INTERESTING: Libraries will morph

Thursday, April 4, 2013

http://www.impactlab.net/2013/04/03/top-5-innovations-that-show-libraries-dont-have-to-disappear/

April 3rd, 2013 at 11:22 am
Top 5 innovations that show libraries don’t have to disappear
in: Analysis,People Making a Difference,Science & Technology News

Bookless library

Despite the meaning of the name, library (derived from liber, which is literally a Latin word for “tree bark”), libraries insist that they are actually a hotbed of innovation. And surprisingly they are, to some extent, it’s true. 

Yes, the “browsing” that libraries are constructed around is completely antithetical to how information is browsed on the Internet. But the existential threat posed by the web has driven libraries public and private to rethink how they can provide people with access not simply to dead trees, but to “information.” Here are five of the most interesting examples:

1. The Bookless Library

A judge in Bexar County, Texas made waves when he announced his intention to build a library without any books at all. That’s somewhat of an overstatement; there will be no paperbacks and no hardbacks, but BiblioTech will have a surplus of e-readers, making the text itself accessible to anyone with a library card.

# – # – # – # – #   


INTERESTING: 80% of doctors are expendable

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

http://www.impactlab.net/2012/09/11/technology-will-replace-80-of-doctors-vinod-khosla/

September 11th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Technology will replace 80% of doctors: Vinod Khosla

*** begin quote ***

Health care must be more data driven and about wellness, not sick care.

Eighty percent of doctors could be replaced by machines.

Khosla assured the audience that being part of the health care system was a burden and disadvantage. To disrupt health care, entrepreneurs do not need to be part of the system or status quo. He cited the example of CEO Jack Dorsey of Square (a wireless payment system allowing anyone to accept credit cards rather than setup a more costly corporate account with Visa / MasterCard) who reflected in a Wired magazine article that the ability to disrupt the electronic payment system which had stymied others for years was because of the 250 employees at Square, only 5 ever worked in that industry.

hosla believed that patients would be better off getting diagnosed by a machine than by doctors. Creating such a system was a simple problem to solve. Google’s development of a driverless smart car was “two orders of magnitude more complex” than providing the right diagnosis. A good machine learning system not only would be cheaper, more accurate and objective, but also effectively replace 80 percent of doctors simply by being better than the average doctor. To do so, the level of machine expertise would need to be in the 80th percentile of doctors’ expertise.

*** and ***

Can we do better in being more reliable, consistent, and creating a system process and design that is comparable to highly reliable organizations and industries? Of course. Can we be more systematic and doing the right things every patient every time on areas where the science is known to level of the molecule? Yes. Care must be incredibly simple to access, extremely convenient and intensely personal.

*** end quote *** 

Well, I am not a fan of America’s current “health care” system. Unless you’re trying to change it to the “socialized medicine” system found in the UK, Canada, and Europe.

I want improvement; not a retro grade or down grade to something worse.

And, of course, I think to the way to that is with less Gooferment and more liberty freedom.

After watching Deep Blue play Jeopardy, it’s seems possible. Doctor House could be a less smelly less crazy diagnostician. I’d have  gladly liked my wife’s case presented to Doctor Deep Blue. It couldn’t have had a worse outcome. 

Then look at all the regulation and costs imposed by that regulation.

The FDA, Medicare / Medicaid, Doctor licensing, Nurse Licensing, Pharmacist Licensing, Pharmacy regulation, Hospital regulation, Insurance regulation, State regulation, Federal regulation, financial regulation, tax code manipulation, Medical education regulation, anti-trust legislation that allows the AMA a monopoly, …  

Did I miss any?

Sigh!

How do we get out of this mess?

Let people make mistakes. Shade tree mechanics. Turn it over to WalMart.

Medicine should be patient driven.

Look at pet care. Competitive. “Cheap”. Easily found. No forms. No real regulation.

Imagine if a Nurse could have her own “practice”. Finding sick people and getting them to the doctor or hospital. Physician’s assistants would be an extension of the system. Everyone says early detection is crucial to good outcomes. Everyone says that rapid care is essential to good outcomes. Everyone says that over use of the ER is driving up costs and wait times. 

Yada, yada, yada …

It could be so much better.

# – # – # – # – #   


INTERESTING: The Heritage Foundation and OODA

Friday, January 20, 2012

http://www.vtcommons.org/blog/heritage-foundation-then-and-now

The Heritage Foundation Then and Now
Winslow Wheeler

*** begin quote ***

Since then, Heritage has come a long way in defense policy analysis, all of it downward. On December 26, 2012 the Director of Heritage’s Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Dr. James J. Carafano, published a commentary in the Washington Examiner, “What To Do about Obama’s Pound-Foolish Air Force.” Without saying so explicitly, he implied that the legendary Col. John R. Boyd, “a fighter pilot’s fighter pilot” in Dr. Carafano’s words, would favor what the good doctor wants: to reopen production of the $411 million F-22 and to buy more $154 million F-35s.

*** and ***

Not only did Carafano miss the boat on the technical differences between the F-86 and MiG-15, he ignored the even more important Boydian idea that, to win wars, people come first, ideas (i.e., tactics and strategy) are second, and hardware is a distant third. It was perfectly obvious to Boyd why two hundred F-86s achieved air superiority over 1000 MiGs in Korea and shot down 5 to 10 enemies for every American loss. Our pilots were simply far more skilled than the Chinese and Russians by virtue of better selection, more rigorous and realistic training using better tactics and better exploitation of the skills of experienced pilots, and far more flying hours (the much more reliable F-86 flew 40 hours per month to the MiG’s 10 or 12 hours). Had we changed aircraft with the enemy, our lop-sided victory tally in Korea would have been the same—an insight repeated almost verbatim decades later by the Israeli Air Force commanders after the 1973 and 1982 wars, then again by the U.S commander of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Despite John Boyd’s seminal role in designing the F-15 and F-16, he was always the first to point out that technical differences in friendly versus enemy aircraft are minor compared to differences in people skills—and that applied with equal force to ground and naval weapons.

*** end quote ***

I love when I can find gems in posts.

Here is a “debunking” of the Heritage Foundation. The same Heritage Foundation that has been advertising on Rush and Hannity and pushing their Reagan connection.

And inside it is an excellent about why Boyd was a visionary. “People first. Ideas second. Technology third.”

A lot of businesses could use that insight.

# – # – # – # – #


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,060 other followers

%d bloggers like this: