lets say i want to write a classical orchestra piece and use electric guitars and drums in the music. of course it would be classical, but the extra technology would need attention to it.
so basically saying, a new technology does not affect how an artist creates its work is like saying, if michelangelo would have worked on a wacom tablet, it would still be michelangelo. it would and it wouldn't.
everything you use takes up some space in your production. having 3d on the set affects how you take your shots, how you emphasize certain things or which angles you take. so yes, 3d does have its effects on the final movie.
otherwise viewing it in 3d would make not much difference.
creating a 3d blockbuster needs you to use the effects of 3d to scare or make the viewer wonder about certain scenes. imagine jaws being shot in modern 3d. the movie would consist of different scenes alltogether.
however, if the effect is negative or positive, is a different question. some movies may only be "watchable" because of the 3d part. others may be good with or without 3d.
I believe peter jackson can do it right. he knows, that by making a movie, he wants to tell a story. he does want to bring certain emotions to the viewer. I think the fear of using 3d has valid claims about the quality being influenced by that decision in negative ways. however, i think, it can also be positive overall.
There is no improvement without risk. 3D is not just an improvement. It does influence the movie-making. However it can be an improvement. Avatar was fairly watchable without 3d, while alice was just boring without it.
Besides cutting crime, there is also a medical aspect:
Marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco and alcohol (and addiction may be also correlated with tobacco usage). It does have a lot of medical purposes (but mostly only given in capsules), some of them however, like small doses e.g. helping OCD or AD(H)S-people to focus (instead of the very bad drug ritalin - which is one of the best selling medical drugs and is prescribed in the states way too often) are mostly not researched and proven, so you dont get it on prescription even in countries, where medical use is legal. This could change with legalization.
For a recreational uses, it has very little lasting side effects. Everybody knows, that creative people tend to smoke pot. Most people have their usage under control, like with alcohol.
It has some side effects however. There is a percentage of people who can become chronic users - mostly young people, or people with latent psychological problems (but sometimes in that case, it even helps psychotic people regulate their life in some way -hard to judge). Young brains should not be exposed to marijuana (like you should not take Aspirin as a kid because of Reye Syndrome). Regulating legal selling would make it harder to acquire it as a youngster on the black market, since it would be less profitable to deal with marijuana. Chronic usage is mostly dangerous because roughly said marijuana can suppress the natural ability to be curious over time which is essential in your teenage years to fully develop.
Even people who are against marijuana do sometimes support legalization: even if usage as a drug may be not good for your life, which can be a valid opinion, learning how to use the drug by legalizing it and therefore enlighten the population about it may help reduce chronic addiction. Which is the worst thing you can say about this drug, besides lung cancer. And which is the cause, why you can't really say, it's just less dangerous than alcohol - which of course would be true if you use it properly.
However, various untrue claims about marijuana still are in the wild. And they won't disappear.
when the eiffel tower was built in bern, they really did want to use it as scaffold for a big cuckoo clock... but they gave it away as a present and sign for freedom to france.
* You tried the tailored Operating System to your Hardware. * You tried Ubuntu * Ubuntu was worse, than the tailored Operating System to your Hardware.
If your Hardware has errors, or some specific quirks, which may not be detected by an overblown Debian fork (which however wasn't in the summary of tried Operating Systems - only the tailored Operating System to your Hardware was) you blame Ubuntu for not being userfriendly, as response to a post describing he was glad, that Ubuntu tried to fill small gaps for the end user experience, (I am speaking for those who still remember kernel compiling because of unsupported binary drivers, if there was something more interesting to do), and tried to satisfy the need for especially those people, who simply want to install linux, without really wanting to get deeper into the system - at least not every time. You blame Ubuntu for something, which it actually does. It tries to be easily installable by people, who do not want to learn kernel compiling and manual patching or for those who want to learn it, but not do it every time and for every machine they encounter - with mostly typical driver problems caused by licensing issues.
You can take your Mac as an opportunity to learn how Linux works, detect the errors and file bug reports to distributions, you think this problem maybe should concern. Feel lucky. You can learn a lot from this experience. You might even be the one who fixes it.
Your distro is just as strong, as the people supporting it. Hating canonical for just being successful and not delivering solutions to everybodies needs magically, is not what free software or open source is about.
For my taste, they could invest a little bit more in the areas, they already do, and don't try to push too much on the server market. And support debian financially and by playing after their project principles. I am still glad about Ubuntu existing and happy user on everyday machines. As I am about other distros, which are used by various other machines I work with - where Ubuntu has nothing to seek.
actually, I own a X41 and don't find it "horribly" slow, it works great (besides the intel graphics mess at the moment at linux) for small tasks and similar to other laptops of that era, and I do use it to surf the net with chrome, writing mails or drawing with artrage2 over wine until today.
