Slashdot Mirror

The same emergency services that force volunteers to take mandatory certificate classes to do things like firefighting.

Nope. Running a radio gateway is nothing like firefighting. It requires a ham license, but if you think the FCC is going to force people to buy fully redundant hardware to run a radio gateway you're nuttier than a loon. If you think that buying fully redundant PC hardware is going to solve the problem, then sit back and watch as both systems choose to update at the same time, installing the same broken patch that makes the systems crash. Redundancy bought you nothing.

Well okay, but I don't know what that had to do with what I wrote. I was writing about the ARES, Ares level 2 and ARES level 1 certifications. Then there is the CERT classes https://www.ready.gov/communit... , and their 8 extra modules, SkyWarn http://www.cert-emcomm.net/sky... . Then we go down the FEMA rabbithole. https://training.fema.gov/is/c...

Emergency comms are no different. Certification after certification. Background checks, including financial.

Excuse my French, but you are full of shit.

Oh you poor poor sad man. Try to get into our center without a background check. Allow the evidence..... Here is a pdf from York County ARES Races emcomm group. It is typical of most. http://www.w3hzu.com/content/e....

Here is the relevant text

1. Applicants must undergo a Pennsylvania State Police Criminal Record check (no cost). This is Criminal Record only, not a financial check. Minimum age for this application is 18. YOU must request a background check via PATCH using the following link: You fail, you simply do not get in.

Next up the Red Cross, who do have a financial background check http://www.redcross.org/local/...

In this case, the relevant text is:

Background checks have been part of the American Red Cross volunteer process for many years. After the hurricanes of 2005, mandatory background checks for employees and volunteers were instituted. Red Cross continues to affirm our accountability to the American public. The background check initiative will help us achieve a more efficient and safer work environment for our employees and volunteers.

There are many more links if you care to Google.

You wrote with great assurance and authority:

There are no background checks of any kind, much less financial, and no certification other than a basic amateur radio license, required to operate the gateways I am talking about.

You are wrong. You are not even wrong. I have had many background checks in my situation as a technical advisor to an emergency communications group. Required even. Certifications likewise. It makes for a problem with volunteers with time, as well as many do not like the instant "thanks for volunteering, but we think you might be a criminal or a pedophile". The tests used to be sent in by the agency, but were changed to the individual being investigated to try to help with the falloff in volunteers. The idea was that if you flunked the background investigation, you could just keep it to yourself, instead of having the whole town hear about it through the grapevine. It isn't working, probably because volunteers don't like that in addition to all of the certifications..

Seriously Obscufant, do a little background searching before you embarass yourself, and compounding it witth scatological insults just makes you look pretty bad.

They have them.

There are 4-8 week CNA Nursing Assistant courses available across the US. There are no less than 2 advertised on billboards on my way to work.

They also have engineering boot camps called "Welding & CNC training".

And both 4-8 week courses fill the same role in their industries as Bootcamps do for programming: Warm bodies to do tedious work.

If your MDs are doing the work that should be for the CNA or your engineers are doing work that should be for the CNC operator then you're doing it wrong.

Just like if you're using CS majors for bootcamp work, or vice versa, you're in for a world of pain.

We have enough CS majors at my company. Hiring more CS majors won't turn out product faster. However we could use a dozen more *programmers*. Someone that can take the high level architecture and implement it. The reason a lot of our internal tools are progressing so slowly is there's a handful of us working on them. I'd rather a HS dropout with some knowledge of Python to report back weekly how things are going.

Engineers and Architects don't insist on building their own buildings, why do CS majors insist on building their own code? Focus on your training, which is not the flavor of the week programming language.

We need more doctor's in this country

Some places. But a CNA, RN, and PA would go a lot farther in making most medicine less expensive and take the workload off of the MDs so they can concentrate on what they're trained to do.

Three weeks and you should be ready to perform open heart surgery

Nah, we're on our way to automating that. But we still need some CNA, RN and PAs around to assist the robot.

It is worth mentioning the efforts of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team: http://hot.openstreetmap.org/u.... They don't pretend to solve the whole crisis, but they do try to make navigation in the area a little easier by providing accurate and recent mapping information. At least in earlier crises, the effort was appreciated by the people on the ground: http://www.redcross.org/news/a....

