Ini Dia 5 Trailer Game yang Bisa Membuat anda Terkagum-Kagum !

Limit Komputer | Ini Dia 5 Trailer Game yang Bisa Membuat anda Terkagum-Kagum ! - Trailer merupakan cuplikan singkat yang diambil dari sebuah Film atau Game yang menampilkan nuansa yang beragam mulai dari: biasa saja, luar biasa, luar binasa, atau fantastis. trailer sering dirilis apabila ada sebuah film atau game yang baru dibuat namun belum dirilis atau diluncurkan.

Fungsi trailer ini pun bisa di bilang beragam diantaranya: untuk mempromosikan dan memberi obat penawar rasa penasaran bagi yang menunggu dirilisnya Film atau Game!.

Berikut ini saya memberikan 5 video trailer game populer yang bisa di bilang keren, unik bahkan konyol. nah dari pada berlama-lama mari kita saksikan bersama-sama, Cekidot!

1. FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn - A New Beginning

2. Deus Ex: Human Revolution




3. DmC Devil may Cry




4. Crysis 3 | 7 Wonders Episode 4 "Typhoon"




5. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Trailer


 
Bagaimana menurut kalian, keren bukan ?

Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. Part I

As with all voluntary movements, eating food is an expression of activity in the brain.  The brain integrates various inputs from around the body, and outside the body, and decides whether or not to execute the goal-directed behaviors of food seeking and consumption.  Research has uncovered a lot about how this process works, and in this series I'll give a simplified overview of what scientists have learned about how, and why, the brain decides to eat.

The Gatekeeper of Voluntary Behaviors

Read more »

Inilah Geyser Pertama dan Tertua di Dunia

 

     Geysir atau sering disebut Geysir Besar adalah mata air geotermal di Haukadalur, Islandia barat daya dan juga merupakan geyser tertua yang masih aktif. Dari sinilah kata geyser berasal, yang kini banyak digunakan oleh hampir semua bahasa di dunia. 

 

 

     Geysir diketahui pertama kali pada tahun 1294, saat sebuah gempa bumi membangkitkan aktivitas geologis. Gempa bumi di daerah itu menyebabkan perubahan signifikan di daerah sekitarnya yang menciptakan beberapa sumber air panas baru. 

     Sejak tahun 1630 hingga tahun 1896 Geysir Besar itu tidak pernah meletus lagi sebelum sebuah gempa bumi pada tahun itu yang menyebabkan erupsi bermula, terjadi beberapa kali sehari, berlangsung hingga sejam dan menyebabkan letupan setinggi ± 60 m. 

      Daerah di Taman Nasional Geysir aktif secara geotermal, contohnya geyser "Strokkur" yang selalu meletus beberapa menit dengan ketinggian mencapai 20 m. Tempat tersebut, bersama dengan Þingvellir dan air terjun Gullfoss, menjadi bagian pemandangan paling menarik di Islandia.

SUMBER 

Broken Promises: Latest HCA Settlement Suggests Skepticism about the Next Big Thing in Health Care

A long time ago in the US, most people got care from physicians who were self-employed, or part of physician partnerships.  If they had to be hospitalized, it was at hospitals that were community or academic non-profit organizations.   If they had health insurance, it was likely from a non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliate.  However, with the rise of market fundamentalism, we have heard the promises of increased efficiency and innovation from for-profit health care.  So hospitals, insurance companies, and now increasingly physicians' practices have been bought up by for profit corporations.

Many politicians and policy-makers seemed to believe the promises, and often joined the cheering sections for the latest and greatest for-profit conversions.  Should they have done so?  Let us look at a case that recently hit the news again and think about it..

Background - HCA Acquired Health Midwest

Way back in 2002, large for-profit hospital chain HCA, formerly Columbia/HCA, acquired a sizable non-profit hospital system, Health Midwest.  As the Los Angeles Times then reported,

In a setback for Tenet Healthcare Corp., rival hospital giant HCA Inc. said Wednesday that it has agreed to buy Health Midwest, a 14-hospital chain based in Kansas City, Mo., for $1.13 billion.

