Being someone that works in health IT, things are going in the right direction, much to what this article says. There are certifications for the software that state to be certified, compatibility must be included in the software including HL7 (Standards for electronic interchange of clinical, financial, and administrative information among health care oriented computer systems) www.hl7.org. The main certification for the software is CCHIT www.cchit.org. Our clinic has been on an EHR (which is CCHIT certified) for over 4 years. It began as proprietary software, but now with a little help from the software vendor, works very well. I will agree most started out not wanting to share data, but that was only because sharing the data was not a thought back when EHR's were started.
PS - Just my opinion, most are now called EHR, Electronic Health Records.:)
suprised have not seen this one yet, but brings new meaning to surfing the net. Maybe a little to obvious... (Goes to a corner to think about what he has done)
Cause like I said, not interested in running linux on a console. Why is it that linux fans always have to find what they can run there God aweful OS on and then tell everyone why its so cool to do so?
Don't worry, never planned on watching for you in the first place.
Sorry, I don't think that when Sony was designing the PS3 they were thinking, hmmm... I wonder how we can run Linux on this. I tried keeping my fanboy of the Xbox to myself and keep my post fair. I do think the hardware is great. If you buy a PS3 to run Linux on it, even if it had all the things you wish, that is what old scrapped pc's are for. Linux fans always claim that it doesn't need that much power to run, well, don't waste your money then on a POWERFUL CONSOLE.
You might have a disclaimer from your Linux preference, but your strawman arguments, projected unilateral issues and invocation of fanboy reads like any other fanboy competition. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN RUNNING LINUX ON A CONSOLE.
Ok, I find it funny that you say the cells are only being used 2-5%. Yet you think Sony should have them get access the the Hypervisor to use the videochip and not the cell processors. Just thinking about it, if you are playing a game that is 2D, it would not have much of a memory footprint, logically. Having it be processed on the Cell vs the RSX chip would not make the graphics any better. They would be processed no matter what chip is used. It would just have an extra step then to transfer the processing from the Cell to the Hypervisor.
Computers put the video processing to the GPU because most of the time, its a large game (bigger than 2D) that is taking all the CPU and to get the best results, needs to have help.
Now I will say that I am an Xbox fanboy, but I can still see the good in the PS3. I think where they went a little wrong was in the games. They have not had any games that have been worth saying, "Those games are on the PS3, I want it!!!". Well, buy the hardware, then what, no great games yet. They only really focused on the hardware, which I have to admit is great. But the problem with that is the hardware is only a paperweight if there is nothing running on it. The other thing, yea it has BluRay, but when was the last time anyone went and bought something worth $500 to only play movies. Nice additional feature, but not worth that alone.
Any PS fanboy that is saying the PS3 is the best out there is only trying to justify there fanboyism. It has the hardware to compete, but like I said, without the games/software, it is an expensive paperweight.
Slashdot Mirror
Being someone that works in health IT, things are going in the right direction, much to what this article says. There are certifications for the software that state to be certified, compatibility must be included in the software including HL7 (Standards for electronic interchange of clinical, financial, and administrative information among health care oriented computer systems) www.hl7.org. The main certification for the software is CCHIT www.cchit.org. Our clinic has been on an EHR (which is CCHIT certified) for over 4 years. It began as proprietary software, but now with a little help from the software vendor, works very well. I will agree most started out not wanting to share data, but that was only because sharing the data was not a thought back when EHR's were started. PS - Just my opinion, most are now called EHR, Electronic Health Records. :)
suprised have not seen this one yet, but brings new meaning to surfing the net. Maybe a little to obvious... (Goes to a corner to think about what he has done)
I don't have any sources, only cause I can't remember were I read/heard it, so take this statement accordingly. :)
Cause like I said, not interested in running linux on a console. Why is it that linux fans always have to find what they can run there God aweful OS on and then tell everyone why its so cool to do so? Don't worry, never planned on watching for you in the first place.
You might have a disclaimer from your Linux preference, but your strawman arguments, projected unilateral issues and invocation of fanboy reads like any other fanboy competition. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN RUNNING LINUX ON A CONSOLE.
Ok, I find it funny that you say the cells are only being used 2-5%. Yet you think Sony should have them get access the the Hypervisor to use the videochip and not the cell processors. Just thinking about it, if you are playing a game that is 2D, it would not have much of a memory footprint, logically. Having it be processed on the Cell vs the RSX chip would not make the graphics any better. They would be processed no matter what chip is used. It would just have an extra step then to transfer the processing from the Cell to the Hypervisor.
Computers put the video processing to the GPU because most of the time, its a large game (bigger than 2D) that is taking all the CPU and to get the best results, needs to have help.
Now I will say that I am an Xbox fanboy, but I can still see the good in the PS3. I think where they went a little wrong was in the games. They have not had any games that have been worth saying, "Those games are on the PS3, I want it!!!". Well, buy the hardware, then what, no great games yet. They only really focused on the hardware, which I have to admit is great. But the problem with that is the hardware is only a paperweight if there is nothing running on it. The other thing, yea it has BluRay, but when was the last time anyone went and bought something worth $500 to only play movies. Nice additional feature, but not worth that alone.
Any PS fanboy that is saying the PS3 is the best out there is only trying to justify there fanboyism. It has the hardware to compete, but like I said, without the games/software, it is an expensive paperweight.