. . . is that you don't need to change historical data. There is a hard, day forward switchover date in October 2013.
The lookup problem is that there is not a one to one relationship between the old codes and the new ones. The lookup would need to contain a level of intelligence that just simply isn't contained anywhere within the context of the data set. This means that every level needs to comply to get the data. You don't just need the space for the correct number of digits, or add logic to append a "19" or "20" in front of your year.
- The doctor needs to be retrained (NOT an easy task since many already "know" everything they will ever need to know) to record the information from the encounter with the patient.
- Then the coder needs to select the right codes (assuming the system they use can even handle the new codes).
- The billing system needs to be capable of transmitting the new codes (new EDI x-12 rules go into effect in Jan 2012 to support this)
- The payer's claim system need to be able to store the new codes
- The contract between payer and provider on what amount will be paid for what service needs to be completely rewritten
- The payer's examiners / adjudication process must be able to interpret the codes vs. the treatment codes to decide whether to pay the claim at all (Diagnosis = stubbed toe: treatment = removed kidney. . . no pay)
I think this is year 9 or so for me as a paying customer of mlb.com. I will say that Microsoft did a decent job for them a few years back when they switched from Realplayer the Windows Media Player. Maybe the relationship and history of performing had something do to with getting Silverlight in the first place.
A few posters have suggested that it was arm twisting / bribes etc. that got Silverlight in the door, but so often it is the same way as anyone buys anything. Microsoft told them they would perform just like they have in the past. They did not. Kudos to mlb.com for not being afraid to go with what gives their users a consistent experience instead of going with the status quo. The new player is fast and stable so far with one day under my belt. I don't really like the way they present the information, but I am used to running the Yahoo gameday for the stats while I listen to the game in mlb.com anyway so I can live with that.
While these seem like they have a lot of promise for making great leaps when it comes to efficiently generating light, I don't think they scale downwards very well. Yes, a 250 watt one of these makes the same amount of light in lumens that it takes 500, 1000 watts or more for other efficient bulbs to make. The good news here is that this technology makes a case for for the lumens per watt crown. The thing is that you are still using 250 watts. If you don't need say 35,000 lumens to read by, I don't think you can make the technology work at say 25 watts. Maybe you can make a 500 watt one if you need more, but I suspect there is a floor that these things need to operate. Maybe someone can straighten me out if I am wrong.
Since we have laws against spying on our own citizens, lets just outsource it! Putting the almighty United Nations in charge of "Internet surveillance" allows foreigners to legally check the IP addresses of the sites I visit and then report back as an independent secret publication to interested parties in the US.
"Mondak is indecent because he looks at pr0n" Or how about a circumstantial case like "Mondak was looked at websites on powertools and phone switches over the last month and therefore must have been guilty of the crime committed on X day". Great news
Can you go ahead and email me when it fails...yeah that would be great.
I have the wherewithal to come up with such a study, I just would not actually carry it through. At some point I would get bored of it and forget to play it once a quarter. Then the whole thing goes down the tubes.
My thoughts exactly. I liked the show and thought the characters were compelling. That being said, I have not watched a single episode this season. Moving it to Friday was just as good as killing it. I watch very little TV on Fridays and I have to imagine that is the same of many in their target demo.
Even hard core geeks have to find some time to play D&D. I would think Friday night would be as convenient for them as it is for me to go out boozing.
I have been struggling with my vote for November for some time now. I think I have finally come to terms with the fact that I am not voting for Bush or Kerry, but I am having trouble with a vote for Badnarik. I consider myself a Libertarian but I am afraid that Badnarik's focus is wrong and I would love to hear his response and thoughts on the party in general.
Mainly, I think his focus on pot is disproportionate to the other problems of the country. I am not a pot smoker or drug user although the idea of legalizing it does appeal to me on most levels. The thing is that it appears to me that the Libertarian party can be viewed as the "Legalize It" party. I really think we have bigger fish to fry and don't want to send the wrong message with my vote and my frustration level with the government.
Democrats seem to complain about Nader stealing votes from them in 2000, but instead I believe in taking responsibility rather than assigning blame. If the democrats want those votes back, what has the Democratic Party done to court those who voted for Nader last time. Do they address the issues those folks are most concerned with better? Instead of sitting around and blaming Nader, what have they done to change and fix the problem?
