WHERE does creativity come from? For centuries, we’ve had a clear answer: the lone genius. The idea of the solitary creator is such a common feature of our cultural landscape as with Newton and the falling apple that we easily forget it’s an idea in the first place.
But the lone genius is a myth that has outlived its usefulness. Fortunately, a more truthful model is emerging: the creative network, as with the crowd-sourced Wikipedia or the writer’s room at “The Daily Show” or — the real heart of creativity — the intimate exchange of the creative pair, such as John Lennon and Paul McCartney and myriad other examples with which we’ve yet to fully reckon.
Historically speaking, locating genius within individuals is a recent enterprise. Before the 16th century, one did not speak of people being geniuses but having geniuses. “Genius,” explains the Harvard scholar Marjorie Garber, meant “a tutelary god or spirit given to every person at birth.” Any value that emerged from within a person depended on a potent, unseen force coming from beyond that person.As late as the Renaissance, people we’d now consider quasi-divine creators were more likely to be seen as deft imitators, making compelling work from familiar materials. Shakespeare, for example, did not typically dream up new ideas for plays but rewrote, adapted and borrowed from the plots, characters and language of previous works. “Romeo and Juliet,” as Mark Rose, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, notes, is an episode-by-episode dramatization of a poem by Arthur Brooke.
On 24 August 1965 Gloria Placente, a 34-year-old resident of Queens, New York, was driving to Orchard Beach in the Bronx. Clad in shorts and sunglasses, the housewife was looking forward to quiet time at the beach. But the moment she crossed the Willis Avenue bridge in her Chevrolet Corvair, Placente was surrounded by a dozen patrolmen. There were also 125 reporters, eager to witness the launch of New York police department’s Operation Corral – an acronym for Computer Oriented Retrieval of Auto Larcenists.
Fifteen months earlier, Placente had driven through a red light and neglected to answer the summons, an offence that Corral was going to punish with a heavy dose of techno-Kafkaesque. It worked as follows: a police car stationed at one end of the bridge radioed the licence plates of oncoming cars to a teletypist miles away, who fed them to a Univac 490 computer, an expensive $500,000 toy $3.5m in today’s dollars on loan from the Sperry Rand Corporation. The computer checked the numbers against a database of 110,000 cars that were either stolen or belonged to known offenders. In case of a match the teletypist would alert a second patrol car at the bridge’s other exit. It took, on average, just seven seconds.
“I no longer look at somebody’s CV to determine if we will interview them or not,” declares Teri Morse, who oversees the recruitment of 30,000 people each year at Xerox Services. Instead, her team analyses personal data to determine the fate of job candidates.
She is not alone. “Big data” and complex algorithms are increasingly taking decisions out of the hands of individual interviewers – a trend that has far-reaching consequences for job seekers and recruiters alike.
Linux World Domination Complete: Why It’s Foolish To Bet Against Open Source Communities [readwrite.com/]
Ten years ago Unix claimed five the top-10 fastest computers on the planet and 44% of the overall supercomputer market. Today? Unix, the once indomitable performance powerhouse, doesn’t make the top-10 list of the world’s fastest computers. Heck, it can’t even crack the top 50. Not since Linux took over, that is.
Buried in these sobering statistics on the rise of Linux and the fall of Unix is a reminder to proprietary infrastructure software vendors that hope to compete with open source: you can’t win. Not when the community gets involved.
Originally posted on Gigaom:
When most people leave the hospital after a lengthy stay, they probably assume they won’t be coming back again soon to deal with the same problem. Unfortunately, that’s often just wishful thinking. In fact, re-admissions — sometimes within just a couple weeks — are such a big problem that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) includes measures to address the problem.
Put simply, the law provides financial incentives for hospitals to improve readmission rates and financial sticks with which to punish hospitals where the problem persists. Improve the problem, get more funding. Keep readmitting patients within short windows after discharge, don’t get paid for treatment. The latter scenario is bad for patients and bad for hospitals.
According to studies, about a quarter of Medicare patients treated for heart failure are readmitted within 30 days, and heart-failure re-admissions alone cost Medicare about $15 billion a year. Predictions about how many of those are preventable…
View original 633 more words