Of course, the X41 does have a great bottleneck, which is the hard drive, a special type of 1.8", must be from specific vendor (if you dont want to press buttons at the startup to confirm an IBM warning) and has a slower turn rate, loud clicking noise, and so on. You can replace it with an SSD or cardreader however. This does not bother you however if your tasks do not involve a lot of harddrive activity.
Also, there are tablets in the 6x series, and later, too.
actually, you are lucky, because what you describe is still on the application level, and you can still use your GUI.
Sadly, some application might also crash your system, or your system might crash in an unexpected way. Well, and if the Demon of death does not catch it, it will look like the described ball, which of course is the same ball as the app crash would induce. More serious hardware errors might result in no ball at all, but I dunno if that ever happens on mac, depends how good their kernel code is. It does on Windows (typical graphics card crash or memory error).
In Linux I have freezes from three applications, which sometimes hang X making it stop to accept mouseclicks and keyboard input: skype, amarok14 and chrome because of flash. All of them are somehow X or plasma related, maybe nvidia, meaning, that the application freeze allows me to go with CTRL+ALT+F1 in a text console, login as my user, type killall processname (or if I dont know, investigate with top and ps and kill it manually) and I can go back to my desktop working on.
Well, I for one miss these functions on all other Systems. Kernel Panic, hard crashes, Software errors are never avoidable, but at least, most of the errors occur somewhere beneath the X server making rescueing the system easier in complicated cases.
I have to admit, in Windows XP I got used to the task manager also being quite often still usable, somehow. However while in Linux I do know the three only sources which do crashes, in Windows it could be virtually everything at any time. And Mac does have a rather complicated way of accessing the Force quit (there is a command shortcut for force quit: command-option-escape btw. )
Mac and Windows do a better job in userfriendlyness of crashes, but they only offer few types of crashes, making sometimes opportunities where data could be recovered impossible to use. Windows does reboot on certain errors FYI, and you can remove this behaviour in Desktop Settings since win2k, which makes sense on desktop systems which reboot frequently due to kernel errors, which were also induced by quite a lot of worms in the begin of this century.
I can also imagine, running sshd on a mac could allow remote maintenance with a login on the console and shutdown of affected applications if the ball will not return control over the GUI. For this case, mac design studios might want to keep some linux geeks who help out in *nix tricks to savely try to recover machines.
At least with *nix I know how to shutdown my system manually, making me manually break a lot of patents now perhaps, which is quite cool.
I don't think that's a sheer administrative problem. Also, this problem can't be viewed globally, it's a local problem, depends on country and healthcare system.
Also I can't really tell how it works in the states.
But in a stress situation you have to eliminate complexity to some extent. Now, we do have different colors, and sometimes even interlocks to learn. However, they are not as numerous as their usage field (which is very complex and can't be always categorized easily). Which can be a good thing. Because you do learn how to use another tube to do the same thing, if a special item is not there, and you are taught to write caution signs with big letters on it.
Having the need of choosing between numerous tubes and pairing them correctly needs way more focus and preparation. It's not like you have time to choose between a Torx and a normal screw. Every holdup can lead to additional stress and making small mistakes leads to insecurity and nervousness in the whole team. Best example for me is intubation tubes, which come in different sizes but mostly only two are used: small for young people and the other one from those normal ones, if you know that I mean.
Even if you have different tubes, actually the position of the tube should indicate whether it goes to the vena cava or not. In that particular case, as far as I have seen some stations do use security caps on the access point. Also, in Austria, nurses are not allowed to administer in corpora without additional education and diploma, which reduces the risk.
In a well administered healthcare center, particular stations would transfer the patient ASAP, too.
It's mostly not about the tubes. Mistakes are mostly made, because people in the healthcare system are tired, overworked, understaffed, and have to make life-death decisions way too often. Also, sueing everything nowadays, which is way more terrible in the states as it is in europe, didn't really help with reduction of mistakes.
