First of all, if you even bothered to wake up in the morning you would see that chemo treatments, even 'cures' are very, very profitable. The MBAs running the pharmaceutical companies are way smarter than you are.
Next, it is a potential treatment, nothing of a cure so even Big Evil Pharma will be joyously happy.
Third, it's just a proof-of-potential, not even a proof of concept. Dealing with the protein effects of a single point mutation, AFIR, hasn't been shown to treat any clinical cancers. In fact, this seems to be a better fit for creating an antiviral or antibiotic than a specific cancer treatment.
A parachute would really limit your maneuvering ability. You've essentially made yourself a very long pendulum. Then you have to get rid of it. And high speed parachutes aren't exactly simple tech either.
A booster is really a pretty fragile thing. It's designed to be really strong in one axis only. It also has to be lightweight. Grabassing the thing from the sides is going to make for a bunch of expensive scrap metal.
We'll see. Although I agree it is unlikely to move the ball any, he stands a lot better chance doing it this way than say, taking off his clothes and running through a mall or some other stunt. He's going to get his 15 minutes of fame (and a huge passel of legal hurt) but if some politician were to take this up and push it, he has the enormous advantage of being thrown into the world's eyeballs for the next little while. It could go viral and maybe bang on the system a little bit.
This day and age, that is a pretty significant accomplishment. Moreover, he actually sounds cogent and reasonable which is truly unusual.
You can do that one-way though. The old 'data diode' approach. IIRC, the FAA was annoyed at Boeing precisely because the 787 really did not separate the essential flight control bus from the non essential parts. Boeing engineers disagreed and it was more of a philosophical difference than anything else.
The plane manufacturers aren't stupid. They understand the risks and tradeoffs. Whether or not the FCC really needs to get involved in that is, again, philosophical.
And to the trolls that want to bring out the 'CEO bonus' approach to everything - could you all please go somewhere else?
Sure, you can simulate things, but that often takes more work than actually building it and testing it. Especially for the little gizmos we are talking about (not Boeing 777 class aircraft where it is worth several billion dollars to build up the simulation suite). Writing simulation software is hard. Collecting the physics to run the simulation software is hard. Things like Adobe Inventor and Solidworks are often a start but even these expensive programs don't have the necessary data to simulate something as complex as a quadcopter. Right now they're closer to being able to deal with Pine Derby racers and such.
I think software people sometimes forget how hard the real world is sometimes.
While you are correct, it is a bit of a distinction without a difference. In practice, they are typically created by the same company, rely on interlocking databases and use the same information. As you point out, the insurance data is actually a bit more universal than the clinical side but the big issue really isn't that the systems don't talk to each other - it is that, at least on the clinical side, they suck.
It is hard to put information in the EHR, hard to get useful information out of the EHR, hard to take care of patients. The myriad of benefits that were supposed to accrue from using EHRs just haven't panned out for the most part.
Oh, the Feds have made a difference all right. Not the good kind. Yes, they've mandated that the systems 'talk' to each other but then watered things down to where all they have to do is talk to some third party reporting system. Sometimes. But mostly the Feds have spent their time and dime making sure that EHRs collect all sorts of useless data and follow clinically irrelevant workflows. Then they spend their time changing the rules in mid stream.
So the vendors, especially the smaller ones, spend the majority of time trying to keep their systems in compliance and avoiding doing anything clinically useful. The big systems (Epic, GE, McKesson, etc) have their own issues but generally have the resources to deal with the idiots. Even amongst the big guys there is very little work done on how to integrate all of this fancy data into something useful for the clinician and patient. It's mostly just capturing everything that every happened.
The entire issue needs to be readdressed (and won't be). The 'old' system was pretty bad - spotty, inconsistent data that was impossible to read. But it was quick and easy. Worked OK if what you were doing really didn't make much of a difference, as was typical for medicine until fairly recently.
In the US, there are two overriding issues with the EHR - getting a bill out and getting a bill out. Everything else is really secondary. To get a bill out one has to follow a byzantine series of steps and (poorly documented, inconsistent) guidelines on what needs to be there and what doesn't. These guidelines change from time to time and from place to place (but we won't get into that here). The data needed for a physician bill includes a laundry list of things that are very likely completely irrelevant to patient care but have been stuck in the pile because 'more is better'.
