- Last Active
Well, if it's software, roll it out in beta now... at least flashing 'potential scam' on the screen on the phone with a 'screen' and a 'block/report' button to the carrierIt can absolutely be done if they want to and no "bionic" chip needed. There's even a current system that if a potential scam call is detected asks the caller to state what they're calling about before passing the call on to the user.
I can't believe all the 'you qualify for lower interest calls from 'my card issuer, VisaMaster Card Services' who then proceed to ask me for my credit card number, and then tell me that 'it's secure because they don't ask me for the CCV number' (yeah, I answered about 1 a day to ask them to stop) I've been blocking all of them after the fact, and it's now down to about 3 a week vs 5 a day.
(Thank you, EquiFax)
In a related note... I got a call from another user in my exchange (XXX-XXX-nnnn) who said I called them... I'm wondering if you start 'blocking' calls if the robocallers start using YOUR phone number (thinking it's dead/disconnected, and a good candidate for spoofed robocalling). [If I were evil... I would]. Anyone else hearing that condition happening?
bloodshotrollin'red said:I hope Apple/Stanford will expand this research to include selected EU universities.
I've been in and out of healthcare and biotech IT for 50 years (granted, my first job was helping clean X-ray film processing machines as a pre-teen). Spent a few years working with integrating NeXT technologies into healthcare in the 80's and 90's, and spent days in Fremont and Santa Clara seeing how NeXT's upper management saw how 90% of medicine is simply a problem of getting the right information to the right people at the right time (most MDs were working from 20 year old studies, polluted by Drug Detailers, and working with patients who didn't know systolic from alcoholic). So looking at 'retail health care' makes sense to me.
Apple's DNA is about changing the system before the system thinks it needs changing.
This is like Apple Stores. At the time, everyone said technology store fronts were dying against the 'Dell' and 'Amazon' models.
I seen 'primary healthcare' as the later to 'think different'. To do this, you will need 'retail' clinics to exploit this model (busy people, close to people... like corp-located healthcare services). I see consideration of this purchase is trying to change the model of healthcare from 'acute episodic' care, to 'continual care/wellness monitoring/coaching' and most likely, building a whole new model of PMR (one not owned by the clinic, but one that is fully owned by you [in the cloud]). Walking into the office with 2 months of BP or the last 12 hours of temp and heart rate, and eventually, ekg, blood sugars, ketones, will move 'specialist' level data collection to a PA/NP reviewing the data remotely and adjusting Rx and dosing via telemedicine, with follow-ups being done at Primary Care CoPays over a lunch hour vs a 2 hour trip to a specialist.
Soli said:macplusplus said:OS X was X because of UNIX, not because of anything tenth. X to denominate UNIX was common in the 90s.
for us oldsters, legend has alluded that Mac OS 10 was written with the roman numeral X for 3 reasons
1) The X was the most prominent part of the branding, and was there to represent its unix compatibility.
At the time, Windows (or Mac OS 9) wasn't considered 'workstation' (a 'mainframe' OS on a desktop) quality, compared to Sun, SGI, Ultrix, HP-UX.
Look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII
3 minutes in: Very Linux Like
2) a veiled homage to NeXTstep (avi tevanian liked it, and hated when for marketing purposes, they renamed NeXTSTEP to OPENSTEP when they went cross platform). The decision to start 'Rhapsody' with Mach/BSD (NeXTSTEP) and kill 'Copeland'. Apple marketing* was driving to pronounce it "oh ess ten", the old NeXT engineering teams called it 'Oh-esS-eks' (or OS-NeXT), rhyming with POSIX 'paws-eks' (a key standard Apple was driving to for corporate sales)
*At the time of the NeXT purchase, Apple had AU/X. 'Apple Unix with Xwindows'. A good OS, but a commercial failure (like all Xwindows desktops were a consumer failure).
The calling of it as Oh-ess-ten is often attributed to making sure Mac faithful knew that their Classic Mac stuff would work (in blue box), and this new OS wasn't incompatible like AU/X was. Old Apple Marketing was heels dug in about pronouncing it 'eks', and new Apple Marketing wanted to highlight the Unix underpinning of a 'single, real, modern' operating system (vs Windows 98 and NT and CE, and 2000). Using X as a symbol and 10 as a name was the marketing compromise, New and totally different, yet, just the next Mac Operating system.
3) A tech marketing tenet from the 60's and 70's was to use X in brand names (Xerox, AMEX, FedEX), as it sounded 'techie' (likely from X-Ray) for the double sublimal message of 'unknown/variable' [cool compared to a constant], and mind seeing the X and mentally alliterating to 'seX' (maybe a guy thing).
(this was attributed in the urban legend of Digital Equipment' 32bit computer name an impure Acronym: VAX: 'Virtual Addressing eXtention' They wanted a 3 letter acronym that reference Virtual addressing and had an X in it )
Ever wonder why they called it Pepsi Max?
imergingenious said:7 billion is mostly licensed content. How much are they going to spend on original? 2 billion? Think about how many shows and movies Netflix produces; if they are doing that with 1 - 3 billion, then a 1 billion outlay by Apple just to get started in the game is pretty serious.
However, getting a 'Sopranos' / 'Game of Thrones' like must-see content to drive 10-20 million iPad/AppleTV buyers into the fold every season isn't a bad variation of a business model either....