Santa Barbara-based Tenet and HCA were the two finalists in a rare opportunity to acquire, in one swoop, a dominant hospital system in a growing urban market. The 20-member board of Health Midwest, a nonprofit company that has been struggling financially, said it voted unanimously to go with HCA.

The biggest factor in the decision by the Health Midwest board to accept the HCA offer was apparently the almighty dollar.

 'HCA's bid was much higher,' [Tenet spokesperson Harry] Anderson said, noting that he could not disclose Tenet's offer because of a confidentiality agreement.

But in addition to cash, HCA made some promises that sounded attractive to the board.

 In addition to the cash price, HCA said it would spend $450 million for capital improvements over the next five years.

That promise came from the top of HCA, as reported by the Nashville post,

 HCA Chief Executive Jack Bovender said: 'This has been a comprehensive, thorough process with a lot of community participation. We are ready to get to work to improve these hospitals through significant capital infusion and by making long term operational improvements.'

 Furthermore, as the Los Angeles Times also reported

Health Midwest spokesman Chris Whitley said price was not the only factor in the decision.

'As important to the board was to find a party that would offer a strong commitment to maintain and honor the various religious, cultural and charitable traditions,' he said.

There were objections by people who did not have decision making authority, but they apparently did not carry much weight

Labor and community activists in Kansas City have opposed a takeover of a nonprofit health system by an investor-owned corporation, raising concerns that such a conversion would lead to cuts, hurting employees and consumers.

In retrospect, why Health Midwest was so trusting of HCA at the time was unclear.  HCA, after all, did not have a track record then that should have inspired trust.  The HCA acquisition of Health Midwest was approved only a few years after what was then Columbia/ HCA settled allegations of extensive Medicare fraud.  the $1.7 billion the company paid made it the largest Medicare fraud case settled up to that time (and was larger than the amount it later spent on this acquisition.    See this post for some details and sources.)  This certainly could have raised a "red flag" before the deal was concluded.  But it did not. 

This deal was typical of many deals in which for-profit corporations, some backed by private equity firms, took over sometimes struggling non-profit hospitals, while promising great things for their communities.  For example, see our posts about the take-over of a health care system called Caritas Christi, by Cerberus Capital Management.  Caritas Christi was given the reassuring name of Steward Health Care, and then proceeded to take over, or try to take over additional hospitals. (Click the links for this long story.)  

Broken Promises - the New HCA Settlement

A new legal settlement by HCA suggests that such takeovers of non-profit hospitals by for-profit corporations ought to be regarded with much greater skepticism.  This time, per the New York Times,

HCA, the nation’s largest profit-making hospital chain, was ordered on Thursday to pay $162 million after a judge in Missouri ruled that it had failed to abide by an agreement to make improvements to dilapidated hospitals that it bought in the Kansas City area several years ago. 

Thus the new HCA settlement suggested that those fine promises made by HCA executives and their cheer leaders when HCA was seeking to take over Health Midwest were broken.

The trouble in the Kansas City area began a year after HCA acquired a dozen hospitals from Health Midwest in 2003 for $1.125 billion. As part of the deal, HCA agreed to make $300 million in capital improvements in the first two years and an additional $150 million in the following three. The hospital chain also agreed to maintain the levels of care that had been provided to low-income individuals and families in the area for 10 years. 

But when the members of the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City, a nonprofit created from the proceeds of the sale of the hospital, received their first report from HCA in 2004 they discovered the hospital was already way behind.

Of the $300 million it was supposed to spend in the first two years, its own documents showed it had spent only about $50 million, according to Mark G. Flaherty, one of the founding members of the foundation and its general counsel.

HCA’s reports to the foundation also indicated that the level of charitable care it provided at the system’s large inner-city hospital had fallen while charitable care provided at the more affluent suburban hospital had risen sharply, Mr. Flaherty said.

'That was a big red flag to us,' he said.

