When I was overseeing the construction of my new home (2001), 100 MB/s cable was all the rage (1GHz was very new, and expensive), and I installed it after the house (exterior) was sheathed, but before (interior) drywall was put in. The cable loops from outlet-box to outlet-box through the studs, with lots of slack (in a loop) between the boxes. I also put in a "pull-cord" (heavy plastic twine) from each outlet-box to both its' neighbors, so I could pull replacement cable in the future. Those cords just droop down beside the outlet box, behind the drywall; remove the box, tie on the cable...go to the next box and pull the new cable (and a new "pull cord") through. I pulled the coax-cable for TV through the same path, to the same outlet boxes.
It turns out, 100 MB/s is plenty good for my computer business at home, although making copies of backups would be faster if I upgraded to 1GHz (or higher). Since backups are made while I sleep, I don't much care how long they take.
Of course, if you make 100% off-line backups of every computer, every night, you can roll-back one or two days and be back in operation in less than an hour. BTW, this is another argument for keeping programs and data separated. I HATE "user profiles" in Windows for storing data adjacent to the O.S. We keep data elsewhere, so software can be restored without losing valuable data. (This happened just yesterday with a new software utility update that trashed the test system. We just rolled back to last-night's backup, then wrote to the vendor, and in our newsletter to clients, saying: Don't Use It!)
I love the way that the entire world-o'-geeks gets upset about a triviality. What prevents future *NIX releases from changing the "base date" to, say, 2010, and changing all the dependent modules to compute properly? Are there to be no future *NIX releases between now an 2038?
Are there programmers who, in their cleverness, have use primitive code that still relies on the older base date without reference to the underlying O.S.? Sure. But, change the base date soon, and all their bugs will appear LONG before 2038, but they'll be individual and isolated, and easily identified.
Geez. Much ado about NOTHING. This sounds more like an out-of-sync April Fool's joke than a serious problem...or, was that the original point?
Your ignorance of the issue is appalling. Yes, a single standard, so that vendors of software and equipment KNOW they can connect to existing systems without hassle and customization. The reason the HHS needs to do it, is a) they are the senior government authority with medical focus, and b) it needs to be open, not proprietary to be universally adopted.
I suppose, with your rationale, we should have dozens of different standards with conflicting rules over the header of a TCP/IP packet...as we DID have, in the old days, where there was no single IETF standard for such details, when each new vendor of a "network" technology invented their own rules (e.g., Novell), leading to internetworking chaos. Today, unless my Specialist Physician and my Primary Care Physician are using the exact same model and version EMR system, they can't exchange data except by exporting it all (e.g., to paper) and then re-importing at the other end. One standard for all that data, from MRI results to nurses' notes, would dramatically lower the cost of medical services across multiple providers.
Standards of this kind define how thing INTEROPERATE; it has nothing to do with the screen displays, or methods of input, or some theoretical (to quote you:..."single standard" for medical records) overarching one-size-fits-all rule.
This is another example of government not doing their job. We have needed a single, comprehensive standard for the form and format of Medical Health Records (MHR) for a long, long time. They needn't mandate specific products, but those products should all comply with one, universal and constantly-updated standard. But, nooo! We have to let Republicans exercise their fantasy that government can't do it, it has to be the "private sector" (in other words, reward the people who pay them to sit on their hands instead of solving problems). What was once a rich and vibrant marketplace of products has narrowed down to one industry leader who does NOT have patient information reliability and quality on their list of priorities.
We should have seen thermometers and scales and manometers and oxygen-level gauges (all standard tests on any pnysician visit) automated to send the information to the currently-opened patient record in the examining room over secure WiFi a decade ago...insofar as I can see, there are still no such products. These Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software products (especially from the "leader") are designed to impose the maximum load on professional staff, because it's easier to code them that way. I'm surprised they aren't designed to require staff to use green-screen, text-only monitors!
So, yes, lawyers are making money. And, I'm glad those lawyers are starting to attack the EMR system providers. But the Department of Health and Human Services (and, truth be told, the Republicans who think that underfunding government agencies to cripple them is a good idea) are a root cause of the problems..