I read an article on the Prohibition Party from 1916 & 1920. After having votes "siphoned off" from traditional republicans, the republicans adopted the prohibition stance in the next election won those voters and won the election.
If I can vote for a Libertarian candidate and the Republicans see enough votes there to try and listen to figure out how they can earn those votes, I don't want to have the message be that we need to legalize. I want my 3rd party vote to say "I'm frustrated / I am fed up with invasions of privacy / I am sick of out of control spending". I think if Badnarik got any decent percentage, it would send the message if anyone was in fact trying to figure out how to change of "the people want to smoke weed". As such I am thinking about writing in someone like McCain or Giuliani as a protest vote.
When my AT&T TDMA Cell phone rings or I am on a call in my house, all the speakers in my house including those on my computer, TV and Surround Sound system get a large amount of interference. There is even a "blip" of interference when I send a SMS message.
Because I also have a Verizon CDMA phone and my wife has a AT&T GSM phone, I know that these phones do not cause the same interference. I wonder if the TDMA protocol puts out signifigantly more RF Interference than others or if that interference produced is simply on a wavelength that is more noticeable since it interferes with most speakers. Anyone?
....US State Department official told reporters, calling the deal a "landmark" accord that would reap "profound benefits" for both the United States and Europe in the highly competitive satellite positioning market.
I am having trouble figuring out how this market is highly competitive. There is one system today and it is free to use. Where is the competition? I don't understand this official's point of view.
From what I understand, this is not really due to the spectrum itself, but the quality of components used when building the equipment such as your broadband modem.
For example, a Microwave operates at 2ghz. If your hardware used cheap filters (like capacitors) when they contructed your device, these signals can interfere. If they spent the money up front on good components, they would not have this problem. It is really only a matter of a few cents when choosing components, but so many times - especially when dealing with the consumer market - there is price pressure on what the finished product has to cost. They shave in every area they can including the filters that make sure microwaves and cordless phones do not interfere.
The same thing can happen at 5ghz as well if the hardware is not correctly specified.
Slashdot Mirror
The defense of Liberty is often spent in the company of scoundrels. . .
. . . is that you don't need to change historical data. There is a hard, day forward switchover date in October 2013. The lookup problem is that there is not a one to one relationship between the old codes and the new ones. The lookup would need to contain a level of intelligence that just simply isn't contained anywhere within the context of the data set. This means that every level needs to comply to get the data. You don't just need the space for the correct number of digits, or add logic to append a "19" or "20" in front of your year. - The doctor needs to be retrained (NOT an easy task since many already "know" everything they will ever need to know) to record the information from the encounter with the patient. - Then the coder needs to select the right codes (assuming the system they use can even handle the new codes). - The billing system needs to be capable of transmitting the new codes (new EDI x-12 rules go into effect in Jan 2012 to support this) - The payer's claim system need to be able to store the new codes - The contract between payer and provider on what amount will be paid for what service needs to be completely rewritten - The payer's examiners / adjudication process must be able to interpret the codes vs. the treatment codes to decide whether to pay the claim at all (Diagnosis = stubbed toe: treatment = removed kidney. . . no pay)
I think this is year 9 or so for me as a paying customer of mlb.com. I will say that Microsoft did a decent job for them a few years back when they switched from Realplayer the Windows Media Player. Maybe the relationship and history of performing had something do to with getting Silverlight in the first place. A few posters have suggested that it was arm twisting / bribes etc. that got Silverlight in the door, but so often it is the same way as anyone buys anything. Microsoft told them they would perform just like they have in the past. They did not. Kudos to mlb.com for not being afraid to go with what gives their users a consistent experience instead of going with the status quo. The new player is fast and stable so far with one day under my belt. I don't really like the way they present the information, but I am used to running the Yahoo gameday for the stats while I listen to the game in mlb.com anyway so I can live with that.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
While these seem like they have a lot of promise for making great leaps when it comes to efficiently generating light, I don't think they scale downwards very well. Yes, a 250 watt one of these makes the same amount of light in lumens that it takes 500, 1000 watts or more for other efficient bulbs to make. The good news here is that this technology makes a case for for the lumens per watt crown. The thing is that you are still using 250 watts. If you don't need say 35,000 lumens to read by, I don't think you can make the technology work at say 25 watts. Maybe you can make a 500 watt one if you need more, but I suspect there is a floor that these things need to operate. Maybe someone can straighten me out if I am wrong.