I do trust medical service. Sometimes in poor circumstances with a lot less of equipment, doctors make it up with a lot of experience and wisdom and creativity. But it's a human try to keep your body intact. It can even fail, if everything is made correctly. Don't misunderstand me. I do think, you got a point. I do not have the longterm working experience to tell which system is better, I just know, creating secure systems has also a downside, which statistically can be even worse in the end, if things get too complicated. However the biggest problem in healthcare isn't the tubes. It's the people who in some circumstances are burned out.
but stressed people trying to find the stuff to bring you into a stable state might not have the time to search for the right cable.
this is also the answer to this whole debate, which is kinda something you learn in your second year at medical university.
this, and education.
normally, direct vene tubes are also colorcoded and you can find big signs put on it afterwards, because some doctors try to prevent this. also it is policy in some of the hospitals i have been.
but after trying out incompatible systems with each other for some time, most hospitals decide to go with the "easy basic standards" again, because the rate of failures is even higher if you have to learn 20 types of catheters to use.
not every medical guy is geeky. other stuff is way more important in some situations. bottomline, causing death by mistake will not be avoidable, ever. you can avoid mistakes made by medical personell by not using any medical facility.
mickey mouse agrees. he and his perfectly non-canine friend sure of hell wouldn't have named his dog after some rock which is to goofy to be a planet. that just wouldn't be good old mr. mouse.
well i had a similar discussion about this claim today already because of my post.
it got down to this: we achieve parallel tasks easily, if the task can be broken down in separate individual serial functions, especially if you think about the GPU doing stuff (sending pixels to the screen or other 3d effects) which can be async because we dont have to wait for the result in the CPU - even without using the GPU as secondary processing unit. however if you want to use the parallel computed data, you still have to wait somewhere for it to be unified.
now the brain does a similar job, in sending functions like motoric functions to your peripheral organs, like muscles and of course in retrieving data from peripheral organs, like your eyes. it even does that in saving pre arranged functions in your minor brain, like playing chords on a piano. it even sends data to your peripheral organs before you know it (studies have shown, that with electrical impulses, the wish to press a button can be "foretold" by capturing the signal).
however, despite this, the brain does not really work with coded binary signals like computers do. everything is done by chemical transmitters, electrical impulses are only diffuse and carry signals to the periphery of neurons, where the change of electrical charge triggers the release of transmitters. how everything interacts and builds up a network of working "thought" depends on the physical wiring of the neurons, and a lot of impulses happen at the same time, resulting in a neuronal network capable of performing many tasks at once with the same hardware.
a lot of systems interact, some of them slow, other of them very fast, understanding all the interactions proves somewhat difficult.
i might be wrong, and all i say, thats what i was told by books and professors, especially those, who work in AI explained; there is even a problem in the basic understanding of parallel computation. all our signals are at the time being coded in charges which represent one or zero added together representing numbers, which might be signals or simply data. all our programming languages rely on this fact, even if we created a lot of systems which enable us to split jobs in multiple jobs.
it also comes down to the level how data is stored. we store data serially with the same coding, but the brain rewires itself to represent learned data. its not simply numbers in a row. its more like patterns.
describing our surroundings in analytical manner and storing this information needs a human component of identifying which data has to be stored or represented, and it still is saved as numbers. emulating a virtual network of neuronal mechanisms allow us to simulate the learning behaviour of a human brain, but it is still only one aspect of the brain we try to master. we have to feed it with what to learn and how to do it.
we are still far away from creating a self driven thinking machine, and even if we do create one with the technologies we develop in computing, we still will emulate it with our way of storing and processing data only. and we might encounter physical barriers we cannot break, resulting in much slower speed.
AI research is still very important, because in understanding certain aspects of how the brain works, we could create new paradigms, like we got object orientation or event driven programming. I can also imagine, that filling the gaps in our knowledge will allow us to create better tools which even try to read certain signals of the brain somehow.
but to break the nutshell, maybe our whole analytical approach of computing is completely wrong.
even understanding and decoding the whole DNA does not allow us to create "our own dream DNA", because also in that corner of science, we still miss tools for DNA sequencing (and i mean the creation of DNA, not the analysis of DNA sequences).
and even sequencing a correct order to copy DNA still needs us to create the whole to be "building itself". since a completely copied dead body
Atm thats what you learn in Universities. The basic problem with creating a virtual brain is that our technology is limited to serial actions instead of real parallel ones. Electronic devices and how they work will even if they "emulate" a neuronal network not be really AI. Basicly this means, that the realness of emulation is limited on how we emulate biologically solved actions.
So, the basic thought behind this is, that AI will not be achievable by electronic devices.
AI might be invented, but I think the technology for that will have to orient itself in biology itself. And would you call a Zerg something which has AI? I think AI is coupled with electronic devices, and humans define their thinkings in words. If a word describes something which is an Artificial Intelligence, but it's manifestation does not use the technologies this goal was invented in, it might not be seen as AI anymore and we would call it differently.