That's actually not true. There were three significant decisions in the same week, only one of them was about Title II (aka "Net Neutrality"). Another had to do with pre-empting state laws forbidding local communities from setting up their services...laws that were passed on behalf of telecomm lobbyists. I can cite from recent observation that a local Wireless ISP is, in fact, using two 1GB/s Comcast backhauls for servicing all their customers (in rural Northern California, where Comcast and AT&T have only spotty service). The third issue that week was they raised the definition of Broadband to be at least 25 Mb/s; below that is no longer considered "broadband" Internet access. Good decisions all, I assert.
...think about it, if there's a fire and I'm NOT home, I've got the car, and they're safe. If there's a fire and I AM at home, the first think I'll do is get the car out of the garage. My biggest risk is whether the fire is between me and the garage, and I've got several alternative routes to get there (including two that involve going outside).
My main storage media are 1 Terabyte drives with 100% copies of each backup from every computer (4) in the house, every night. I change the drive about once a week. I have a three-point cycling system: #1) This week's backup, connected to one of the computers where a copy of each computers' backups are written; #2) Last week's backups, in the car; #3) Two-week-old backups, at the front door of the home; if I can't get to the garage, the front (or back) door is my next natural alternative.
When I was more actively engaged in business, I stored #2 in the local bank's "safe deposit box" in the vault, and #3 in the car trunk. Never had to test these options under "real fire" before, but I think it's a reasonable set of alternatives. Of course, all my essential records are digital, not on paper.
1. Money is Speech (ever heard of the "Citizen's United" decision?)
2. Sending money to (putative) criminals under this Executive Order is illegal.
3. Logical conclusion: The Executive Order section asserting this prohibition is unlawful.
That's not to say our corrupt government, hell-bent on benefiting the 1% and limiting freedoms for or benefits to the 99%, hasn't asserted that intentionally in order to start the long road to gutting the First Amendment.
I love the key layout, the tactile feedback, and the sturdiness of the assembly. My only problem is that my skin oils tend to erode the white letters on the keycaps. If I could get one with "double-shot" keys (the white is MOLDED into the black key), I'd be happier. But, $85 or so every three or four years (I'm not willing to spend my time changing keytops), is a cheap price to pay for a keyboard that is so reliable and stable that I just don't much ever think about it.
Amen!
Classic example of politicians trying to solve the wrong problem by looking at tactics instead of strategy. The state has a duty to protect life, not TAKE it! The blood thirsty and and the ammosexuals have an unreasonable view of what it means to be human.
This thread is evidence of the problem: Many commenters here post one-sided, one-size-fits-all solutions in which they believe. But, flexibility is the hallmark of successful people. Your ability to see each contributors' strengths and weaknesses, and help them contribute from strength and evolve from their weaknesses is what successful managers and executives do. The rest are just "wannabes."
This is the kind of binary thinking from programmers that erodes the nascent relationships among well-meaning human beings. Your ignorant approach is neither an "Uncomfortable Truth" or a useful concept. Often the most obstreperous person can be the most productive, but they must be carefully taught in social graces. Even elementary schools have learned that "Everyone work alone!" is not a useful model; the best schools now bring along the slower (or more socially inept) students through consistent and persistent group activity. Only autocrats refuse to work on building viable, productive teams in which a disparate members each contribute in their own ways, but in accordance with a common "culture" of mutual respect.
...my condolences on your medical situation. And, my compliments to you for paying attention to the legacy you want to leave that would benefit your daughter. She has a fine father.
As a recovering "shrink," my counsel to you is this: Don't worry about the legacy you can leave; you've already done that with your life, which gave and nurtured her life, and your evident attention to her growing-up years. Start with questions: What is SHE planning; what interests HER, what would help HER cope with the loss of her father. Probably the greatest gift you can give her is now: Your presence, your love, your time, especially since these are now all in limited supply.
My counsel: Don't worry about some grand legacy to leave, but do record these happy moments--tinged as they are with bittersweet facts.
Finally, your love for your daughter is palpable in your public plea here on/. When you are but a memory, she will still be influenced by your love, care and devotion in the midst of your own crushing burden. The grand gesture--should you pursue it still--will pale in comparison to those memes you bury in her brain in these next few months.
Sure. By setting a higher speed as the new definition of what is to be considered Broadband, the government has taken away the speed you have. You clod. All the FCC did was to change the definition. If they hadn't, then Telcos could offer you 1.5 Mbps service and call it "Broadband." In other words, they changed the definition of what Telcos can advertise, not what they deliver today.
Nonsense. 80% of Americans are SUPPOSED to "HAVE ACCCESS TO 25Mb" (stet). But, in fact, most of the largest firms (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, et. al.) limit available speeds, and price higher speeds dramatically higher, so they don't have to invest in more backbone bandwidth for all that aggregate traffic. AT&T would be happier to deliver you 1.5 Mbps than anything higher, because they minimize their capital investments that way. The FCC is calling their bluff, and when the major firms can't deliver the 25 Mbps now defined as "Broadband" minimum speed, the FCC will have more motive to convert all their Internet services to the more highly regulated Title II of the Communication Act.
It means, simply, that adoption of broadband is measured by Census Tract. If an ISP or other provider services ONE customer in that Census Tract, they report the ENTIRE Census Tract as served. When challenged by government, the Telcos respond, disingenuously, that "Well, the rest of the people haven't ordered yet." But, they get full credit for all those doorsteps that are unserved because, according to them, those people at that doorstep haven't asked for service. Of course, if you're one of those putative customers, you'll quickly discover that calling that provider just gets you the standard, "We don't service that address, yet." The implication is that you WILL get service, someday, depending on what the executives of the Telco decide: "Do I want to line my own pockets with more bonuses for profitability, or invest in more rural broadband, which will benefit my successor in this job, not me, because of the length of time it takes to recoup that investment?"
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to go with the level of thinking about "women in the lab."
When I was overseeing the construction of my new home (2001), 100 MB/s cable was all the rage (1GHz was very new, and expensive), and I installed it after the house (exterior) was sheathed, but before (interior) drywall was put in. The cable loops from outlet-box to outlet-box through the studs, with lots of slack (in a loop) between the boxes. I also put in a "pull-cord" (heavy plastic twine) from each outlet-box to both its' neighbors, so I could pull replacement cable in the future. Those cords just droop down beside the outlet box, behind the drywall; remove the box, tie on the cable...go to the next box and pull the new cable (and a new "pull cord") through. I pulled the coax-cable for TV through the same path, to the same outlet boxes.
It turns out, 100 MB/s is plenty good for my computer business at home, although making copies of backups would be faster if I upgraded to 1GHz (or higher). Since backups are made while I sleep, I don't much care how long they take.
Good One!!!
Of course, if you make 100% off-line backups of every computer, every night, you can roll-back one or two days and be back in operation in less than an hour. BTW, this is another argument for keeping programs and data separated. I HATE "user profiles" in Windows for storing data adjacent to the O.S. We keep data elsewhere, so software can be restored without losing valuable data. (This happened just yesterday with a new software utility update that trashed the test system. We just rolled back to last-night's backup, then wrote to the vendor, and in our newsletter to clients, saying: Don't Use It!)
I love the way that the entire world-o'-geeks gets upset about a triviality. What prevents future *NIX releases from changing the "base date" to, say, 2010, and changing all the dependent modules to compute properly? Are there to be no future *NIX releases between now an 2038?
Are there programmers who, in their cleverness, have use primitive code that still relies on the older base date without reference to the underlying O.S.? Sure. But, change the base date soon, and all their bugs will appear LONG before 2038, but they'll be individual and isolated, and easily identified.
Geez. Much ado about NOTHING. This sounds more like an out-of-sync April Fool's joke than a serious problem...or, was that the original point?
Thanks for the meaningful contribution to the discussion of something that affect the health of every U.S. citizen.
Your ignorance of the issue is appalling. Yes, a single standard, so that vendors of software and equipment KNOW they can connect to existing systems without hassle and customization. The reason the HHS needs to do it, is a) they are the senior government authority with medical focus, and b) it needs to be open, not proprietary to be universally adopted.
..."single standard" for medical records) overarching one-size-fits-all rule.
I suppose, with your rationale, we should have dozens of different standards with conflicting rules over the header of a TCP/IP packet...as we DID have, in the old days, where there was no single IETF standard for such details, when each new vendor of a "network" technology invented their own rules (e.g., Novell), leading to internetworking chaos. Today, unless my Specialist Physician and my Primary Care Physician are using the exact same model and version EMR system, they can't exchange data except by exporting it all (e.g., to paper) and then re-importing at the other end. One standard for all that data, from MRI results to nurses' notes, would dramatically lower the cost of medical services across multiple providers.
Standards of this kind define how thing INTEROPERATE; it has nothing to do with the screen displays, or methods of input, or some theoretical (to quote you:
This is another example of government not doing their job. We have needed a single, comprehensive standard for the form and format of Medical Health Records (MHR) for a long, long time. They needn't mandate specific products, but those products should all comply with one, universal and constantly-updated standard. But, nooo! We have to let Republicans exercise their fantasy that government can't do it, it has to be the "private sector" (in other words, reward the people who pay them to sit on their hands instead of solving problems). What was once a rich and vibrant marketplace of products has narrowed down to one industry leader who does NOT have patient information reliability and quality on their list of priorities.
We should have seen thermometers and scales and manometers and oxygen-level gauges (all standard tests on any pnysician visit) automated to send the information to the currently-opened patient record in the examining room over secure WiFi a decade ago...insofar as I can see, there are still no such products. These Electronic Medical Record (EMR) software products (especially from the "leader") are designed to impose the maximum load on professional staff, because it's easier to code them that way. I'm surprised they aren't designed to require staff to use green-screen, text-only monitors!
So, yes, lawyers are making money. And, I'm glad those lawyers are starting to attack the EMR system providers. But the Department of Health and Human Services (and, truth be told, the Republicans who think that underfunding government agencies to cripple them is a good idea) are a root cause of the problems..
That's actually not true. There were three significant decisions in the same week, only one of them was about Title II (aka "Net Neutrality"). Another had to do with pre-empting state laws forbidding local communities from setting up their services...laws that were passed on behalf of telecomm lobbyists. I can cite from recent observation that a local Wireless ISP is, in fact, using two 1GB/s Comcast backhauls for servicing all their customers (in rural Northern California, where Comcast and AT&T have only spotty service). The third issue that week was they raised the definition of Broadband to be at least 25 Mb/s; below that is no longer considered "broadband" Internet access. Good decisions all, I assert.
For a meaningful answer, look up "dissembling" in any dictionary.
Your ignorance of the enabling legislation, the 1934 Communications Act, disqualifies your opinion and renders it trash.
No, they wouldn't ban cars. That would be perceived as accepting Climate Change, and we can't have THAT, now, can we, reTHUGs?
...think about it, if there's a fire and I'm NOT home, I've got the car, and they're safe. If there's a fire and I AM at home, the first think I'll do is get the car out of the garage. My biggest risk is whether the fire is between me and the garage, and I've got several alternative routes to get there (including two that involve going outside).
My main storage media are 1 Terabyte drives with 100% copies of each backup from every computer (4) in the house, every night. I change the drive about once a week. I have a three-point cycling system: #1) This week's backup, connected to one of the computers where a copy of each computers' backups are written; #2) Last week's backups, in the car; #3) Two-week-old backups, at the front door of the home; if I can't get to the garage, the front (or back) door is my next natural alternative.
When I was more actively engaged in business, I stored #2 in the local bank's "safe deposit box" in the vault, and #3 in the car trunk. Never had to test these options under "real fire" before, but I think it's a reasonable set of alternatives. Of course, all my essential records are digital, not on paper.
...specifically:
1. Money is Speech (ever heard of the "Citizen's United" decision?)
2. Sending money to (putative) criminals under this Executive Order is illegal.
3. Logical conclusion: The Executive Order section asserting this prohibition is unlawful.
That's not to say our corrupt government, hell-bent on benefiting the 1% and limiting freedoms for or benefits to the 99%, hasn't asserted that intentionally in order to start the long road to gutting the First Amendment.
I love the key layout, the tactile feedback, and the sturdiness of the assembly. My only problem is that my skin oils tend to erode the white letters on the keycaps. If I could get one with "double-shot" keys (the white is MOLDED into the black key), I'd be happier. But, $85 or so every three or four years (I'm not willing to spend my time changing keytops), is a cheap price to pay for a keyboard that is so reliable and stable that I just don't much ever think about it.
