Hah... and so far, nobody noticed my gaffe regarding the Apple II -- 1-2-3 actually ran on the IBM PC XT IIRC; it'd been reading too many other comments and TFS and got sucked into a reality distortion field.
Interesting that you should raise the FDIV bug (which was discovered via an Excel spreadsheet IIRC, didn't read the wiki page) -- I seem to recall there was some rounding error that hit excel spreadsheets later on in life too, where the rounding rules differed in two parts of the cell operations, so that you could have data that became more inaccurate each time the page was run.
You can always leave it; romantic relationships are not a divine right. I'm a proponent of "do lots of group activities and develop relationships based on commonality, some of which may become romantic" -- traditional/e-dating tends to be a shortcut, and like most shortcuts, has its own hazards.
Arranged marriage tends to have just as high a success ratio as marriages based on formal dating. Just saying.
VisiCalc was from 1979. In 1982, Lotus 1-2-3 was born. It ran well on the Apple II. That's 32 years, not 30 years. Lotus 1-2-3 includes the bits that were supposed to go into VisiCalc's front end and presentation modules, but were rejected. Excel was 1984, and was released for the Mac. In 1986, Lotus bought VisiCalc. In 1987, when MS DOS 3 was released, Excel 2.0 was ported to it and was one of the flagship packages. IBM bought Lotus in 1995, same year that Excel became a flagship Office product for Windows 95.
Quattro, Foxbase, etc. are kind of a footnote to this.
Not only that, but an area that's getting regular 3.5 quakes (although Richter went out of style a long time ago -- what kind of quakes are these?) is probably an area that's got nicely slipping plates and is unlikely to have "the big one". Unlike places like say, Seattle, which will eventually be devastated by a major quake. Regular quakes also mean that their infrastructure is likely set up to deal with quakes, which is also a plus. As long as they aren't putting the thing on oceanfront property or directly on the fault line on the subsiding side of the plate, seems like a pretty good place to put it.
So I'm not at all surprised to learn that doctors are resorting to faxing records. It's almost certainly easier than trying to exchange them digitally.
I thought all faxes were transmitted and received digitally... for the past 20 years. Are there still people storing them on paper?
Normal Facsimile workflow is like this: 1) person pulls up the records, saves them as PDF 2) Person "prints" PDF to fax 3) PDF is converted to CCITT-compatible TIFF format, which is then 4) transmitted as a high quality fax (we're not talking the old 30dpi ones anymore) 5) Recipient's fax machine gets the fax with header info, saves it as PDF and emails it to the appropriate local recipient 6) PDF is saved from email, possibly printed if needed, and filed via the local EMR.
And this is why the data you're looking for is in the hospital's EMR as a PDF: it was received by fax.
Any solution that's going to change this workflow is going to need to handle TIFF and PDF formats, with ClearText-style OCR. That way, people can still use the fax workflow as an alternative to digital data transmission. The system also has to have the ability to pull up the original PDFs in the cases where the OCR failed.
It'll then take at LEAST 5-10 years for the new digital transmission system to work out the kinks and gain enough momentum to retire the old workflow completely.
...which means if it "can't be done" then you can sue the healthcare provider AND Epic for failing to comply with HIPAA. Since it's a federal offense, you don't even have to foot the bill yourself.
It must be truly horrendous software if the data store is slaved to the UI.
In a system like this, the interface should be easily rewritten by anyone who wants to, and just talk to the back end using a Standard Query Language.
This is a problem that has been solved many times, and yet you STILL get companies like this who have cornered the market with a solution that's 30 years out of date.
When a replacement system is created, it should at least be backed by a public key infrastructure and use two-factor authentication. It should use a standard back-end database with an open tokenization system, a validation system, and logical data typing.
Otherwise, it's really not much better than digital faxes or email with some analysis software tacked on the front with a pretty UI.
The other bit of information that's in TFS is that this key-logger is sending the logged information in clear-text to a third party.
Let me repeat that: it's sending keystrokes in the clear to a third party.
At this point, it doesn't really matter who it's aimed at, who is supposed to read the information, etc. If keystrokes are being logged and the data is being sent in the clear, then that pretty much means you've got a major security hole in your network. Even if malware authors don't exploit it, it makes ComputerCOP a juicy target for "hackers" worldwide, and it also places employees of the service under undue responsibility to keep your information safe.
This stuff appears to be more shoddily constructed than the key-loggers dropped by the likes of the Zeus bot-net. Think about that.
Yup -- I've always counted myself lucky that I've never had a corner drop -- for me, the iDevices aren't a problem for bending so much as they are for corner impact for the front glass -- I see a lot of devices with the crazed cracks reaching out from a corner of the device. Much more of an issue than any bending that may occur.
Applying a point of pressure in the middle tests general structural integrity. It won't test any specific cutout areas that well (like the volume buttons), but as a general stress test, it does quite well, especially as the testers do continual repeated tests, not just one test in the center. They're testing for materials fatigue and deformation due to torque, as well as impact. Good general test.
But I agree; they should also be testing potential weak points to see how they perform. I'd expect them to do significantly better, as the structure is much more rigid but with the same tensile strength near the edges (less leverage).
Also true for if a 250lb man puts it in his back pocket... unless he also happens to put a ball bearing in his back pocket and then applies all his weight to that one precise spot.
Really... a person's weight != the force placed on a specific spot on an object a person has in their pocket. The entire reason we sit down is to distribute the force along our hips and thighs.
You might have a point if people were standing on their iPhones while they were suspended between two bricks.
Of course, what worried me (and this is where you can get a legit comparison) is that a six year old kid or a medium size dog CAN generate 150lb of force pretty easily.
Here's one data point for you: I've carried an un-protected iPod Touch 4g in my back pocket since around 2010 -- no scratches, no bends. The thing is about the same thickness as the iPhone 6 (0.26 in thick vs iPhone 0.27 in), and only a slightly smaller form factor. I've only come close to putting 50lbs of force on a single point a few times (landing on a pointy rock) -- result was that it got some stuck pixels for a few days that eventually returned to normal.
It was my understanding that if you want "complete" control, you still need to use ObjC, and that Swift was for dashboards, things previously known as WebApps, and other lightweight situations where you aren't actually doing anything novel, just packaging an interface to a datastore or moving sprites around.
That said, Swift is just as good on inheritance as ObjC, and does garbage collection correctly (benefits of a CLR).
ObjC has been tuned to OS X/iOS, and if you write in ObjC, you should be able to make a single back end that's easily portable to OS X as well as iOS; Swift would be more for iOS only.
I really do like the real-time iteration available in Swift though.
That said, my opinion must be crap, because I'm older than Java too:D I still like Pascal and Common LISP, but wouldn't write a modern application in them (flashback to writing Avara mods in the 90's using ClarisWorks). Most stuff I write these days is in C or Python.
If a company can do it, I can. Its just a person after all.
True and not true: anyone can become an LLC. However, not just everyone has their own time slot to lobby the government. THAT's what lets them do it.
If a reporter has some right, so do I.
Reporter's rights these days come down to two things: 1) press card and 2) demonstration after you're already in court that you were acting as a journalist at the time. These days, that's not even standing up as a defense for some journalists with a press card, so you're right -- reporters have the same rights you do, and they'll be ignored in the same ways.
Given tax breaks to movies and the NFL, there is so much free content out there. Govt sponsored = crown copyright = no copyright.
You just leaked your commonwealthness there -- the US doesn't have crown copyright, as they rejected the crown for a republic.
I think you missed a bit of the strategy; the sales guys don't care if something was wrong, as long as the engineers fix it. What they don't want is for THEM to be wrong. The product? Not so much....
Doh... silly me. I even prefer tcsh; it took me years to get used to bash on other platforms.
And from the looks of things, the bug is not in tcsh, which follows the more sane (to me) csh method of storing environment variables. Zsh, however, IS suscpetible to the bug, in at least some situations.
People just like to play the 'My (object) is better than yours!" playground game.
Well, to be fair, Flash plugin support IS a bug in IE. And Apple actually has bash as part of the vanilla install -- attacks against it can be made against an install that's just completed -- so Apple is in some way at fault for bundling a default shell that isn't fully hardened.