After repeatedly asking HCA executives for explanations but receiving none, the foundation sued HCA in 2009. The case went to trial for several weeks in 2011.

 Note that there were alleged violations of two key provisions of the original deal, improvements to existing hospitals and guarantees of charitable care.  So here is at least one case, involving the largest US for-profit hospital corporation, showing violation of the sorts of promises that those promoting for-profit take-overs tout as showing at least the goodwill of the new corporate owners.

Should the HCA Track Record Have Led to Questions About Trustworthiness?

It is unclear how often anyone has bothered to check whether similar promises made in other deals were fulfilled.  It appears that such inquiries might actually involve a lot of bother.  Note that in this case it took almost six years for the community foundation to obtain enough information to conclude that HCA had not met its obligations and file a lawsuit, and another almost four years to get the case resolved.

The New York Times hinted that there was at least one other inquiry about a contemporaneous HCA deal.  While "a judge ruled in HCA's favor, deciding that Portsmouth Regional Hospital [in New Hampshire] would remain part of HCA after community leaders tried to regain control," the court proceedings did produce

 testimony in a 2011 trial, [in which] a former hospital official claimed he had difficulties getting HCA to pay for what he and others described as critical equipment and facility upgrades.

Meanwhile, there have been other recent events that should raise further questions about the trustworthiness of HCA going forward.  Last year extensive reporting suggested that HCA hospitals put short-term revenue ahead of patients' welfare through overuse of lucrative cardiac procedures and and undertreatment of poor patients in emergency departments and debilitated patients with bed sores (see this post).   Also last year HCA settled allegations it provided kickbacks to physicians at some of its hospitals to refer patients to its hospitals (see this post).     

Moreover, the record over the long term raises a big question as to why the good people of Missouri, the "show me" state, trusted HCA sufficiently for hospital acquisition deal to go forward in 2003.  As we wrote above, HCA was only a few years out of making the biggest settlement for federal health care fraud known at that time. 

Summary

 In 2010, we suggested that the take-over of non-profit hospitals by for-profit firms owned by private equity ought to be viewed with extreme skepticism.  In 2010, in Deadly Spin, former CIGNA public relations chief Wendell Potter showed how the conversions of non-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance plans to for-profit corporations were justified by the need to gather more capital to provide services comparable to new for-profit competitors, but were really motivated by the greed of executives who "would earn bigger pay packages for managing larger businesses, and if they could convert them to for-profit companies, they stood to earn even more." 

I submit that if anyone were able to look carefully at the results of the various deals that allowed for-profit corporations to take over hospitals, other organizations that directly take care of patients, health insurance companies, and now even physicians' practices, they would likely find that a lot of fine sounding promises made were broken and assurances made were false.  


From now on, I can only hope that health care professionals, policy-makers, politicians, but mainly the public at large will be appropriately skeptical of the fluffy promises made by those who stand to personally gain from the latest big thing in health care.  In particular, we all should be acutely skeptical the next time someone promises lower costs, better care, innovation, etc, etc by converting a community non-profit hospital to a subsidiary of a big for profit corporation.  

How the HIT zealots and profiteers have harmed physicians and nurses, not to mention patients, taxpayers, and the government

Any new technology introduced into a complex system, especially when introduced recklessly, has the potential to produce unexpected consequences, and the problems introduced can be worse than the problems the technology was attempting to solve.  This is a fundamental precept and empirical observation in the field of social informatics, a domain that studies information and communication tools in their cultural or institutional contexts.

Idealism combined with zealotry (excess of zeal; fanatical devotion) and/or hyper-enthusiasm that ignores the downsides of an intervention, and silences credible critique,  has also proven to be a dangerous combination.

Characteristic of the health IT hyper-enthusiasts been zealotry, silencing of credible critics, and spreading of illusory memes and technologies not yet fit for purpose; the characteristics of HIT profiteers is similar but for a different motive.  The end result in either case is harm to the interests and well-being of patients, physicians and nurses and other clinicians, taxpayers, and the government.

(Doctors and nurses ... after reading the findings below, be prepared to countersue the health system officers who mandated your use of EHR's for breach of fiduciary responsibilities, including due diligence, if you are sued for EHR-caused medical malpractice.)

---

Medscape 
Business of Medicine
Malpractice 'Discovery' Dangers in Your EHR
Leslie Kane, MA
Jul 16, 2012

Introduction

Picture this: You've been sued, and now the plaintiff attorney has the right to send in an expert to sit at your computer and examine information in your electronic health record (EHR). Besides any mistakes you might have made, system-wide bugs or design flaws that lead to data inconsistencies could be found and held against you in the discovery phase of a malpractice lawsuit.

Doctors are becoming increasingly aware that EHRs can create certain malpractice risks. However, an expert in EHR and liability says there is a new category of malpractice risks in EHRs that most doctors have never considered. These include EHR system issues that you were never aware of and didn't cause.

You may have been coerced into using the EHR system via threat of Medicare cuts -- embedded without a public comment period in the HITECH section of ARRA thanks to the zealots and profiteers -- or via draconian hospital policies set by senior executives that threaten adverse personnel actions or other retaliation for those who refuse to use or are unable to learn to "effectively" use the corporate-chosen EHR (I have seen such policies in print).

These executives have simply taken the word of the sellers that the technologies are harmless, and have likely negligently signed hold-harmless agreements with the sellers as a symbol of their confidence in the assessment.

"Every aspect of EHR selection, implementation, and use may be examined in the course of medical malpractice discovery to uncover the source of the incident, or undermine the records that are being presented in defense of the malpractice claim," says Ronald B. Sterling, CPA, MBA, national EHR expert, Silver Spring, Maryland, and author of Keys to EMR Success (Greenbranch Publishing; Phoenix, Maryland; second edition, 2010). "Anything could be a malpractice issue, from the product itself, the way it was set up, or how you've been using it."

The same applies, I add, to any technology a clinician or healthcare facility might introduce into practice.

For example, authorized software upgrades can unknowingly cause liability problems. Upgrades to the software can change the historical data presentation you've already worked with. "An EHR upgrade can go back and affect data being stored for a patient," says Sterling. "The upgrade can affect the presentation and the reporting and usage of that information. I'm aware of upgrades in which a large amount of data was lost."

I'm aware of numerous "upgrades" that nearly caused catastrophes - in fact they may have caused catastrophes that were not publicized- such as here.

"Even if the practice does everything perfectly, there could be design flaws in the electronic health record or the way the practices uses it or sets it up. This gets exposed in the light of discovery during a malpractice suit. If the plaintiff attorney spots errors in the record -- even if the system, not the physician, creates them -- it calls into question every record you produce and every statement you make."

Considering the evidence spoliation that can and does occur thanks to electronic systems, of which I am becoming aware of an increasing number of incidents, discrepancies ("errors" in the record) should arouse suspicions.   Those "hold harmless" agreements should look less and less appealing....

... "There are all kinds of issues I can now delve into, more than I'd find in the paper world. In the paper world, there is not a lot of supporting information," he says. "However, with an EHR, you can see what time each event or note happened, whether it was before or after another event. These could become critical points in a trial."

Thank the zealots for this, docs.

Sterling described several types of problems that could create difficulties for a doctor in a malpractice liability case.

... System or product bugs (defects). One doctor was using an EHR that had inherent errors in it. It wasn't documenting information correctly. The information being entered was not being stored in the right location, and the patient's medical note was ultimately incorrect. "This now calls into question anything in the note, even if you did the right thing," says Sterling.

Caveat emptor.

Transferring paper records to EHR. What happens to the patient's history that was stored in the paper medical chart? The new EHR form may not specifically account for or match up with every notation you have in the old medical chart. If some information doesn't get transferred in, the plaintiff attorney may ask, "Did the doctor have the full picture of the patient's condition?" The discovery process may include comparing the patient's old paper record (if you still have it) with the history now in the EHR.

Signing notes. Some doctors don't sign their notes. This creates a problem with billing, but it also could prompt the question of whether the doctor actually provided those services to the patient.