At this point, I will point out, that understanding the human body itself would be key to create something which evolves self awareness, since we call ourself self aware and know no other thing that does have this feature. To create this, we would have to understand Awareness itself, and every aspect of our emotions linked to our processes of thinking. We would have to point out, which layers of human existence are needed to be "aware", and I fear we will never understand this in our suns lifetime, because we still are not aware of what the heck this word even means.
Another philosophical dilemma: if we CREATE it to be AWARE, will it really be aware, or just taught to be aware?
Bottom line: the field of AI brought us a lot of usefull stuff like neuronal networking, networking itself, object oriented programming, multithreading or intelligent automats/bots. But its always just something we learn from how biology works and a try to translate this knowledge into our fields of computing. Which will bring us great stuff, like calculating numbers like hell, and analyze a friggin lot of stuff, but it won't create the "real" thing. Because the real one does not calculate.
We emulate calculation, so calculators only are able to emulate us.
I think technically the basics of steam are already ported to linux to be used in dedicated servers.
The desktop part would not make any sense, before games are not ported or to be released under linux.
They do, however fix bugs in steam to be runnable by wine, as far as i have heard. You can play titles like CS:S in linux, with steam and CS:S completely running under wine. Some people even use wine to run emulated steam servers, since sometimes the linux version of games runs worse. I tried to install Alien Swarm on a linux server e.g.
It's mostly the GUI Part / GL Part that does not get ported.
well, you have to admit, a directx wrapper, which gives you an opengl interface to use directx is not a clearly defined API either.
regardless, it is true. emulation in the technical sense means to virtualize a machine, not an API.
however WINE does "emulate" in the common sense of the word another OS. Lets look at what a Commodore Emulator needs: something to read and interprete commodore binaries, something which emulates the hardware beneath the old commodore machine, and of course all the kernel calls and libraries you might have on that machine. Windows is not something tied to a specific kind of hardware. So Emulation might be the wrong word, but only because it is out of context.
I would rather prefer to call WINE a windows API Interpreter. In the strongest sense, any BINARY run by wine is run by an interpreter, too. It was compiled for some kind of OS which understands how to translate the calls to kernel/library code or calls to hardware (which is again handled by drivers), but now is executed on a different system with another binary language.
But if we look at it an abstract level, the word binary can lose its meaning, too. It's not sourcecode. Still, Bytecode from a VM like Java is still binary, but for a nonexisting computer, which again is interpreted by the VM.
It has been established to say "emulate" if something steppes inbetween and translates calls for another environment. It has also been established, that the Java VM is not an emulator, but still a virtual machine, so hardware virtualization can't be the key factor. Everything the word "emulate" suggests is losing speed because code is interpreted "again" by something underneath or inside the emulator / or the emulator also has to provide emulation for external libraries. Which means, WINE isn't one, because the speedloss is not there in all cases, and normally has nothing to do with typical emulation, like translating from one CPU to another. But still, you CAN and sometimes MUST use wine to run windows libraries, too. And in that case, WINE comes closer to an emulator.
However calling WINE an API might only be applicable, if people would start to use WINE as a library too. Which they do, and we all wish they wouldn't. Because WINE also should not be an API. We do not wish WinAPI to be used too much. We only want to be able to run it without windows. Also, it tries to copy another API, and has less freedom. And if you write an API, you want others to have *your* simplified approach to use something different. Which is not the case at WINE, so it isn't an API either!
Having all those thoughts, we can clearly see, it is not to be seen clearly. Everything depends how you define the words involved.
All you want to do by avoiding calling Wine an emulator, is, bring the wrong "mechanics" into the mind of the other person. Who could think, that WINE somehow does play a trick on the program and load windows in background, or is anything different from winapi in windows itself.
We do not call Qt4 in Windows a Qt Emulator for Winapi either.
I never saw a comment before, which was meant to contradict a post and described a scenario which even furthermore proved the point of the original he tried to argue about
Slashdot Mirror
if billie would ask this as rhetorical question, i would say, from Uranus.
lets say i want to write a classical orchestra piece and use electric guitars and drums in the music. of course it would be classical, but the extra technology would need attention to it.
so basically saying, a new technology does not affect how an artist creates its work is like saying, if michelangelo would have worked on a wacom tablet, it would still be michelangelo. it would and it wouldn't.
everything you use takes up some space in your production. having 3d on the set affects how you take your shots, how you emphasize certain things or which angles you take. so yes, 3d does have its effects on the final movie.
otherwise viewing it in 3d would make not much difference.
creating a 3d blockbuster needs you to use the effects of 3d to scare or make the viewer wonder about certain scenes. imagine jaws being shot in modern 3d. the movie would consist of different scenes alltogether.
however, if the effect is negative or positive, is a different question. some movies may only be "watchable" because of the 3d part. others may be good with or without 3d.