Well said! You sound like a person who has recently read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand
Lets face it, Mother Teresa liked what she did. She didn't do it for them, she did it for herself.
Since we have laws against spying on our own citizens, lets just outsource it! Putting the almighty United Nations in charge of "Internet surveillance" allows foreigners to legally check the IP addresses of the sites I visit and then report back as an independent secret publication to interested parties in the US. "Mondak is indecent because he looks at pr0n" Or how about a circumstantial case like "Mondak was looked at websites on powertools and phone switches over the last month and therefore must have been guilty of the crime committed on X day". Great news
It looks like everyone bagged on you for this, but I apprecite being able to see it early in any quality. Thanks for the effort and sharing.
Can you go ahead and email me when it fails...yeah that would be great. I have the wherewithal to come up with such a study, I just would not actually carry it through. At some point I would get bored of it and forget to play it once a quarter. Then the whole thing goes down the tubes.
My thoughts exactly. I liked the show and thought the characters were compelling. That being said, I have not watched a single episode this season. Moving it to Friday was just as good as killing it. I watch very little TV on Fridays and I have to imagine that is the same of many in their target demo. Even hard core geeks have to find some time to play D&D. I would think Friday night would be as convenient for them as it is for me to go out boozing.
I have been struggling with my vote for November for some time now. I think I have finally come to terms with the fact that I am not voting for Bush or Kerry, but I am having trouble with a vote for Badnarik. I consider myself a Libertarian but I am afraid that Badnarik's focus is wrong and I would love to hear his response and thoughts on the party in general. Mainly, I think his focus on pot is disproportionate to the other problems of the country. I am not a pot smoker or drug user although the idea of legalizing it does appeal to me on most levels. The thing is that it appears to me that the Libertarian party can be viewed as the "Legalize It" party. I really think we have bigger fish to fry and don't want to send the wrong message with my vote and my frustration level with the government. Democrats seem to complain about Nader stealing votes from them in 2000, but instead I believe in taking responsibility rather than assigning blame. If the democrats want those votes back, what has the Democratic Party done to court those who voted for Nader last time. Do they address the issues those folks are most concerned with better? Instead of sitting around and blaming Nader, what have they done to change and fix the problem? I read an article on the Prohibition Party from 1916 & 1920. After having votes "siphoned off" from traditional republicans, the republicans adopted the prohibition stance in the next election won those voters and won the election. If I can vote for a Libertarian candidate and the Republicans see enough votes there to try and listen to figure out how they can earn those votes, I don't want to have the message be that we need to legalize. I want my 3rd party vote to say "I'm frustrated / I am fed up with invasions of privacy / I am sick of out of control spending". I think if Badnarik got any decent percentage, it would send the message if anyone was in fact trying to figure out how to change of "the people want to smoke weed". As such I am thinking about writing in someone like McCain or Giuliani as a protest vote.
When my AT&T TDMA Cell phone rings or I am on a call in my house, all the speakers in my house including those on my computer, TV and Surround Sound system get a large amount of interference. There is even a "blip" of interference when I send a SMS message. Because I also have a Verizon CDMA phone and my wife has a AT&T GSM phone, I know that these phones do not cause the same interference. I wonder if the TDMA protocol puts out signifigantly more RF Interference than others or if that interference produced is simply on a wavelength that is more noticeable since it interferes with most speakers. Anyone?
....US State Department official told reporters, calling the deal a "landmark" accord that would reap "profound benefits" for both the United States and Europe in the highly competitive satellite positioning market. I am having trouble figuring out how this market is highly competitive. There is one system today and it is free to use. Where is the competition? I don't understand this official's point of view.
From what I understand, this is not really due to the spectrum itself, but the quality of components used when building the equipment such as your broadband modem. For example, a Microwave operates at 2ghz. If your hardware used cheap filters (like capacitors) when they contructed your device, these signals can interfere. If they spent the money up front on good components, they would not have this problem. It is really only a matter of a few cents when choosing components, but so many times - especially when dealing with the consumer market - there is price pressure on what the finished product has to cost. They shave in every area they can including the filters that make sure microwaves and cordless phones do not interfere. The same thing can happen at 5ghz as well if the hardware is not correctly specified.