Hasn't it always been known that early adopters are exposed to some risk? Yup, you can pay a lot of money to be the first person with a new gadget, but you are paying a premium to be a guinea pig and reinforcing that there is a market where people pay a lot of money to be a guinea pig. (Yes, Apple probably should have considered tattooed skin in their testing.)

This is a simplified explanation, but also the first one I have seen here. Mod parent up.

I doubt it's about a lack of "good coders." The medical industry does not lack money when it deems something important. Two problems:

1. Medical records are actually a really difficult problem (combining information from many doctors and specialties, healthcare providers, imaging data, lab results, etc.)

2. What CEO wouldn't want to outsource to the lowest bidder?

(2) is where lawyers are potentially helpful. However, I am not sure if the lawyer system works better than the CEO system.

No. They are looking at the pattern of blood vessels on your retina (the part in the back of your eye that detects light; see https://www.eyeboston.com/Publ... ) as sort of a "fingerprint."

Additional information, from http://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/tracki... : Studies show that about one in three (33%) people carry staph in their nose, usually without any illness. Two in 100 people carry MRSA. There are not data showing the total number of people who get MRSA skin infections in the community. Additionally, it is particularly a problem in hospitals because of sick people that go through there and the number immunocompromised. As you pointed out, MRSA is actually very similar to Staph aureus. The main place it differs is treatment with antibiotics. Mutations to antibiotics do not make bacteria less susceptible to disinfectants (in fact the mutations may take additional energy, making the bacteria slightly more susceptible). For skin infections, one can potentially get higher local concentrations of topical medications without exposing the whole body to the same concentration (e.g., the use of disinfectants like betadine and chlorhexidine to help treat skin infections). For blood borne infections, I'm sure someone will look at the toxicity in mice; that's part of research. As the article states, they still don't know the mechanism or compounds involved. As medieval people demonstrated, one does not always need to. However, it can be useful for reducing toxicity if needed. Overall, it's an neat article due to the methodology and a fun read. It may go somewhere, but many of these things don't.

It's about vertical integration. They do not want to be dependent on other companies. This is something that many large companies do (e.g., as pointed out Mac and Google have browsers). That said, there are obviously many cases where companies choose to use other company's products. An example would be the automobile industry's relationship with parts suppliers. This helps minimize the number of things a given company does so that they can focus on creating value through their core products. Microsoft appears to have a lot of "not created here" syndrome. I think this may be due to software generally displays the brand name and they want you to know that "Microsoft" has you covered for all of your basic computer software requirements.

I can tell you, getting through the HR gatekeepers can be really difficult no matter who you are. I have two doctoral degrees (engineering and medicine--let's just say I went through school quickly) with relevant experience. Even if you know someone within the company that wants to recommend you, it can be extremely difficult to get through the bureaucracy. I am talking with my congressional representative tomorrow (in person; I scheduled it). I don't know if it will make a difference, but I am really tired of hearing about the lack of talent in this country, according to companies, when people will not talk to the talent that exists. I hope that more people with strong qualifications that are having difficulty job hunting due to HR shenanigans do similarly.