Certainly a horrible thing and my thoughts go out to those that lost loved ones.

Figured I should post the Red Cross donation link in case anyone is interested:
https://www.redcross.org/donate/index.jsp?donateStep=2&itemId=prod4650031

I'm sure that the relief agencies would be happy to take a donation. I think these are correct, but double check for yourself. I apologize for not including everybody, please don't let that stop you from making a donation.

American Red Cross
British Red Cross
Canadian Red Cross
Australian Red Cross
New Zealand Red Cross
Irish Red Cross
Deutsches Rotes Kreuz
Croix-Rouge Francaise
Röda Korset
Røde Kors
Røde Kors
Rode Kruis
Schweizerisches Rotes Kreuz
Croce Rossa Italiana
Cruz Roja Española
Polski Czerwony Krzyz

Salvation Army donations

"The Red Cross and others seem to want to build a war chest so that when a big disaster hits they will be prepared. "

No shit?

Good luck beating donation lag when you need to cut checks for response teams, supplies and other urgent needs immediately!

http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.1a019a978f421296e81ec89e43181aa0/?vgnextoid=f9efd2a1ac6ae210VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD

Oh and how about Haiti - almost none of the money collected for Japan or Haiti actually went to those countries. In fact the only record I've ever seen was when they gave aid boxes to people who had been laid over at Tokyo Narita airport - yeah not disaster victims but people who were waiting for a flight. Check it out, read carefully: http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.1a019a978f421296e81ec89e43181aa0/?vgnextoid=f9efd2a1ac6ae210VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD . They even had the gall to claim the efforts of the Japanese Red Cross - which is a separate entity - was their own doing.

So this is what they spend their money on? Guess they need to justify paying their administrators somehow!

On August 31, flood levels started to subside. The water level in the city had reached that of Lake Pontchartrain, and as the lake started to drain back into the Gulf, some water in the city started to flow into the lake via the same levee breeches they had entered through. In 19th century lake floods, the water soon flowed back into the lake as there were no levees on that side.

as humans, what makes us special is not just our ability to adapt, but to adapt the environment around us. If we never lived anywhere there was a threat of disaster, I am not sure where you could live(definitely not Texas, or a few other places. And those maps don't even include floods (the most common natural disaster), for that threats see this map of flood hazards for the US.

Disclaimer: the UK is not the US, but I would be surprised if there are major differences in principle.

I'm concerned you have set up a charity but appear to have no knowledge of basic charity operation nor accounting - you HAVE arranged for accounting, I hope? In UK, you trustees who manage the charity have to prepare and file statutory accounts (in a very specific format, a UK charity's accounts differ substantially from those of a business' even down to some basic principles) as well as having other statutory obligations imposed upon you. I would be surprised if there aren't free booklets kicking around giving sound advice - many countries have a good quasi-independent charity regulator likely to produce such things, but I see the US's equivalent is the IRS, so I'm less hopeful, but surely somebody produces one?

Moving on to the topic at hand:

If you go to the American Red Cross donation page they give options for 4 specific purposes and one "Where The Need Is Greatest". If this was in the UK, and I assume the same applies in the US and most countries, the latter would result in a donation to the unrestricted fund i.e. they can spend it on whatever they consider appropriate within the purposes set out the the articles/trust deed. These donations would not normally be returned, if the charity ceased the trustees would probably donate to the most similar other charity.

Donations for the "Horn of Africa Drought" however would be recorded separately in the accounts as a donation to that restricted fund and it must be spent on that project. Should the project cease then in theory the Red Cross should communicate with the donor for permission to transfer the money to another project or return it to you. (Admittedly, for an organisation the scale of the Red Cross communicating with small donors would be impractical, so they very likely have a disclaimer that allows them to transfer funds on specific triggers like the cessation of a project.)

Therefore all you need to do is assure your donor that their money goes on exactly your project or else it will be returned. For you, it's just a matter of recording who from & what for in the books properly. Give donors a form with two check boxes - one which requires the money to be returned in the event the project is frustrated and one that gives permission for you to donate to an "a suitable alternative purpose for the advancement of scientific education" or whatever.