And that was before EHRs became mandated.
Then, CMMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Security) was told by our Congressional Overlords that EHRs were good and, more important, would save money and flay the beast of fraud and waste. So with little further ado they created even MORE guidelines and rules for billing and for just being an EHR (the "Meaningful Use" rules).
Then, they put a fairly tight deadline on this. For the hundreds of smaller companies in this business and the thousands of small hospitals in the country this has been a pretty much unmitigated disaster. Crappy legacy systems bolted on to insane "Meaningful Use" systems. Vendors buying out vendors and slapping disparate and inconsistent bits together (our idiot vendor, Healthland, has the nursing home module running under Net 1.1, the main module running under 1.0 and has managed to rig it so that you can't run both on the same machine without using VMs). User Interfaces straight from the 1990's. Work flows that are a hybrid (that's the nice word) of paper and poorly designed computers.
It's kinda like trying to design an airplane using a modern computer system and an abacus.
This unholy mess has been forecast with unerring accuracy. Our malpractice carrier flat up told us that we will probably get sued on the basis of EHR mistakes. The system is going to go through a decades long period of shakeout and Sturm und Drang while this gets sorted out.
You need to get that lens (or, more accurately, the lens-camera combo) looked at. I have both the VR1 and VR2 - they are very, very close optically and, in fact at the long end the VR1 is tad better. You get vignetting and the old VR (Vibration Reduction) but it is an excellent lens on a D800.
Slashdot Mirror
It happened just after they developed systemd.
The proposed sixth extinction event happened some 250 million years ago. I don't think the Unix epoch covers that range of time.
For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.
Go take a couple of graduate level courses in paleotaxonomy. Then perhaps an introductory course in logic.
Then get back to us.
Amazing. A nice little post about an interesting NASA probe and we get conspiracy theories.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
Effective immortality will be the most lucrative product ever.
Facebook?
God, I hope not.
What does Phil have to do with all this?
Just wait until you take your kids to the pediatrician.
Much beyond physics and straight engineering, this is what you get.
And I'm not so sure of physics.
Oh shut up.
First of all, if you even bothered to wake up in the morning you would see that chemo treatments, even 'cures' are very, very profitable. The MBAs running the pharmaceutical companies are way smarter than you are.
Next, it is a potential treatment, nothing of a cure so even Big Evil Pharma will be joyously happy.
Third, it's just a proof-of-potential, not even a proof of concept. Dealing with the protein effects of a single point mutation, AFIR, hasn't been shown to treat any clinical cancers. In fact, this seems to be a better fit for creating an antiviral or antibiotic than a specific cancer treatment.
Only a billionaire can say that damage from an exploding rocket booster landing on top of something is 'minor'.
A parachute would really limit your maneuvering ability. You've essentially made yourself a very long pendulum. Then you have to get rid of it. And high speed parachutes aren't exactly simple tech either.
Rotating a thousand ton barge at 60 rpm would be interesting.
A booster is really a pretty fragile thing. It's designed to be really strong in one axis only. It also has to be lightweight. Grabassing the thing from the sides is going to make for a bunch of expensive scrap metal.
You're just jealous 'cuz you're mom won't by you a quadcopter.
Speaking about getting a life ....
We'll see. Although I agree it is unlikely to move the ball any, he stands a lot better chance doing it this way than say, taking off his clothes and running through a mall or some other stunt. He's going to get his 15 minutes of fame (and a huge passel of legal hurt) but if some politician were to take this up and push it, he has the enormous advantage of being thrown into the world's eyeballs for the next little while. It could go viral and maybe bang on the system a little bit.
This day and age, that is a pretty significant accomplishment. Moreover, he actually sounds cogent and reasonable which is truly unusual.
And they say that history doesn't repeat itself.
He's a mailman, not a computer guy. It's all the big blue "E".
"OK, hold it guys, Citizen 23408387387 just activated their vagus nerve. Something's happening. Get the team ready.,,,,"
"Ah, it's OK. He just burped."
I think not.
" what, exactly?
We shall complain about you on Slashdot.
Reddit even ...
Again.
You can do that one-way though. The old 'data diode' approach. IIRC, the FAA was annoyed at Boeing precisely because the 787 really did not separate the essential flight control bus from the non essential parts. Boeing engineers disagreed and it was more of a philosophical difference than anything else.
