OCinBuffalo Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 OC: Are you using the ABBYY engine, or did you build this entire thing yourself? Neither. Think of it this way: that engine is one of infinite components that can be integrated/packaged and used to flow data into our core. Around he edges of that core, we have not-our software that does some of the things we need, like integration, but, our core was designed and coded from scratch by me. The other reason we use tools like this is to expand the possible # of people who can control the system, and allow for DIY configuration/client specific one-offs, etc. If we caught a requirement that said we needed ABBYY input, we'd handle it via the (not our) integration tool, and flow the data into our core that way. But, even in a perfect ABBYY world, not all of the data that needs to be recorded can be. Housekeepers don't do much dictation. Neither do janitors, and in most places? You don't want them to, because "English bad". So in most cases we have a mix of software/devices in play. He didn't build that. Somebody else made it happen Yes, I did. Our core is an entirely original set of concepts created by me/designed by me/coded by me. It's a complete departure from all software design (I am aware of) in place today. I have broken rule after rule because my experience has proven that most "rules" are more about making money/life easier for IT people, and less about producing better software/solutions. Or, these "rules" represent the extent of somebody else's understanding/ability to perceive the problem. Often their "rules" are their best effort, but in reality? They are simply make-believe. Example: Ruby on Rails and their Convention vs.(over) Configuration nonsense. Pretending these two things exist at opposite ends of a line, and thus the closer you get to one, the more you give up the other? Make-believe. Understand, the potential problems are real. But this definition of them, misconstrues their nature, and using these made up "rules"? That's a child's understanding. The very existence of McDonald's disproves this notion, and I can go through that if required. These 2 concepts are only intrinsically linked in the minds of Slicon Valley morons who spout CoC, while they eat McDonalds. They are literally eating their own contradiction, and you know how much I love stuff like that. This is one example of how we blow by the nonsense, and that my work is indeed original thinking. There are many. well, that's awesome. i'll be very happy to see it as will legions of clinicians. search "ehr fail" and see what comes up. there's almost no one that cares for patients that thinks this technology has met any of it's promised goals. in most cases, it's made things worse. except for the insurance companies that have all that valuable data and are exempt from hippa. makes you kinda wonder what the real purpose was and why people aren't screaming about privacy when huge corporations have their intimate details. why the feel better about those companies access than the gov'ts is a mystery to me... and i never bought into the amateur hour (years) of ehr's primitive infancy and i suppose, now, adolescence. my employer did when the incentives and disincentives became too large to ignore. i was rightly convinced when in private practice that the available systems would neither benefit me nor my patients. i truly hope you prove the naysayers (including me) wrong. unlike others here, i believe it is possible. it's a question of priorities. it amazes me that a $300 phone can incorporate voice recognition to find wegman's in fairfax, tell me when it's open and give me turn by turn directions but that currently available ehr's can't recognize the voice recognition produced words "flu shot" and collate them. same for sophisticated investment programs and defense systems. i gotta think the designers of these things are better paid and more highly sought after than the majority of those working for the aptly described "awful software companies". why is that? is the health of friends and family such a low priority? at any rate, good luck. if it works as planned, everybody here can say "i used to argue with that guy" when we see you at national meetings and being interviewed on cnbc. 1. You will get it for free. 2. You will see. 3. You will see because I know why EHRs have failed. We do not fail. Not because we are smarter or whatever, it's merely because we build systems properly. EHRs were, and remain, misguided, because they continue to be about replacing paper/redoing paper systems in electronic format(for reasons passing all understanding), and have never been about building a system, properly, from scratch as a system. Every single one, and I've seen ~150 of them now, all started with replacing some dumbass Ph.D RN's/MDs paper system. What you get out of that approach...is exactly what you've got: crap. See? That is the EHR problem defined. Bad approach, taken by incompetents, who don't know how/care to learn how to do this job properly, who just wanted to start writing code, and replace the paper because: quick money. That's how we got here. I can tell you more about this if you care. If not, then merely understand that our design is, in every way, the diametric opposite of an EHR. I have no idea why I bet the under. How could I take the under? This action? Not for you. But, they do have bingo down the hall....there you go... You know why it's hotter? Global Warming Climate Change. You know why it's colder? Climate Chaos. (That's the new thing....chaos). I mean, straight out of Hollywood: "Nah, it can't be Indiana Jones and the Temple of Relatively Scary,,,you know, in comparison, to other temples. No, I have it! The Temple of.....Dooooooooom! Hooray. Write that one down!" Sometimes I wish someone on his show would call him out on his BS but they all sit there nodding accordingly and the crowd claps like trained seals. I'm sure though if he was to be made foolish on the show it would be edited out. I would love to find my way onto that show in some capacity just to crush that turd and his audience. And I'd have one of my people record the whole thing(i mean it's not like we don't know how to get that done), so even if they did edit it? We'd throw it up on youtube as is. To me the solution to anthropomorphic global warming/"climate change"- whatever that is, is simple. Those who buy in to that philosophy can and should do everything within their power to limit or better - eliminate their use of fossil fuels and electricity. Gravity is good - so indoor plumbing is okay. But, cars, airplanes, stoves, refrigerators, TVs, radios, cell phones, video games, air conditioning, furnaces, fireplaces, electric blankets, hot water... they're all no good people! Stop using those evil things and help save the planet. Or at least save the climate from "changing". It didn't work for the Neanderthals, but hey - we're a lot smarter than those rabbit-eating cave dwellers. So, if you're not willing to pull the plug - literally on electricity, and the internal combustion engine - and steam engines for that matter - then shut yer pie hole. This is similar to Tom Clancy's solution to what needed to be done with a bunch of eco-terrorists at the end of one of his books. Took them all, stripped them naked, left them in the Amazon jungle. Observed from space. They were all dead in 2 weeks(IIRC). But Clancy's is superior in one key way: you leave these people amongst us. That makes for some smelly pie-holes, and other....holes... I mean, indoor plumbing sans electronic pump only goes so far, I mean, it's not like we can expect these people to possess the engineering skill required to create some sort of personal aqueduct/water tower right? And, by your rules, if the city uses electricity to pump water to them, they can't use it. So, if we are gonna go through with this, let's not keep this mange-ridden, foul-smelling around. Let's at least put them somewhere....down wind. Might as well go the whole hog: the government owns whole swaths of land in the midwest. Carve out half of Nebraska or whatever, call is CrunchyLand and dump their asses there.
Gary M Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Study proves AGW Skeptics are more knowledgeable about science than AGW believers. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/12/study-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science/?intcmp=trending Edited February 13, 2015 by Gary M
B-Man Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Study proves AGW Skeptics are more knowledgeable about science than AGW believers. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/12/study-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science/?intcmp=trending The study is from Yale Professor Dan Kahan, published in Advances in Political Psychology BUT....................it is referenced in a Fox News article....................................so I reject it outright........... .
birdog1960 Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) This is one example of how we blow by the nonsense, and that my work is indeed original thinking. There are many. 1. You will get it for free. 2. You will see. 3. You will see because I know why EHRs have failed. We do not fail. Not because we are smarter or whatever, it's merely because we build systems properly. EHRs were, and remain, misguided, because they continue to be about replacing paper/redoing paper systems in electronic format(for reasons passing all understanding), and have never been about building a system, properly, from scratch as a system. Every single one, and I've seen ~150 of them now, all started with replacing some dumbass Ph.D RN's/MDs paper system. What you get out of that approach...is exactly what you've got: crap. See? That is the EHR problem defined. Bad approach, taken by incompetents, who don't know how/care to learn how to do this job properly, who just wanted to start writing code, and replace the paper because: quick money. That's how we got here. I can tell you more about this if you care. If not, then merely understand that our design is, in every way, the diametric opposite of an EHR.. honestly, it sounds exiting. and i truly wish you the best with this. are you planning demonstrations at any meetings for future users/investors? pm me if you are. the exhibition hall here would be an excellent forum: http://im2015.acponline.org/ plus, you could meet tom daschle Edited February 13, 2015 by birdog1960
Greg F Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 Study proves AGW Skeptics are more knowledgeable about science than AGW believers. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/12/study-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science/?intcmp=trending A paper published about a blog focused on the science came to similar conclusion: https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/paper-on-climate-scepticism-published/ The paper is pay walled but there is a draft preprint version that is worth a read.