Good luck on picking through all these opinions!
Amen! Classic example of politicians trying to solve the wrong problem by looking at tactics instead of strategy. The state has a duty to protect life, not TAKE it! The blood thirsty and and the ammosexuals have an unreasonable view of what it means to be human.
This thread is evidence of the problem: Many commenters here post one-sided, one-size-fits-all solutions in which they believe. But, flexibility is the hallmark of successful people. Your ability to see each contributors' strengths and weaknesses, and help them contribute from strength and evolve from their weaknesses is what successful managers and executives do. The rest are just "wannabes."
This is the kind of binary thinking from programmers that erodes the nascent relationships among well-meaning human beings. Your ignorant approach is neither an "Uncomfortable Truth" or a useful concept. Often the most obstreperous person can be the most productive, but they must be carefully taught in social graces. Even elementary schools have learned that "Everyone work alone!" is not a useful model; the best schools now bring along the slower (or more socially inept) students through consistent and persistent group activity. Only autocrats refuse to work on building viable, productive teams in which a disparate members each contribute in their own ways, but in accordance with a common "culture" of mutual respect.
Nor is there any capital in grammer (actually, grammar), or alert. Nazi, I'll grant you.
Will you be back here to refute your own dire predictions when they prove false? I'll not hold my breath.
...my condolences on your medical situation. And, my compliments to you for paying attention to the legacy you want to leave that would benefit your daughter. She has a fine father.
/. When you are but a memory, she will still be influenced by your love, care and devotion in the midst of your own crushing burden. The grand gesture--should you pursue it still--will pale in comparison to those memes you bury in her brain in these next few months.
As a recovering "shrink," my counsel to you is this: Don't worry about the legacy you can leave; you've already done that with your life, which gave and nurtured her life, and your evident attention to her growing-up years. Start with questions: What is SHE planning; what interests HER, what would help HER cope with the loss of her father. Probably the greatest gift you can give her is now: Your presence, your love, your time, especially since these are now all in limited supply.
My counsel: Don't worry about some grand legacy to leave, but do record these happy moments--tinged as they are with bittersweet facts.
Finally, your love for your daughter is palpable in your public plea here on
I am saddened by her impending loss.
Sure. By setting a higher speed as the new definition of what is to be considered Broadband, the government has taken away the speed you have. You clod. All the FCC did was to change the definition. If they hadn't, then Telcos could offer you 1.5 Mbps service and call it "Broadband." In other words, they changed the definition of what Telcos can advertise, not what they deliver today.
Then clearly, you do not understand the relationship between data speed and requisite carrier channel bandwidth.
Nonsense. 80% of Americans are SUPPOSED to "HAVE ACCCESS TO 25Mb" (stet). But, in fact, most of the largest firms (AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, et. al.) limit available speeds, and price higher speeds dramatically higher, so they don't have to invest in more backbone bandwidth for all that aggregate traffic. AT&T would be happier to deliver you 1.5 Mbps than anything higher, because they minimize their capital investments that way. The FCC is calling their bluff, and when the major firms can't deliver the 25 Mbps now defined as "Broadband" minimum speed, the FCC will have more motive to convert all their Internet services to the more highly regulated Title II of the Communication Act.
It means, simply, that adoption of broadband is measured by Census Tract. If an ISP or other provider services ONE customer in that Census Tract, they report the ENTIRE Census Tract as served. When challenged by government, the Telcos respond, disingenuously, that "Well, the rest of the people haven't ordered yet." But, they get full credit for all those doorsteps that are unserved because, according to them, those people at that doorstep haven't asked for service. Of course, if you're one of those putative customers, you'll quickly discover that calling that provider just gets you the standard, "We don't service that address, yet." The implication is that you WILL get service, someday, depending on what the executives of the Telco decide: "Do I want to line my own pockets with more bonuses for profitability, or invest in more rural broadband, which will benefit my successor in this job, not me, because of the length of time it takes to recoup that investment?"
It's a game the 1% play with the rest of us.