The big question is: How does OpenBSD fare with this?
You're right -- it depends upon how it was done. If they were just surveying an area where there were rumours of expensive houses, and then cross-referenced that against actual claims, that should be fine. If they were taking the claims of all rich people with undeveloped land and visiting those areas to see if the land was actually undeveloped, that wouldn't be a survey, that'd be an investigation.
Of course, in either case, it'd be legal. The only way it wouldn't be was if they were intentionally targeting an individual in any way they could (like the US did with Al Capone).
I think the stuff at the end is fairly close to photorealistic, assuming the photo is low-resolution. What it *isn't* is camera-realistic. Their camera engine uses pans and zooms that in no way reflect how a physical camera would move through real space -- this makes the entire effect look fake.
What they needed to do to make the demo a "wow" demo is put the camera inside the physics engine, and give it the mass and movement of a real camera. The results would have been much better.
The one bit of the video where I thought "hey, that's actually decent" was on the zoom-in on the stair tread, as the zoom was similar to what you'd get on a camera on a tripod, and the stair looked pretty photorealistic. For the rest, our brains enter the "uncanny valley" not because of the images presented, but because of the surreal way they are presented.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
No:)
Country restrictions don't have to do with broadcast/streaming rights, they have to do with copyright. Streaming is MORE scary to the broadcasters than broadcasting, as they have less control over it. So arguing that "not broadcasting" -> no country restrictions is actually the opposite of what the broadcasters would be likely to decide. They want MORE restrictive licenses for online streaming than for broadcast distribution where they can easily license the few players in each region.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah... and so far, nobody noticed my gaffe regarding the Apple II -- 1-2-3 actually ran on the IBM PC XT IIRC; it'd been reading too many other comments and TFS and got sucked into a reality distortion field.
Interesting that you should raise the FDIV bug (which was discovered via an Excel spreadsheet IIRC, didn't read the wiki page) -- I seem to recall there was some rounding error that hit excel spreadsheets later on in life too, where the rounding rules differed in two parts of the cell operations, so that you could have data that became more inaccurate each time the page was run.
You can always leave it; romantic relationships are not a divine right. I'm a proponent of "do lots of group activities and develop relationships based on commonality, some of which may become romantic" -- traditional/e-dating tends to be a shortcut, and like most shortcuts, has its own hazards.
Arranged marriage tends to have just as high a success ratio as marriages based on formal dating. Just saying.
But then what would I run on Novell NetWare???
Thay're talking 30 years ago -- that'd be 1984.
VisiCalc was from 1979. In 1982, Lotus 1-2-3 was born. It ran well on the Apple II. That's 32 years, not 30 years. Lotus 1-2-3 includes the bits that were supposed to go into VisiCalc's front end and presentation modules, but were rejected. Excel was 1984, and was released for the Mac. In 1986, Lotus bought VisiCalc. In 1987, when MS DOS 3 was released, Excel 2.0 was ported to it and was one of the flagship packages. IBM bought Lotus in 1995, same year that Excel became a flagship Office product for Windows 95.
Quattro, Foxbase, etc. are kind of a footnote to this.
Not only that, but an area that's getting regular 3.5 quakes (although Richter went out of style a long time ago -- what kind of quakes are these?) is probably an area that's got nicely slipping plates and is unlikely to have "the big one". Unlike places like say, Seattle, which will eventually be devastated by a major quake. Regular quakes also mean that their infrastructure is likely set up to deal with quakes, which is also a plus. As long as they aren't putting the thing on oceanfront property or directly on the fault line on the subsiding side of the plate, seems like a pretty good place to put it.
So I'm not at all surprised to learn that doctors are resorting to faxing records. It's almost certainly easier than trying to exchange them digitally.
I thought all faxes were transmitted and received digitally... for the past 20 years. Are there still people storing them on paper?
