Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday November 15 2015, @05:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the can-I-get-that-on-my-ipad? dept.

Millennials and younger generations expect to use their own technologies and biological data to help doctors deliver more personal care.

Caring for a rapidly ageing population is challenging. Experts working to revitalize healthcare for the 21 century are tackling this challenge by shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a more personalized healthcare approach, one that is heavily influenced by how young people use technology.

To combat skyrocketing healthcare costs for an American population of 326 million people spanning six generations, experts are turning to bioscience and new technologies as well as to young, tech-savvy digital natives who are already nudging healthcare into the Internet age.

"We're already seeing that millennials and younger generations won't be the same kinds of patients as their parents," said Eric Dishman, an Intel Fellow and general manager of Intel's Health and Life Sciences.

"These 18-to-34 year olds already expect to have data and tools to help them manage their health just like they do for everything else in their lives."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Sunday November 15 2015, @05:26PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday November 15 2015, @05:26PM (#263690) Journal

    But they're so good at using the apps!

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @06:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @06:47PM (#263716)
    Ah yes, condescending smarm from the one who probably greenlit this submission. Science X is a cesspool emblematic of the current "in-the-Silly-Valley" bubble. I never frequent phys.org or any of the other Science X sites, but I could smell their stench the millisecond after my locked-down-by-NoScript browser rendered their site (not quite as broken as I'd expect a site like this to be when Javascript is disabled, but the content itself is still disgusting.)

    Consider the following review on Amazon [amazon.com]:

    I used to love this site. I've read it since it was physorg.com in 2004. But it's been taken over by money men that are trying to shave the candle from both ends without totally screwing the site up. They're doing a good job as few realize what they've become.

    Consider: After being founded in 2004, the site became an asset of Omicron Technology, LTD (English) in 2008, when the current editor-in-chief took over (two year process finalized in 2008). Immediately after that, Omicron Technology, LTD was dissolved and moved from London to the Isle of Man. No further documents have been filed and the principals are operating an unregistered corporation that they explicitly dissolved. Immediately thereafter outbrain, adblade and taboola scam adverts started appearing on the pages and the denier trolls started showing up regularly. They've even tried to anonymize the domain name.

    We don't know they aren't taking payments to allow the troll trash. I'll bet they are. No financial statements now to say one way or the other and they're offshore. Convenient. EVERY climate change article will have 25-100 trolls of the paid-by-Koch variety cutting and pasting the same old crap over and over and over...and it is never edited, deleted, or controlled in any way. When you add it all up, it's mighty suspicious. If they were still legit, why aren't they filing the required docs with Companies House? Why did they move offshore to avoid prosecution for fraud for claiming to be an active corporation that is actually a dissolved entity? And they did, because if they were still in London I'd be asking them these questions in a court of law.

    The articles are still great, but you may be subsidizing a number of scams and things you find very disturbing if you continue to use the site.

    Yeah, that sounds about right for the vibe I get every time one of these articles is posted (and it seems to be a favorite source of Phoenix666). This is probably where almost all of the graphene articles come from.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @07:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @07:46PM (#263732)

      condescending smarm

      It's called 'humor'. You know, the thing you don't have?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:49PM (#263769)

        He's right that phys.org and its related cretins are clickbait garbage, though.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @09:57PM (#263773)

          Who actually reads the article though? I just read the headline and then proceed to shitpost in the comment section.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @10:21PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 15 2015, @10:21PM (#263778)

            Which limits the flame potential cuz that would be the end of that. If the articles actually have some bit of substance, somebody would soon enough go and read the thing (sorry fools that they are), and come back and rant "that's not what it's about, you morons", and begins the next stage of multi-way gang-bang of flame trail - so much more satisfying.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 16 2015, @02:11AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday November 16 2015, @02:11AM (#263828) Journal

      from the one who probably greenlit this submission

      Look up top. It says "posted by cmn32480".

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Monday November 16 2015, @05:36PM

      by cmn32480 (443) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {08423nmc}> on Monday November 16 2015, @05:36PM (#264027) Journal

      Please feel free to submit alternatives. Submissions are accepted from Anonymous Cowards. We publish them regularly.

      Phys.org is a convenient place to pull submissions from because they aggregate from a large number of other websites and give out nice little bits like direct links to the published papers. Many other places we have to go hunting for the original source or referenced paper, and that makes it a lot harder and more time consuming for the volunteer editing staff.

      If you don't like sourcing from phys.org, go to the original articles that they pull from and submit them.

      Be part of the solution to the problem you perceive. Don't just bitch about it and expect the rest of us to do the heavy lifting.

      --
      "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson