<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google in your head</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ursecta.com/wp/2006/05/google-in-your-head/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ursecta.com/wp/2006/05/google-in-your-head/</link>
	<description>J. Martin Wehlou on Security, Software Development, and Medicine</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: jmw</title>
		<link>http://ursecta.com/wp/2006/05/google-in-your-head/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>jmw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ursecta.com/wp/?p=32#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Not hard to justify. The article says that non-MDs using Google are as good as MDs (not using Google) when making diagnoses. Ok, maybe not as good, a little worse. Now, isn't that bloody amazing? They ought not to be one tenth as good, but they are. 
What *I* am claiming is that an MD using Google is one heck of a lot better than either of the above. Sadly, that's not something they studied.
In other words, training MDs should not be based on memorizing signs and symptoms (you forget anyway) or treatments (they change), but on finding symptoms, categorizing them, naming them, using them in searches and interpreting the results. Plus, of course, acting on the received advice in a sensible manner.
Compare this to aircraft maintenance. The engineer is not expected to know every part of the plane; he's expected to read the diagrams and act on written instructions in a sensible manner.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not hard to justify. The article says that non-MDs using Google are as good as MDs (not using Google) when making diagnoses. Ok, maybe not as good, a little worse. Now, isn&#8217;t that bloody amazing? They ought not to be one tenth as good, but they are.<br />
What *I* am claiming is that an MD using Google is one heck of a lot better than either of the above. Sadly, that&#8217;s not something they studied.<br />
In other words, training MDs should not be based on memorizing signs and symptoms (you forget anyway) or treatments (they change), but on finding symptoms, categorizing them, naming them, using them in searches and interpreting the results. Plus, of course, acting on the received advice in a sensible manner.<br />
Compare this to aircraft maintenance. The engineer is not expected to know every part of the plane; he&#8217;s expected to read the diagrams and act on written instructions in a sensible manner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PLG</title>
		<link>http://ursecta.com/wp/2006/05/google-in-your-head/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>PLG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ursecta.com/wp/?p=32#comment-18</guid>
		<description>I think in order to justify this article, you should remark on the link below. It goes right against what you have stated, so probably a few words of wisdom would be nice.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/10/google_medical_survey/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think in order to justify this article, you should remark on the link below. It goes right against what you have stated, so probably a few words of wisdom would be nice.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/10/google_medical_survey/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.com/2006/11/10/google_medical_survey/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