Normal Facsimile workflow is like this:
1) person pulls up the records, saves them as PDF
2) Person "prints" PDF to fax
3) PDF is converted to CCITT-compatible TIFF format, which is then
4) transmitted as a high quality fax (we're not talking the old 30dpi ones anymore)
5) Recipient's fax machine gets the fax with header info, saves it as PDF and emails it to the appropriate local recipient
6) PDF is saved from email, possibly printed if needed, and filed via the local EMR.
And this is why the data you're looking for is in the hospital's EMR as a PDF: it was received by fax.
Any solution that's going to change this workflow is going to need to handle TIFF and PDF formats, with ClearText-style OCR. That way, people can still use the fax workflow as an alternative to digital data transmission. The system also has to have the ability to pull up the original PDFs in the cases where the OCR failed.
It'll then take at LEAST 5-10 years for the new digital transmission system to work out the kinks and gain enough momentum to retire the old workflow completely.
...which means if it "can't be done" then you can sue the healthcare provider AND Epic for failing to comply with HIPAA. Since it's a federal offense, you don't even have to foot the bill yourself.
It must be truly horrendous software if the data store is slaved to the UI.
In a system like this, the interface should be easily rewritten by anyone who wants to, and just talk to the back end using a Standard Query Language.
This is a problem that has been solved many times, and yet you STILL get companies like this who have cornered the market with a solution that's 30 years out of date.
When a replacement system is created, it should at least be backed by a public key infrastructure and use two-factor authentication. It should use a standard back-end database with an open tokenization system, a validation system, and logical data typing.
Otherwise, it's really not much better than digital faxes or email with some analysis software tacked on the front with a pretty UI.
Invoke eminent domain to seize the right to share the data, for the common good of citizens health and safety
Mod parent up. This is actually a good idea -- and it'll scare companies into interoperation like fines will never do.
The other bit of information that's in TFS is that this key-logger is sending the logged information in clear-text to a third party.
Let me repeat that: it's sending keystrokes in the clear to a third party.
At this point, it doesn't really matter who it's aimed at, who is supposed to read the information, etc. If keystrokes are being logged and the data is being sent in the clear, then that pretty much means you've got a major security hole in your network. Even if malware authors don't exploit it, it makes ComputerCOP a juicy target for "hackers" worldwide, and it also places employees of the service under undue responsibility to keep your information safe.
This stuff appears to be more shoddily constructed than the key-loggers dropped by the likes of the Zeus bot-net. Think about that.
Yup -- I've always counted myself lucky that I've never had a corner drop -- for me, the iDevices aren't a problem for bending so much as they are for corner impact for the front glass -- I see a lot of devices with the crazed cracks reaching out from a corner of the device. Much more of an issue than any bending that may occur.
You mean the G. W. O. U. S's? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable.
Applying a point of pressure in the middle tests general structural integrity. It won't test any specific cutout areas that well (like the volume buttons), but as a general stress test, it does quite well, especially as the testers do continual repeated tests, not just one test in the center. They're testing for materials fatigue and deformation due to torque, as well as impact. Good general test.
But I agree; they should also be testing potential weak points to see how they perform. I'd expect them to do significantly better, as the structure is much more rigid but with the same tensile strength near the edges (less leverage).
Also true for if a 250lb man puts it in his back pocket... unless he also happens to put a ball bearing in his back pocket and then applies all his weight to that one precise spot.
Really... a person's weight != the force placed on a specific spot on an object a person has in their pocket. The entire reason we sit down is to distribute the force along our hips and thighs.
You might have a point if people were standing on their iPhones while they were suspended between two bricks.
Of course, what worried me (and this is where you can get a legit comparison) is that a six year old kid or a medium size dog CAN generate 150lb of force pretty easily.
Here's one data point for you: I've carried an un-protected iPod Touch 4g in my back pocket since around 2010 -- no scratches, no bends. The thing is about the same thickness as the iPhone 6 (0.26 in thick vs iPhone 0.27 in), and only a slightly smaller form factor. I've only come close to putting 50lbs of force on a single point a few times (landing on a pointy rock) -- result was that it got some stuck pixels for a few days that eventually returned to normal.
It was my understanding that if you want "complete" control, you still need to use ObjC, and that Swift was for dashboards, things previously known as WebApps, and other lightweight situations where you aren't actually doing anything novel, just packaging an interface to a datastore or moving sprites around.