/dev/null Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 It's too cold to protest Global Warming® at Yale http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/
Nanker Posted February 13, 2015 Posted February 13, 2015 The school should shut off the heat and hot water in their dorms. Snip the electricity too. Let them live by the courage of their convictions.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 honestly, it sounds exiting. and i truly wish you the best with this. are you planning demonstrations at any meetings for future users/investors? pm me if you are. the exhibition hall here would be an excellent forum: http://im2015.acponline.org/ plus, you could meet tom daschle I am honestly encouraged by your excitement. However, I have been hearing the word "exited" from health care people for so long... Demonstrations? No. The very last health care trade show we went to, we shut it down. Everybody was in front of our booth/no one could walk by/pissed off the association people. Something that attracts every health care worker at their show, is somehow a "problem" for the health care association people. Isn't showing health care workers the best stuff the entire F'ing point of the exercise? We were told we have to pay 5x the fee and buy the biggest space if we show up again. And you wonder why I say health care is largely comprised of unmitigated morons? The last demo I did was for the VA. 8 years ago I spent 2 months working on a proposal, and a damn good plan, that would have prevented 60-70% of the recent VA scandal for sure, and possibly all of it. They acknowledged my work and our gear as "far and away the best presentation and software they've ever seen in their careers/exactly what we need", but said "they weren't ready for it." How are you not ready for...exactly what you need? Apparently they were more ready to see those guys die/denied care instead. And you wonder why I say health care is largely comprised of unmitigated morons? We have been "invested" in 4 times. 2 times the guy was a liar and we only saw a small amount of the promised funds. One of them went to federal prison. Another time the guy did fund us for a year, but, then put all his $ into one stock and it tanked. One time the Chairman of Columbia Presbyterian said "I want this fully funded, tomorrow"...and then got into a pissing contest with his employees...total waste of time, and they offered us a poison pill-laden deal. None of these include the rip-off offers I've turned down. For lack of a better explanation, it seems this stuff is "too good", in that it elicits greed...and eyeballs widen that wouldn't if it were merely some dopey "wellness app". Thus, I've had to start this company all over again 4 times...and you wonder why I can be a bitter bastard? No. We've done far better with a small group, word of mouth, no sales, no marketing, just us picking our clients carefully. No more demos. No more shows. No more health care investors. I lost my, legendary, patience years go. However, we will never reach everybody this way, and we can't grow this way. So, as I said above, this is our new health care approach(as far a you are currently concerned): I am going to PM you a link. You are going to click on it, and doing so will give you free access to your own solution framework for the rest of your natural life. You will learn by doing. No training. Think: You build what you want. Training on what? But, there are questions, and answers, however, and we use the "cookbook" approach. You get the cookbook, and you can add your own recipes, and read other people's. Solution framework means you can make as many "apps"(not what they are, but whatever) as you want, and have as many users as you want use them. Great care has been taken to make it workable for those with an 8th grade education. We literally involved 7th and 8th graders(damn, shoulda got Crayonz for that). Thus, an MD should be able to accomplish a great deal with it. Despite your personal deficiencies...like thinking squash is important...you do care a great deal about making things better. Once empowered, you can make a whole lot of things better, but it's easy, and easier, to enlist help. Your team of doctors can divide the work and build yourselves quite a system in no time at all. That is the collectivist nature of this software. But remember: every other health care worker, even a lowly nurse aid, is allowed, and encouraged, to do better than you. Best ideas win, because nobody, not even I, can stop them from being posted to the community. If your office secretary builds a system that is better for you than your team of MD's? Don't be fools: use hers. That is the individualist nature of this software. If you put reasonable effort in (half hour a day for 2 weeks), you'll get far more than you expect out....and you're only getting about 40% of our total functionality. The rest(like integration and advanced workflow/analytics) requires our time, and that costs. How much depends on how much. This is the way it is, and as you can see, it is this way because of you, and not me.
Gary M Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 This nut job thinks the sun has a greater influence on the earths temperatures than CO2!!! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html
/dev/null Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 This nut job thinks the sun has a greater influence on the earths temperatures than CO2!!! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html Heretic! Burn him!
Koko78 Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 This nut job thinks the sun has a greater influence on the earths temperatures than CO2!!! http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century.html Well, luckily for the rest of us, consensus doesn't support such preposterous nonsense. Therefore, it ain't science.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Nat Geo's March cover: (article) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
/dev/null Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Nat Geo's March cover: (article) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text The Politicization of Science continues. Nat Geo follows in the footsteps of the Washington Post Most Climate Change "Deniers" / Heretics like myself do not dispute the Earth's climate is changing. I do however take issue with the cause of the change, placing more weight in Solar and Geothermal than humans. Even the most devout Christians and Jews that I know accept the Theory of Evolution. Some will argue that Evolution follows the Will of God. While other non religious types, like my beloved Ancient Aliens meme, contend that Human Evolution was influenced by Aliens...aka a "Higher Power" Quick Unscientific Poll. How many people have you ever known that think the Moon landings were fake? I've never met any Vaccinations may have side effects. Personally I think they're a good idea. But if parents have concerns about what is injected into their children it is their right to refuse. Kids shouldn't be allowed into public schools without the vaccinations either. GMO again may have side effects. How are the anti-GMO crowd any crazier than Vegans, Atkins nuts, or the Gluten Free fad? Edited February 22, 2015 by /dev/null
Azalin Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Quick Unscientific Poll. How many people have you ever known that think the Moon landings were fake? I've never met any I actually know two, but they also believe every single major conspiracy theory there I've ever heard of. Edited February 22, 2015 by Azalin
Deranged Rhino Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 The Politicization of Science continues. Nat Geo follows in the footsteps of the Washington Post Most Climate Change "Deniers" / Heretics like myself do not dispute the Earth's climate is changing. I do however take issue with the cause of the change, placing more weight in Solar and Geothermal than humans. Even the most devout Christians and Jews that I know accept the Theory of Evolution. Some will argue that Evolution follows the Will of God. While other non religious types, like my beloved Ancient Aliens meme, contend that Human Evolution was influenced by Aliens...aka a "Higher Power" Quick Unscientific Poll. How many people have you ever known that think the Moon landings were fake? I've never met any Vaccinations may have side effects. Personally I think they're a good idea. But if parents have concerns about what is injected into their children it is their right to refuse. Kids shouldn't be allowed into public schools without the vaccinations either. GMO again may have side effects. How are the anti-GMO crowd any crazier than Vegans, Atkins nuts, or the Gluten Free fad? I hear you, but the issue (specifically with climate change) is that your camp (which I'm in for the most part) is not represented at all by either the right or left in this country. If the GOP attempted to make that argument (which they can't without pissing off the base who most certainly are deniers of anything other than God's will) they'd find a lot more support with the independents and moderates who exist in both parties. Same for the left, if they made that argument rather than it's 100% confirmed it's man made they would have a lot of support from the moderates on the right. If the focus from the right wasn't on denying causation, but preparing the country's coastal cities and infrastructure for the challenges the next few decades will present, it would show leadership and foresight and wouldn't get bogged down in appearing anti-science. But, to this day, no major candidate from the right has even admitted climate change is real. They can't, even if they believe it, because the religious nuts in the base will oust them in the primaries. That's why the GOP is broken on this issue and really any issue that relies on science over faith. You can't address a problem unless you admit there's a problem in the first place. And, the science on this issue (if there is climate change going on) is clear. The planet is changing, we can either recognize that fact and prepare future generations to survive it -- or we can stick our heads in the sand, pretend nothing is happening, and let our off spring suffer. I've met a lot of folks who don't believe the moon landing happened, but I know a lot of dummies. The most compelling theory I've ever heard about it (that almost makes sense) is that the '69 landing was faked to beat the Soviets to the moon, but the subsequent landings were real. In Hollywood you can't go two meetings without running into someone who knew a guy who knew a guy who worked on Kubrick's crew for the fake landing in Burbank. Even some of the tour guides on the WB tour claim to know which sound stage was used. However, Los Angeles is also the epicenter for the anti-vaxer crowd so we shouldn't be counted on as a beacon of intellectualism. GMO's are slightly different because the science part of it is less the issue than the corporate part. A lot of the outrage for GMO's is directed at Monsanto -- which stems from a confluence of crazies who believe the company is the devil itself, or NWO bozos who feel Monsanto is going to be responsible for culling a large percentage of the world's population by controlling the world's seeds. Personally I don't buy in to that, but I do find Monsanto's business practices and the way they're playing Russian Roulette with their terminator seeds to be the best demonstration of corporate arrogance and greed in modern capitalism. But the science of GMOs has the ability to feed the world and end starvation around the globe if used correctly. There's no question about that. A lot of the crazy GMO folks are also the same who don't believe in vaccinations. Luddites might be the best way to describe them, their reservations are driven from fear and ignorance. The magic recipe in American politics.
