I do similar systems for genomics. Despite all the hype around cloud services in our space, we're finding more interest in local copies of the standard databases with links out to the canonical sources as needed. The local copies keep hospital IT happy and ensure access if the network is wonky.

And, it turns out that most clinicians are comfortable sorting through database records on their own and don't like magic algorithms attempting to do it for them. Access to the basic data is what they want.

-Chris

Those pictures are amazing! I immediately was taken back to playing Super Mario Galaxy and imagined Mario running around the comet.

-Chris

The first few weeks of any training program typically suck. That's where willpower (or encouragement if you're in a group) plays such an important role.

Once I'm passed the initial hump, I always feel the "addictive" need to get more exercise and chase the high. In my specific case, the "high" comes after sustained exertion in the med/high effort range. I rarely see it biking (I'm a bike commuter and never really push myself). But running, climbing, mountaineering, and snowboarding all bring it out. For running, on long runs at a moderate pace it kicks in around mile 5 or 6. For short, faster runs, it kicks in about 30 minutes after the run and lasts for a few hours. Other sports have similar patterns. In my experience, the feeling is most similar to hydrocodone (which, unfortunately, I also know about from running).

Wikipedia's description of the "runner's high" covers some of the suspected mechanisms for it.

-Chris

A big reason we accept the trade offs of modern processors is that it's generally easy to program a broad range of applications for them.

In the mid aughts (not very long ago, actually), there was a big push for heterogeneous multi-core processors and systems in the HPC space. Roadrunner at Los Alamos was a culmination of this effort (one of the first petascale systems). It was mix of processor types including IBMs Cell (itself a heterogeneous chip). Programming Roadrunner was a bitch. In having different processor families, you had to decompose your algorithm to target the right processor for a given task. Then you had to worry about moving data efficiently between different processors.

This type of development is fun as an intellectual exercise, but very difficult and time consuming in practice. It's also something compilers will never be good at, requiring experts in the architectures, domains, and applications to effectively use the system.

Another lesson from the period (and one that anyone whose done asics has known for years) is that general purpose hardware generally evolves fast enough to catch up with specialized hardware with a reasonable timeframe (usually 6-18 months, see DE Shaw's ASIC for protein folding as an example).

While custom processors are cool (I love hacking on them), they're rarely practical.

-Chris

So, there is some truth to the 3 month number. I learned C from a minimal programming background in one semester as an undergrad, or about three months. Of course, 20 years later I'm still refining my skills. The rest of the CS degree gave me a much more solid foundation than I'd have if I had gone straight to work after learning C. Surprisingly, basic theory like complexity analysis come in handy when building applications.

-Chris

Open Standards and Protocols are what this space needs, along with regulations requiring vendors to allow interoperability for free or a nominal fee.

Open Source software, on the other hand, won't really solve any problems. Someone has to write the software and vet it. EHR software isn't an itch people typically want to scratch. Of course, an EHR platform could leverage Open Source software for development. A Web-based EHR could use an entire Open Source stack and even contribute libraries for protocol support.

Open Source is great for infrastructure components, not so great for user-facing applications. At some level in the stack, someone needs to do the UX work, testing, and validation to create an application people can actually use.

I would never advocate for a fully Open Source solution for EHRs or any other complex, user-facing software, but I would put incentives in place to leverage as much Open Source in the stack as possible. Plus, any company that does that right will have much cheaper dev costs and will be able to undercut the competition a bit (though for supported software, dev costs are usually only 10-20% of the costs, with support, marketing, sales, etc taking up the bulk of the costs).

-Chris

Um, Google tried the whole GoogleHealth thing a few years back and gave up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

This is not an easy space to play in. Hospitals and doctors are slow to change. Once an investment has been made in a particular platform it's very difficult to replace it.

-Chris

The question is interesting in relation to the current bias against four year degrees for software developers in some circles. If, as Peter Thiel claims, you don't need a degree, then it shouldn't matter what your degree is if you get one. So, from that perspective, a tech degree or a liberal arts degree shouldn't make a difference. If a liberal arts degree makes for a more intellectually well rounded person, then it could be argued that that's the better degree for tech.

Of course, I don't buy Peter's argument at all. A good CS degree teaches foundational methods that can be applied throughout a career. Don't get me started on the number of times basic complexity theory or knowledge of the full memory hierarchy has helped improve performance of web pages. Most hobbyists don't have those skills and write them off as just academic oddities. A good CS degree also exposes you to a range of technologies and methods for developing software (no, CS is not just math, no more than physics is just theoretical physics). It gives you an environment where you can develop your skills and gain exposure to the breadth of topics in the field. It's a Good Thing(tm).

Should all programmers have CS degrees? Of course not, but those that do are always going to have an edge over most of the other ones (there are always exceptions - I know a few great developers without degrees).

-Chris

VR simulations are only as good as our ability to model and simulate the things we're studying. Physics, maybe. Chemistry and Biology, no way. The latter two are messy and don't lend themselves to simulation expect in a few very specific situations. If it's simply for information retrieval and watching videos, a book or screen is sufficient.

I've spent a lot of time with various 3D emersion technologies and scientific applications (old-school VR, Caves, polarized googles, etc) and the reality is that they don't add much. Don't get me wrong, they make GREAT demos. I love playing with the technology. But, spend any amount of time doing real work with them and their limitations quickly become apparent. It's not that the technology doesn't work, it's that most content doesn't really lend itself to the medium and for content that does, getting the user experience right is a difficult and expensive task.

-Chris

And let's just remember that planes don't actually fly themselves:

http://www.askthepilot.com/que...

-Chris

And that is how our current implementation of the free market actually works. No business action is made for the customer's benefit. It's always about making one more dollar off a captive customer base and pretending you're doing them a favor. America needs to return to stakeholder capitalism rather than the current shareholder model (yes, there actually are different models for market-based economies).

Yes!!! I wish I had mod points. They basically had them ready to go for C++11 and then committee infighting killed them (Bjarne stubbornly backed the wrong horse - not that I have a strong opinion on this or anything ;) ).

Syntactic support for generic programming would be the single best addition to C++ to breathe new life into the language and get a whole generation of developers who've written it off interested in it. Generic programming is as paradigm shifting as OOP. It just kills me that it's so thoroughly obfuscated by template meta-programming in C++.

Markets are defined by their rules, plain and simple.

The rules for an ideal free market are pretty straight forward: everyone is free to do whatever they want. There's also another term for this approach in the political sphere: anarchy.

What most people really mean when they say free market (in America, at least) is a market defined by the rules of property law (the foundation of most western legal systems). As soon as you have some basic rules, you no longer have a free market.

A real free market is a theoretical extreme, like an ideal gas. It's useful for reasoning about things, but doesn't actually exist in any practical form in real life.

-Chris

Actually, neither C nor C++ have formal specifications. They both have very well defined and curated standards documents that can be called specifications (without the formal part), but neither has a proper formal specification.

-Chris

I look at it this way: I can pay $100+ a month to watch cable TV with commercials or I can pay $9 for Netflix, $8 for Hulu Plus, and nothing for my TV antenna for local shows. Yes, the ads on Hulu Plus are annoying, repetitive, and can't be skipped. But, I grew up in the 70s and 80s and have developed the skills to cope with ads and the lack of time shifting for local news. Millennial's milage may vary...

-Chris