I believe peter jackson can do it right. he knows, that by making a movie, he wants to tell a story. he does want to bring certain emotions to the viewer. I think the fear of using 3d has valid claims about the quality being influenced by that decision in negative ways. however, i think, it can also be positive overall.
There is no improvement without risk. 3D is not just an improvement. It does influence the movie-making. However it can be an improvement. Avatar was fairly watchable without 3d, while alice was just boring without it.
Besides cutting crime, there is also a medical aspect:
Marijuana is not as addictive as tobacco and alcohol (and addiction may be also correlated with tobacco usage). It does have a lot of medical purposes (but mostly only given in capsules), some of them however, like small doses e.g. helping OCD or AD(H)S-people to focus (instead of the very bad drug ritalin - which is one of the best selling medical drugs and is prescribed in the states way too often) are mostly not researched and proven, so you dont get it on prescription even in countries, where medical use is legal. This could change with legalization.
For a recreational uses, it has very little lasting side effects. Everybody knows, that creative people tend to smoke pot. Most people have their usage under control, like with alcohol.
It has some side effects however. There is a percentage of people who can become chronic users - mostly young people, or people with latent psychological problems (but sometimes in that case, it even helps psychotic people regulate their life in some way -hard to judge). Young brains should not be exposed to marijuana (like you should not take Aspirin as a kid because of Reye Syndrome). Regulating legal selling would make it harder to acquire it as a youngster on the black market, since it would be less profitable to deal with marijuana.
Chronic usage is mostly dangerous because roughly said marijuana can suppress the natural ability to be curious over time which is essential in your teenage years to fully develop.
Even people who are against marijuana do sometimes support legalization: even if usage as a drug may be not good for your life, which can be a valid opinion, learning how to use the drug by legalizing it and therefore enlighten the population about it may help reduce chronic addiction. Which is the worst thing you can say about this drug, besides lung cancer. And which is the cause, why you can't really say, it's just less dangerous than alcohol - which of course would be true if you use it properly.
However, various untrue claims about marijuana still are in the wild. And they won't disappear.
true, your simple english article does read a little bit longer.
besides firefox you can use xmarks in chrome, safari and IE, too.
it does sync really well and silently.
actually there is no alternative to xmarks (speaking of feature completeness) at the moment. there sure will be if xmarks is gone.
however, nobody would have wanted to pay for a service, which might be implemented by other browsers / plugins similarly.
xmarks also builds on some kind of already open sourced protocol for syncing. at least, you could use custom servers in the past.
when the eiffel tower was built in bern, they really did want to use it as scaffold for a big cuckoo clock... but they gave it away as a present and sign for freedom to france.
Chuck Norris would not need a plane to fly. The plane would fly Chuck Norris.
Well, so to sum up:
* You tried the tailored Operating System to your Hardware.
* You tried Ubuntu
* Ubuntu was worse, than the tailored Operating System to your Hardware.
If your Hardware has errors, or some specific quirks, which may not be detected by an overblown Debian fork (which however wasn't in the summary of tried Operating Systems - only the tailored Operating System to your Hardware was) you blame Ubuntu for not being userfriendly, as response to a post describing he was glad, that Ubuntu tried to fill small gaps for the end user experience, (I am speaking for those who still remember kernel compiling because of unsupported binary drivers, if there was something more interesting to do), and tried to satisfy the need for especially those people, who simply want to install linux, without really wanting to get deeper into the system - at least not every time. You blame Ubuntu for something, which it actually does. It tries to be easily installable by people, who do not want to learn kernel compiling and manual patching or for those who want to learn it, but not do it every time and for every machine they encounter - with mostly typical driver problems caused by licensing issues.
You can take your Mac as an opportunity to learn how Linux works, detect the errors and file bug reports to distributions, you think this problem maybe should concern. Feel lucky. You can learn a lot from this experience. You might even be the one who fixes it.
Your distro is just as strong, as the people supporting it. Hating canonical for just being successful and not delivering solutions to everybodies needs magically, is not what free software or open source is about.
For my taste, they could invest a little bit more in the areas, they already do, and don't try to push too much on the server market. And support debian financially and by playing after their project principles. I am still glad about Ubuntu existing and happy user on everyday machines. As I am about other distros, which are used by various other machines I work with - where Ubuntu has nothing to seek.
actually, I own a X41 and don't find it "horribly" slow, it works great (besides the intel graphics mess at the moment at linux) for small tasks and similar to other laptops of that era, and I do use it to surf the net with chrome, writing mails or drawing with artrage2 over wine until today.