The zealots never considered these issues, or didn't care.   "You're going to use EHR's whether you like it or not, because they WILL transform medicine.  So say we all."

... One physician was inadvertently distributing clinical notes that included inappropriate findings (such as results of tests that would not have been given to that patient). When the note was challenged during a malpractice trial, it called the patient's entire record into question.

"Unfortunately, the physician had been using software that contained the test setups from the vendor," explained Sterling. "He was recording information on the screen and printing it, and the printed copy was appropriate when he gave it to the patient, but the electronic record contained inappropriate findings and events. Because the doctor was using the forms that contained the original test data (even though the data were not quite visible), the EHR incorporated these old findings."

Just a "glitch", of course.  

One template affects other screens. When you use templates and you're charting by exception, you're viewing 1 screen. But when you check off items in the box, it sends those data to 5 or 6 other screens, and you may not be aware that the information is now contained on those screens. A doctor may decide to remove the information on 1 screen, but that deleted information has already populated 6 other areas and is still in the patient's medical record.

Why would one expect that using tools of grossly inappropriate provenance would not create problems?

Usage issues. The vendor stored it one way, but the doctor stored information another way, which changed the location in which information was stored. The historical record actually changed.

"What happened when the doctor could not produce the record he gave to the patient because it no longer existed?" asked Sterling. "The attorney would look at it and say, 'This is not the piece of paper you provided.' "Any of these could be the killer issue that ends your chance of successfully defending yourself in a malpractice trial," he says.

Sure, EHRs will 'revolutionize' medicine, once the EHRs actually don't introduce booby-traps to the practice of medicine exposing clinicians to the revolutionary guillotine.

Vendor Says, "Not My Fault!"

One might think that a product defect or design flaw should be the responsibility of the vendor, and the doctor should be held harmless for those types of errors. But it doesn't work that way.

"The doctor can be held liable because most vendors' contracts (signed by the physician) essentially say, 'We do not practice medicine; it is up to the physician to make sure this EHR is being used correctly.' The practices have to understand what they're using and verify that the system is appropriately set up to document the care they provide."

I note that doctors forced to use hospital EHR's never see nor sign those contracts.

In a trial, the doctor would be held responsible for product problems.

But just as scary, doctors could be held responsible for following vendor instructions. "I've seen situations in which the vendor tells doctors to do something, and doctors are relying on vendor and not doing their own proper analysis and design of the EHR that's tailored for their own practice," says Sterling. "The vendor is not the one responsible for maintaining the patient's medical record."

More than $20 billion of taxpayer "incentive" money has already gone to the accountability-free sellers of this technology, I might add. 

Bad News: You Need to Delve Into Technicalities

Most doctors are unprepared to explore the technical elements of working with an EHR. "Doctors have to understand what happens when you push the buttons," says Sterling. That means they have to take the time to work with the EHR and explore various screens and scenarios before they ever use it with a patient.

It would help to have people who actually know what they're doing around, a lesson hospitals have not yet fully learned when they depend on grossly inappropriate personnel of a business-computing background to lead HIT projects and make critical decisions on vendor contracts.

In summary, the HIT hyper-enthusiasts and profiteers have successfully conned the government and healthcare sector into using, or coercing clinicians to use, technologies unproven to provide the fantastical levels of clinical and financial benefit claimed (as in many other posts), that introduce booby-traps to users' legal safety, that can be injurious to patient safety, and that suck money from healthcare that could be better used in, say, care of the underserved.

What an enviable arrangement for the enthusiasts.

-- SS

Kehadiran Windows 8 Membuat Bencana Bagi Para Gamers Pengguna PC

Limit Komputer | Kehadiran Windows 8 Membuat Bencana Bagi Para Gamers Pengguna PC - Windows 8 adalah sebuah Operating System generasi terbaru buatan microsoft yang bisa di bilang sangat fonomenal dan ditunggu-tunggu oleh para pengguna komputer di berbagai belahan dunia.