The plane manufacturers aren't stupid. They understand the risks and tradeoffs. Whether or not the FCC really needs to get involved in that is, again, philosophical.
And to the trolls that want to bring out the 'CEO bonus' approach to everything - could you all please go somewhere else?
If only Doritos were good at blocking gamma particles ...
Sure, you can simulate things, but that often takes more work than actually building it and testing it. Especially for the little gizmos we are talking about (not Boeing 777 class aircraft where it is worth several billion dollars to build up the simulation suite). Writing simulation software is hard. Collecting the physics to run the simulation software is hard. Things like Adobe Inventor and Solidworks are often a start but even these expensive programs don't have the necessary data to simulate something as complex as a quadcopter. Right now they're closer to being able to deal with Pine Derby racers and such.
I think software people sometimes forget how hard the real world is sometimes.
While you are correct, it is a bit of a distinction without a difference. In practice, they are typically created by the same company, rely on interlocking databases and use the same information. As you point out, the insurance data is actually a bit more universal than the clinical side but the big issue really isn't that the systems don't talk to each other - it is that, at least on the clinical side, they suck.
It is hard to put information in the EHR, hard to get useful information out of the EHR, hard to take care of patients. The myriad of benefits that were supposed to accrue from using EHRs just haven't panned out for the most part.
Oh, the Feds have made a difference all right. Not the good kind. Yes, they've mandated that the systems 'talk' to each other but then watered things down to where all they have to do is talk to some third party reporting system. Sometimes. But mostly the Feds have spent their time and dime making sure that EHRs collect all sorts of useless data and follow clinically irrelevant workflows. Then they spend their time changing the rules in mid stream.
So the vendors, especially the smaller ones, spend the majority of time trying to keep their systems in compliance and avoiding doing anything clinically useful. The big systems (Epic, GE, McKesson, etc) have their own issues but generally have the resources to deal with the idiots. Even amongst the big guys there is very little work done on how to integrate all of this fancy data into something useful for the clinician and patient. It's mostly just capturing everything that every happened.
And printing it out on paper.
The entire issue needs to be readdressed (and won't be). The 'old' system was pretty bad - spotty, inconsistent data that was impossible to read. But it was quick and easy. Worked OK if what you were doing really didn't make much of a difference, as was typical for medicine until fairly recently.
In the US, there are two overriding issues with the EHR - getting a bill out and getting a bill out. Everything else is really secondary. To get a bill out one has to follow a byzantine series of steps and (poorly documented, inconsistent) guidelines on what needs to be there and what doesn't. These guidelines change from time to time and from place to place (but we won't get into that here). The data needed for a physician bill includes a laundry list of things that are very likely completely irrelevant to patient care but have been stuck in the pile because 'more is better'.
And that was before EHRs became mandated.
Then, CMMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Security) was told by our Congressional Overlords that EHRs were good and, more important, would save money and flay the beast of fraud and waste. So with little further ado they created even MORE guidelines and rules for billing and for just being an EHR (the "Meaningful Use" rules).
Then, they put a fairly tight deadline on this. For the hundreds of smaller companies in this business and the thousands of small hospitals in the country this has been a pretty much unmitigated disaster. Crappy legacy systems bolted on to insane "Meaningful Use" systems. Vendors buying out vendors and slapping disparate and inconsistent bits together (our idiot vendor, Healthland, has the nursing home module running under Net 1.1, the main module running under 1.0 and has managed to rig it so that you can't run both on the same machine without using VMs). User Interfaces straight from the 1990's. Work flows that are a hybrid (that's the nice word) of paper and poorly designed computers.
It's kinda like trying to design an airplane using a modern computer system and an abacus.
This unholy mess has been forecast with unerring accuracy. Our malpractice carrier flat up told us that we will probably get sued on the basis of EHR mistakes. The system is going to go through a decades long period of shakeout and Sturm und Drang while this gets sorted out.
Sucks to be us, I suppose.
You need to get that lens (or, more accurately, the lens-camera combo) looked at. I have both the VR1 and VR2 - they are very, very close optically and, in fact at the long end the VR1 is tad better. You get vignetting and the old VR (Vibration Reduction) but it is an excellent lens on a D800.