Of course, the X41 does have a great bottleneck, which is the hard drive, a special type of 1.8", must be from specific vendor (if you dont want to press buttons at the startup to confirm an IBM warning) and has a slower turn rate, loud clicking noise, and so on. You can replace it with an SSD or cardreader however. This does not bother you however if your tasks do not involve a lot of harddrive activity.
Also, there are tablets in the 6x series, and later, too.
oh it's so great we generalized christian believers have your disrespect. It also renders fine on Chrome 5 beta in Linux.
Captain Obvious, is it you?
Or some evil Decepticon!?
actually, you are lucky, because what you describe is still on the application level, and you can still use your GUI.
Sadly, some application might also crash your system, or your system might crash in an unexpected way. Well, and if the Demon of death does not catch it, it will look like the described ball, which of course is the same ball as the app crash would induce. More serious hardware errors might result in no ball at all, but I dunno if that ever happens on mac, depends how good their kernel code is. It does on Windows (typical graphics card crash or memory error).
In Linux I have freezes from three applications, which sometimes hang X making it stop to accept mouseclicks and keyboard input: skype, amarok14 and chrome because of flash. All of them are somehow X or plasma related, maybe nvidia, meaning, that the application freeze allows me to go with CTRL+ALT+F1 in a text console, login as my user, type killall processname (or if I dont know, investigate with top and ps and kill it manually) and I can go back to my desktop working on. Well, I for one miss these functions on all other Systems. Kernel Panic, hard crashes, Software errors are never avoidable, but at least, most of the errors occur somewhere beneath the X server making rescueing the system easier in complicated cases. I have to admit, in Windows XP I got used to the task manager also being quite often still usable, somehow. However while in Linux I do know the three only sources which do crashes, in Windows it could be virtually everything at any time. And Mac does have a rather complicated way of accessing the Force quit (there is a command shortcut for force quit: command-option-escape btw. )
Mac and Windows do a better job in userfriendlyness of crashes, but they only offer few types of crashes, making sometimes opportunities where data could be recovered impossible to use. Windows does reboot on certain errors FYI, and you can remove this behaviour in Desktop Settings since win2k, which makes sense on desktop systems which reboot frequently due to kernel errors, which were also induced by quite a lot of worms in the begin of this century. I can also imagine, running sshd on a mac could allow remote maintenance with a login on the console and shutdown of affected applications if the ball will not return control over the GUI. For this case, mac design studios might want to keep some linux geeks who help out in *nix tricks to savely try to recover machines.
At least with *nix I know how to shutdown my system manually, making me manually break a lot of patents now perhaps, which is quite cool.
they make Satan look like the [...] Pope!
"Fry, because of this joke, the pope has to be a major movie star and beauty model since 2142."
As long as your gnuts don't hurd
I don't think that's a sheer administrative problem. Also, this problem can't be viewed globally, it's a local problem, depends on country and healthcare system.
Also I can't really tell how it works in the states.
But in a stress situation you have to eliminate complexity to some extent. Now, we do have different colors, and sometimes even interlocks to learn. However, they are not as numerous as their usage field (which is very complex and can't be always categorized easily). Which can be a good thing. Because you do learn how to use another tube to do the same thing, if a special item is not there, and you are taught to write caution signs with big letters on it.
Having the need of choosing between numerous tubes and pairing them correctly needs way more focus and preparation. It's not like you have time to choose between a Torx and a normal screw. Every holdup can lead to additional stress and making small mistakes leads to insecurity and nervousness in the whole team. Best example for me is intubation tubes, which come in different sizes but mostly only two are used: small for young people and the other one from those normal ones, if you know that I mean.
Even if you have different tubes, actually the position of the tube should indicate whether it goes to the vena cava or not. In that particular case, as far as I have seen some stations do use security caps on the access point. Also, in Austria, nurses are not allowed to administer in corpora without additional education and diploma, which reduces the risk.
In a well administered healthcare center, particular stations would transfer the patient ASAP, too.
It's mostly not about the tubes. Mistakes are mostly made, because people in the healthcare system are tired, overworked, understaffed, and have to make life-death decisions way too often. Also, sueing everything nowadays, which is way more terrible in the states as it is in europe, didn't really help with reduction of mistakes.
I do trust medical service. Sometimes in poor circumstances with a lot less of equipment, doctors make it up with a lot of experience and wisdom and creativity. But it's a human try to keep your body intact. It can even fail, if everything is made correctly. Don't misunderstand me. I do think, you got a point. I do not have the longterm working experience to tell which system is better, I just know, creating secure systems has also a downside, which statistically can be even worse in the end, if things get too complicated.
However the biggest problem in healthcare isn't the tubes. It's the people who in some circumstances are burned out.
but stressed people trying to find the stuff to bring you into a stable state might not have the time to search for the right cable.
this is also the answer to this whole debate, which is kinda something you learn in your second year at medical university.
this, and education.
normally, direct vene tubes are also colorcoded and you can find big signs put on it afterwards, because some doctors try to prevent this. also it is policy in some of the hospitals i have been.
but after trying out incompatible systems with each other for some time, most hospitals decide to go with the "easy basic standards" again, because the rate of failures is even higher if you have to learn 20 types of catheters to use.
not every medical guy is geeky. other stuff is way more important in some situations.
bottomline, causing death by mistake will not be avoidable, ever. you can avoid mistakes made by medical personell by not using any medical facility.
mickey mouse agrees. he and his perfectly non-canine friend sure of hell wouldn't have named his dog after some rock which is to goofy to be a planet. that just wouldn't be good old mr. mouse.
well i had a similar discussion about this claim today already because of my post.
it got down to this:
we achieve parallel tasks easily, if the task can be broken down in separate individual serial functions, especially if you think about the GPU doing stuff (sending pixels to the screen or other 3d effects) which can be async because we dont have to wait for the result in the CPU - even without using the GPU as secondary processing unit. however if you want to use the parallel computed data, you still have to wait somewhere for it to be unified.
now the brain does a similar job, in sending functions like motoric functions to your peripheral organs, like muscles and of course in retrieving data from peripheral organs, like your eyes. it even does that in saving pre arranged functions in your minor brain, like playing chords on a piano.
it even sends data to your peripheral organs before you know it (studies have shown, that with electrical impulses, the wish to press a button can be "foretold" by capturing the signal).
however, despite this, the brain does not really work with coded binary signals like computers do. everything is done by chemical transmitters, electrical impulses are only diffuse and carry signals to the periphery of neurons, where the change of electrical charge triggers the release of transmitters. how everything interacts and builds up a network of working "thought" depends on the physical wiring of the neurons, and a lot of impulses happen at the same time, resulting in a neuronal network capable of performing many tasks at once with the same hardware.
a lot of systems interact, some of them slow, other of them very fast, understanding all the interactions proves somewhat difficult.
i might be wrong, and all i say, thats what i was told by books and professors, especially those, who work in AI explained; there is even a problem in the basic understanding of parallel computation. all our signals are at the time being coded in charges which represent one or zero added together representing numbers, which might be signals or simply data. all our programming languages rely on this fact, even if we created a lot of systems which enable us to split jobs in multiple jobs.
it also comes down to the level how data is stored. we store data serially with the same coding, but the brain rewires itself to represent learned data. its not simply numbers in a row. its more like patterns.
describing our surroundings in analytical manner and storing this information needs a human component of identifying which data has to be stored or represented, and it still is saved as numbers. emulating a virtual network of neuronal mechanisms allow us to simulate the learning behaviour of a human brain, but it is still only one aspect of the brain we try to master. we have to feed it with what to learn and how to do it.
we are still far away from creating a self driven thinking machine, and even if we do create one with the technologies we develop in computing, we still will emulate it with our way of storing and processing data only. and we might encounter physical barriers we cannot break, resulting in much slower speed.
AI research is still very important, because in understanding certain aspects of how the brain works, we could create new paradigms, like we got object orientation or event driven programming. I can also imagine, that filling the gaps in our knowledge will allow us to create better tools which even try to read certain signals of the brain somehow.
but to break the nutshell, maybe our whole analytical approach of computing is completely wrong.
even understanding and decoding the whole DNA does not allow us to create "our own dream DNA", because also in that corner of science, we still miss tools for DNA sequencing (and i mean the creation of DNA, not the analysis of DNA sequences).
and even sequencing a correct order to copy DNA still needs us to create the whole to be "building itself". since a completely copied dead body
well, could even happen with an evolution of buffer overflows in spam filter software.
(german, however you can look up waiting for goto at monochrom wiki)
Atm thats what you learn in Universities. The basic problem with creating a virtual brain is that our technology is limited to serial actions instead of real parallel ones. Electronic devices and how they work will even if they "emulate" a neuronal network not be really AI. Basicly this means, that the realness of emulation is limited on how we emulate biologically solved actions.
