not inherently insecure by design (think Win9x for a broke by design example).
Linux PPC on a Briq or other such device would work fine without recompilation. Also Darwin running GNUStep would be an alternate method. A McKinley emulating a G4 in software might be a third scenario and a PPC compatibility layer for Transmeta devices would be a fourth set of devices that didn't require binary recompilation.
PPCs are lower in heat and tend to have a smaller size. At a certain point of lost marketshare, Intel is going to sink to price parity and then become the more expensive solution. At that point, the el-cheapo whitebox solution will have a PPC chip in it, not an x86. 5-8 years is a lifetime in the hardware chip wars.
That would be an MCSD. The cert tracks exist for programmers as well.
Since the XServe is aimed, first of all, for those Macintosh islands of creatives in corporate america as well as apple using scientific firms like genentech, Appleshare connections are very relevant indeed. I would expect that when Apple updates its UFS support to the modern spec and it gets a lot of other small details nailed cold, they'll branch out in their marketing but they're shooting for a specific target market right now and the benchmarks are relevant for that market.
I expect that when Samba 3 integrates perfectly with Active Directory, Apple is going to go after the workgroup file and print market that finds Linux too technically challenging and is sticking for the higher priced Windows solutions for that reason alone. At that point they'll have a track record and IS organizations won't be so nervous about the Apple label anymore.
That's mrq (most recent quarter). Since we're pretty much done with a quarter and they're going to report in another month with probably 7-8 cents profit that's another 25 million or so added that is in the bank but hasn't been reported yet.
If you are worried about portability, keep an eye on GNUStep which used to be very compatible with NEXTStep and aims to remerge with Aqua/OS X Cocoa. In 5-8 years Mac OS X applications are likely to be cross platform whether they like it or not.
How about killing the Windows version so that BillG doesn't think Apple's a threat and kills MS Office?
Actually, a EULA agreement is a legal agreement. You're looking to do a technical end run by running via crossover but that works only as long as there is no code in WMP to detect the difference and change the DRM download to something that will work in your environment. Since you've agreed, it's just a matter of time before they get around to penetrating your style of system as well.
The secular benefits of marriage (a religious act) are so well understood that it's also become a state act as well as a religious one. Social stability and lower criminality are general secular benefits of religious expression. This is why it's ok to promote belief over unbelief, it promotes the general social good. This is also why official US prayers (and we've had plenty) are all as generic/non-sectarian as possible. Promoting a particular religion is verboten, generic support of religion is not. And by the way, I've had Hindus explain their theology in the sense that there is a heirarchy of gods with the most enlightened understanding that they are all faces of one God though he chooses to split and present different aspects so you've got no problems from christians, jews, muslims, and hindus *at least* to the under God construction. Buddhists are free to mentally translate it as a flawed expression of Nirvana, nobody else will mind, etc.
Nice guess but wrong.
What constitutes a church is in the tax code, I think 501(b)7 is the correct section but it's been awhile since I read USC 501 (about 10 years). The application is made and provisionally granted for 5 years if you do it right and then they review it at the end of the term to see whether you've gone nuts or you are acting consistent with your tax status.
Any taxation of churches would lead to the ability of a disfavored religion being shut down by punitive (100%+) taxation. That's been ruled unconstitutional and the reason that *any* of the nonprofits are exempt.
The defense is that it is not particular to one religion, that it promotes belief over unbelief, a permissible action, if not sectarian. Do muslims believe that a state should be under God? Yes. How about religious jews or christians? yep again. If you're not promoting one religion over the other, it's constitutionally kosher.
If not, I want 200 years of refunds for the chaplains salaries that never should have been authorized for the House/Senate/SC.
Actually strict segregation of religion and state has never been popular. It's always had appeal to minority elites only. Nobody wants to break the truce of religious peace between the many faiths of this country but pretty much everybody knows how to make non-sectarian prayers. When a new religion comes up with a formula that is superior in its non-sectarian nature its quite likely that the others will accomodate the new formula into their repertoire, not start a conflict over it.
Atheists just like to pick a fight.