birdog1960 Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 The Politicization of Science continues. Nat Geo follows in the footsteps of the Washington Post Most Climate Change "Deniers" / Heretics like myself do not dispute the Earth's climate is changing. I do however take issue with the cause of the change, placing more weight in Solar and Geothermal than humans. Even the most devout Christians and Jews that I know accept the Theory of Evolution. Some will argue that Evolution follows the Will of God. While other non religious types, like my beloved Ancient Aliens meme, contend that Human Evolution was influenced by Aliens...aka a "Higher Power" Quick Unscientific Poll. How many people have you ever known that think the Moon landings were fake? I've never met any Vaccinations may have side effects. Personally I think they're a good idea. But if parents have concerns about what is injected into their children it is their right to refuse. Kids shouldn't be allowed into public schools without the vaccinations either. GMO again may have side effects. How are the anti-GMO crowd any crazier than Vegans, Atkins nuts, or the Gluten Free fad? national geographic is correct. there is a war on science. on al the things mentioned. and there needn't be. as groggy says, most if not all, of the issues can be rectified and aligned with all but the most extreme of religious viewpoints. but that is exactly what we are dealing with and they have declared war on science. the left is, in my view generally more flexible on these issues. i don't believe anyone is saying that climate change is 100% man made. i certainly have no problem with believing evolution is divinely designed. gmo's. i honestly think we'd n be better off not treading down that slippery slope of genetic manipulation but i can see the counter argument. i don't see this as a religious issue. but i can see where extremists might. and vaccinations comes down to the simple belief that the good for the overwhelming many outweighs the very questionable good of the few. even fundamentalist christians should agree here. the old testament is full of dietary and infectious disease (e.g. leprosy) dictums to protect the many from the few.
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 national geographic is correct. there is a war on science. on al the things mentioned. That phrase is every bit as laughably stupid as 'War on Christmas'.
KD in CA Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 But, to this day, no major candidate from the right has even admitted climate change is real. They can't, even if they believe it, because the religious nuts in the base will oust them in the primaries. Not quite. I've never heard anyone state that the earth's climate is static. The reason GOP candidates can't 'admit' climate change is 'real' (of course it's real -- the earth's climate has been evolving for billions of years) is because the left has perverted the entire discussion so that no one can have any kind of intelligent discussion without being pilloried by the mass media. Thanks to profiteers like ALGORE and media scare mongers whose only concerns are mouse clicks and eyeballs, "Climate change" is now code word for "OMG, the sky is falling and Times Square is going to be under water in 20 years and it's Settled Science!!!!11" And sadly, a huge % of the voting population has been stupid enough to buy into such bullsh-- hype. So no, 'religious nuts' are not the problem. A scientific issue that has been corrupted and perverted for political gain is the problem.
birdog1960 Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) Not quite. I've never heard anyone state that the earth's climate is static. The reason GOP candidates can't 'admit' climate change is 'real' (of course it's real -- the earth's climate has been evolving for billions of years) is because the left has perverted the entire discussion so that no one can have any kind of intelligent discussion without being pilloried by the mass media. Thanks to profiteers like ALGORE and media scare mongers whose only concerns are mouse clicks and eyeballs, "Climate change" is now code word for "OMG, the sky is falling and Times Square is going to be under water in 20 years and it's Settled Science!!!!11" And sadly, a huge % of the voting population has been stupid enough to buy into such bullsh-- hype. So no, 'religious nuts' are not the problem. A scientific issue that has been corrupted and perverted for political gain is the problem. you think national geographic is only concerned with mouse clicks and eyeballs? i think you have it confused with the cartoonish books and magazines you likely frequent. no it's not about fear mongering and profiteering. most liberals would be willing to spend large sums in their own tax dollars to attempt to reverse what is happening. this is about stupidity and pandering to it. Edited February 23, 2015 by birdog1960
Azalin Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 you think national geographic is only concerned with mouse clicks and eyeballs? Maybe not 'only', but certainly 'largely'. They're in the business of selling subscriptions and collecting ad revenue, which are both based in how many views they get. They're another media outlet, and they sensationalize like anyone else does.
Recommended Posts