So, the basic thought behind this is, that AI will not be achievable by electronic devices.
AI might be invented, but I think the technology for that will have to orient itself in biology itself. And would you call a Zerg something which has AI?
I think AI is coupled with electronic devices, and humans define their thinkings in words. If a word describes something which is an Artificial Intelligence, but it's manifestation does not use the technologies this goal was invented in, it might not be seen as AI anymore and we would call it differently.
At this point, I will point out, that understanding the human body itself would be key to create something which evolves self awareness, since we call ourself self aware and know no other thing that does have this feature. To create this, we would have to understand Awareness itself, and every aspect of our emotions linked to our processes of thinking. We would have to point out, which layers of human existence are needed to be "aware", and I fear we will never understand this in our suns lifetime, because we still are not aware of what the heck this word even means.
Another philosophical dilemma: if we CREATE it to be AWARE, will it really be aware, or just taught to be aware?
Bottom line: the field of AI brought us a lot of usefull stuff like neuronal networking, networking itself, object oriented programming, multithreading or intelligent automats/bots.
But its always just something we learn from how biology works and a try to translate this knowledge into our fields of computing. Which will bring us great stuff, like calculating numbers like hell, and analyze a friggin lot of stuff, but it won't create the "real" thing. Because the real one does not calculate.
We emulate calculation, so calculators only are able to emulate us.
I think technically the basics of steam are already ported to linux to be used in dedicated servers.
The desktop part would not make any sense, before games are not ported or to be released under linux.
They do, however fix bugs in steam to be runnable by wine, as far as i have heard. You can play titles like CS:S in linux, with steam and CS:S completely running under wine. Some people even use wine to run emulated steam servers, since sometimes the linux version of games runs worse. I tried to install Alien Swarm on a linux server e.g.
It's mostly the GUI Part / GL Part that does not get ported.
well, you have to admit, a directx wrapper, which gives you an opengl interface to use directx is not a clearly defined API either.
regardless, it is true. emulation in the technical sense means to virtualize a machine, not an API.
however WINE does "emulate" in the common sense of the word another OS. Lets look at what a Commodore Emulator needs: something to read and interprete commodore binaries, something which emulates the hardware beneath the old commodore machine, and of course all the kernel calls and libraries you might have on that machine. Windows is not something tied to a specific kind of hardware. So Emulation might be the wrong word, but only because it is out of context.
I would rather prefer to call WINE a windows API Interpreter. In the strongest sense, any BINARY run by wine is run by an interpreter, too. It was compiled for some kind of OS which understands how to translate the calls to kernel/library code or calls to hardware (which is again handled by drivers), but now is executed on a different system with another binary language.
But if we look at it an abstract level, the word binary can lose its meaning, too. It's not sourcecode. Still, Bytecode from a VM like Java is still binary, but for a nonexisting computer, which again is interpreted by the VM.
It has been established to say "emulate" if something steppes inbetween and translates calls for another environment. It has also been established, that the Java VM is not an emulator, but still a virtual machine, so hardware virtualization can't be the key factor. Everything the word "emulate" suggests is losing speed because code is interpreted "again" by something underneath or inside the emulator / or the emulator also has to provide emulation for external libraries. Which means, WINE isn't one, because the speedloss is not there in all cases, and normally has nothing to do with typical emulation, like translating from one CPU to another.
But still, you CAN and sometimes MUST use wine to run windows libraries, too. And in that case, WINE comes closer to an emulator.
However calling WINE an API might only be applicable, if people would start to use WINE as a library too. Which they do, and we all wish they wouldn't. Because WINE also should not be an API. We do not wish WinAPI to be used too much. We only want to be able to run it without windows. Also, it tries to copy another API, and has less freedom.
And if you write an API, you want others to have *your* simplified approach to use something different. Which is not the case at WINE, so it isn't an API either!
Having all those thoughts, we can clearly see, it is not to be seen clearly. Everything depends how you define the words involved.
All you want to do by avoiding calling Wine an emulator, is, bring the wrong "mechanics" into the mind of the other person. Who could think, that WINE somehow does play a trick on the program and load windows in background, or is anything different from winapi in windows itself.
We do not call Qt4 in Windows a Qt Emulator for Winapi either.
and of course flaming.
"Maybe you are holding it wrong"
"Have you tried turning it off and on again?"
I never saw a comment before, which was meant to contradict a post and described a scenario which even furthermore proved the point of the original he tried to argue about
Great job. PROBLEM SOLVED!