Namun hal sebaliknya harus di rasakan oleh beberapa perusahaan game besar yang merasa windows 8 adalah sebuah bencana di industri game. seperti yang dikemukakan oleh Gabe Newell (co-founder, valve), menurutnya windows 8 merupakan bencana bagi pengguna PC terutama para gamers.

Karena Seperti yang kita ketahui bersama windows 8 memiliki sifat yang tertutup yang akan mematikan sebagain besar penjualan game-game besar melalui konten digital (download). bukti yang nyata kalau windows 8 itu sifatnya tertutup ialah hadirnya fungsi Windows Store, yang berfungsi untuk memusatkan segala pembelian atau pengunduhan software di windows 8.

Jika para produsen game ingin memasukan game meraka di windows store, maka mereka dikenakan biaya. setiap transaksi yang terjadi antara produsen game dan microsoft, maka produsen game harus membayar pajak sebesar 30%. 

Oleh sebab itu Valve sebagai salah satu vendor game terkemuka masih memakai Operating System Open Sources dan mengeluarkannya untuk OS Linux. Selain itu, Steam yang juga merupakan toko online game milik Valve masih tetap akan memakai Linux sampai windows 8 menutup aksesnya.

Liverpool Berhasil Dapatkan Coutinho

You’ll Never Walk Alone – Kabar gembira menghampiri Liverpool, pasalnya pemain asal Brasil Philipe Coutinho berhasil direkrut oleh The Reds. Seperti dikutip dari Kompas.com, Gelandang serang Inter Milan, Philippe Coutinho, akhirnya berlabuh ke Liverpool. Kedua klub sudah sepakat untuk transfer pemain asal Brasil tersebut.

Menurut BBC, Coutinho akan menjalani pemeriksaan medis di Liverpool pada pekan depan. Dilaporkan juga, Liverpool harus membayar 8,5 juta pounds (sekitar Rp 129,6 miliar) untuk mendapatkan pemain berumur 20 tahun tersebut.

Coutinho bergabung dengan Inter pada 2010. Musim lalu dia dipinjamkan ke klub Spanyol, Espanyol.

Musim ini, dia sudah mencetak dua gol di Liga Europa untuk Inter. Dia juga sudah tampil dalam 47 pertandingan. Kehadirannya di Liverpool diharapkan mampu mempertajam serangan, mengingat dia memiliki naluri menyerang yang baik.

Referensi

Comment Policy

Over the last year, I've noticed that the quality of the comments section here has deteriorated significantly, with a high proportion of poorly grounded and/or disrespectful comments, typically from anonymous or semi-anonymous people.  This is the nature of the Internet I suppose-- comments sections are rowdy places.  But ultimately I do have control over this, and I intend to exert it to maintain a higher level of information quality and decorum in my corner of the Internet.

For the foreseeable future, I'll be moderating comments.  Here are my criteria for deciding whether or not a comment will be published:

1. Value.  Comments should be well thought out, and points supported by research or at least solid logic.  Personal anecdotes are welcome as long as they aren't over-interpreted.  Thoughtful questions are also welcome, although I can't guarantee I'll answer them.  As always, anyone is free to disagree with me in a constructive manner, or simply offer a word of support.  
2. Respect.  Comments should be respectful to me and other commenters, and composed in a concise manner.  It isn't difficult to disagree in a respectful way.
3. On topic.  Comments should be at least somewhat relevant to the subject of the post.
4. Full name.  Attaching your full name to a comment means taking responsibility for what you write.  I'll continue to publish anonymous comments if they add value, but I'll be more likely to publish if you include your full name in your screen name, your profile, or at the bottom of your comment.
5. No ads.  I will not publish links to commercial sites that do not add value to the discussion, nor will I publish any other link I find objectionable.

Because I'll be moderating, I've decided to remove the captcha word authentication, which many people found difficult to use.  We'll see how that goes.  Since I have a lot on my plate, and Whole Health Source is a one-man show, I may not always moderate comments in a timely manner.  I apologize in advance for the inconvenience.  

4 Burung Endemik Hawai yang telah Punah

     Setelah Hawai digadang-gadang menjadi tempat pariwisata karena keindahanya, banyak investor ingin membangun hotel dan tempat hiburan lainya, alhasil hutan pun menjadi korbanya, tak hanya itu, kedatangan mamalia baru ke hawai menjadi predator yang ganas bagi burung itu. Dan berikut ini adalah burung-burung yang telah punah itu...

1. ʻŌʻō hawaiʻi (Moho nobilis)

      ʻŌʻō hawaiʻi berasal dari genus Moho. ʻŌʻō hawaiʻi pertama kali dideskripsikan oleh Blasius Merrem pada tahun 1786. Burung ini bisa mencapai besar 32 cm. Panjang sayap ʻŌʻō hawaiʻi sepanjang 110 sampai 115 mm. Ekor ʻŌʻō hawaiʻi mencapai panjang di atas 19 cm. Bulunya berwarna hitam mengkilap dengan coklat pada perut. ʻŌʻō hawaiʻi diburu oleh suku asli Hawaii. Bulunya digunakan untuk jubah dan mantel. Burung ini terakhir kali terdengar pada tahun 1934 di lereng Mauna Loa.

2. ‘Ō‘ō kaua‘i (Moho braccatus)

      Juga diketahui dengan nama ‘O‘o‘a‘a, adalah burung penghisap madu Hawaii yang sudah punah dan endemik di pulauKauai. Burung ini berada di hutan subtropis di pulau Kauai sampai awal abad ke-20, populasinya mulai berkurang. Suara burung ini terakhir kali terdengar pada tahun 1987 dan dinyatakan punah. Akibat dari kepunahan burung ini adalah akibat dari datangnya tikus hitam, babi dan nyamuk yang membawa penyakit terhadap burung. Burung ini juga punah sebagai akibat dari dirusaknya habitat burung ini.

3. ‘Ō‘ō moloka‘i (Moho bishopi)

     ‘Ō‘ō moloka‘i ditemukan pada tahun 1892 oleh Henry C. Palmer. Panjangnya sekitar 29 cm. Ekornya mencapai panjang 10 cm. Bulu burung ini berwarna hitam mengkilap dengan sayap kuning. Lagu mereka adalah dua kata sederhana, took-took, yang dapat terdengar sejauh 1 mil.

     Alasan punahnya burung ini adalah karena hancurnya habitatnya, perburuan melalui mamalia yang diperkenalkan, perburuan karena bulu kuningnya untuk membuat topi, dan juga penyakit yang disebabkan oleh nyamuk. Burung ini terakhir kali terlihat tahun 1904 oleh George Campbell Munro. Pada tahun 1915, Munro mencoba untuk mengverifikasi laporan penglihatan burung ini, tetapi ia tidak pernah melihat burung ini lagi. Pada tahun 1981, beberapa orang menyatakan menemukan burung ini di Maui, tetapi hal ini tidak pernah dikonfirmasi.

4. O‘ahu ‘Ō‘ō (Moho apicalis)

     O‘ahu jantan mencapai panjang 30.5 sentimeter. Panjang sayapnya 10.5 sampai 11.4 sentimeter. Habitat O‘ahu ‘Ō‘ō terletak di hutan pegunungan di O‘ahu. Ketika John Gould pertama kali mendeskripsikanyatahun 1860, burung ini sudah punah selama 23 tahun. Bukti terakhir adalah koleksi tiga burung oleh penyelidik alam Ferdinand Deppe tahun 1837. Ia menemukan spesimen tersebut di bukit di belakang kota Honolulu. 

     Setelah survey yang dipimpin oleh Robert C. L. Perkins gagal antara tahun 1880 dan 1890, burung ini dideskripsikan hampir punah. Kini terdapat tujuh spesimen di Berlin, London, New York dan Cambridge (Massachusetts). Akibat kepunahannya adalah karena datangnya nyamuk, penghancuran habitat oleh ternak dan kambing, diserang tikus dan perburuan.

SUMBER