That said, Swift is just as good on inheritance as ObjC, and does garbage collection correctly (benefits of a CLR).
ObjC has been tuned to OS X/iOS, and if you write in ObjC, you should be able to make a single back end that's easily portable to OS X as well as iOS; Swift would be more for iOS only.
I really do like the real-time iteration available in Swift though.
That said, my opinion must be crap, because I'm older than Java too :D I still like Pascal and Common LISP, but wouldn't write a modern application in them (flashback to writing Avara mods in the 90's using ClarisWorks). Most stuff I write these days is in C or Python.
Sure they did... they've got backup airspace all over the US.
A good reading of what he's saying, and why it's wrong, is available here:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Yeah; it took two days to show up on slashdot after getting covered there.
If a company can do it, I can. Its just a person after all.
True and not true: anyone can become an LLC. However, not just everyone has their own time slot to lobby the government. THAT's what lets them do it.
If a reporter has some right, so do I.
Reporter's rights these days come down to two things: 1) press card and 2) demonstration after you're already in court that you were acting as a journalist at the time. These days, that's not even standing up as a defense for some journalists with a press card, so you're right -- reporters have the same rights you do, and they'll be ignored in the same ways.
Given tax breaks to movies and the NFL, there is so much free content out there. Govt sponsored = crown copyright = no copyright.
You just leaked your commonwealthness there -- the US doesn't have crown copyright, as they rejected the crown for a republic.
I think you missed a bit of the strategy; the sales guys don't care if something was wrong, as long as the engineers fix it. What they don't want is for THEM to be wrong. The product? Not so much....
Doh... silly me. I even prefer tcsh; it took me years to get used to bash on other platforms.
And from the looks of things, the bug is not in tcsh, which follows the more sane (to me) csh method of storing environment variables. Zsh, however, IS suscpetible to the bug, in at least some situations.
Happens to MS all the time..
Every flash failure is reported as a bug in IE...
People just like to play the 'My (object) is better than yours!" playground game.
Well, to be fair, Flash plugin support IS a bug in IE. And Apple actually has bash as part of the vanilla install -- attacks against it can be made against an install that's just completed -- so Apple is in some way at fault for bundling a default shell that isn't fully hardened.
The big question is: How does OpenBSD fare with this?
You're right -- it depends upon how it was done. If they were just surveying an area where there were rumours of expensive houses, and then cross-referenced that against actual claims, that should be fine. If they were taking the claims of all rich people with undeveloped land and visiting those areas to see if the land was actually undeveloped, that wouldn't be a survey, that'd be an investigation.
Of course, in either case, it'd be legal. The only way it wouldn't be was if they were intentionally targeting an individual in any way they could (like the US did with Al Capone).
Lesson: don't file fraudulent returns.
To be fair, there's no sea between most of the USA and Canada.... but people should be demanding the government go open source anyway.
I think the stuff at the end is fairly close to photorealistic, assuming the photo is low-resolution. What it *isn't* is camera-realistic. Their camera engine uses pans and zooms that in no way reflect how a physical camera would move through real space -- this makes the entire effect look fake.
What they needed to do to make the demo a "wow" demo is put the camera inside the physics engine, and give it the mass and movement of a real camera. The results would have been much better.
The one bit of the video where I thought "hey, that's actually decent" was on the zoom-in on the stair tread, as the zoom was similar to what you'd get on a camera on a tripod, and the stair looked pretty photorealistic. For the rest, our brains enter the "uncanny valley" not because of the images presented, but because of the surreal way they are presented.
If this is successfully argued, could it then be argued that there is no reason why there are any country restrictions on streaming any sort of media since it isn't "broadcasting"?
No :)
Country restrictions don't have to do with broadcast/streaming rights, they have to do with copyright. Streaming is MORE scary to the broadcasters than broadcasting, as they have less control over it. So arguing that "not broadcasting" -> no country restrictions is actually the opposite of what the broadcasters would be likely to decide. They want MORE restrictive licenses for online streaming than for broadcast distribution where they can easily license the few players in each region.