As far as websites go, here in UK I have clients having good experience with http://www.justgiving.com/ , they appear to have an American site http://www.firstgiving.com/ . They do take 5% of the donation so you might prefer direct giving, but there's minimal admin for you and its convenient for some donors (who might also feel more secure donating via the officialdom-ish of the big website).

You could of course to take pledges, so people only pay when you get enough pledges to finance the project. However pledges have the obvious habit of the pledger changing his mind by the time it actually comes to pay up. Even if you used some automatic system, you don't really want your donors having forgotten about it then going overdrawn or whatever. It's a problem and headache. I'd suggest you want to be in the position of having cash that you might have to return rather than having to chase people for cash later.

Coffee and donuts were another way for them to get funds for the other aid. Coffee and donuts weren't supposed to be taken as the aid.

You might check out the Red Cross's page on what they think their achievements and important works were.

Let's see...

Service at Military Installations

• emergency communications that kept military personnel in touch with their families,
• financial assistance in the form of interest-free loans and grants for emergency purposes,
• verification of the need for emergency leave by reporting to military authorities the findings of home chapters regarding emergencies so the military could make decisions about granting or denying leave,
• counsel and advice concerning personal problems,
• comfort items, kits, reading material, and other supplies.

Service in Military Hospitals

• communications services, including a free "first-call-home" for the wounded to contact family members,
• morale support to the wounded,
• help with personal and family problems,
• social work support for hospitalized servicemen,
• medically approved recreational activities,
• financial aid,
• distribution of envelopes and sheets of paper for correspondence.

Home Service

• counseling for personal and family problems,
• an emergency link between a distantly stationed man and his family in order to keep the family together and informed during a crisis,
• assistance with applications for government benefits,
• financial assistance,
• referral of family members to other community sources for specialized aid not provided by the Red Cross.

You'll note, they never mentioned providing coffee and donuts...

http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/korean.asp

http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/60-79_c.asp

Coffee and donuts were another way for them to get funds for the other aid. Coffee and donuts weren't supposed to be taken as the aid.

You might check out the Red Cross's page on what they think their achievements and important works were.

Let's see...

Service at Military Installations

• emergency communications that kept military personnel in touch with their families,
• financial assistance in the form of interest-free loans and grants for emergency purposes,
• verification of the need for emergency leave by reporting to military authorities the findings of home chapters regarding emergencies so the military could make decisions about granting or denying leave,
• counsel and advice concerning personal problems,
• comfort items, kits, reading material, and other supplies.

Service in Military Hospitals

• communications services, including a free "first-call-home" for the wounded to contact family members,
• morale support to the wounded,
• help with personal and family problems,
• social work support for hospitalized servicemen,
• medically approved recreational activities,
• financial aid,
• distribution of envelopes and sheets of paper for correspondence.

Home Service

• counseling for personal and family problems,
• an emergency link between a distantly stationed man and his family in order to keep the family together and informed during a crisis,
• assistance with applications for government benefits,
• financial assistance,
• referral of family members to other community sources for specialized aid not provided by the Red Cross.

You'll note, they never mentioned providing coffee and donuts...

http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/korean.asp

http://www.redcross.org/museum/history/60-79_c.asp

Never heard anyone else mention it.

It was a widespread complaint of WW2. Here's a couple of links. Note while the Red Cross claims this was only a WW2 situation, but it's not hard to find Korea conflict vets complaining of direct experience with it. That needs more research.

see bottom
http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d229a5f06620c6052b1ecfbf43181aa0/?vgnextoid=d8b0f0454556e110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextchannel=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD

http://www.snopes.com/medical/emergent/redcross.asp

The Red Cross sold coffee and donuts instead of giving them away to military personnel during World War II.
This unfortunate policy came into being because service agencies in Britain helping British military personnel were less well-financed than the American Red Cross. Thus, these agencies were forced to charge British military members for the same items that American service members were getting free from the American Red Cross.

To avoid further embarrassment to the British, who were playing host to thousands of U.S. troops, the U.S. Secretary of War requested that the American Red Cross begin charging American service members for such items as coffee and donuts in its canteens. The Red Cross interpreted this request as a wartime demand and complied so that it could continue aiding U.S. troops. However, the Red Cross sold items at or below cost and never profited a penny from these sales.

Since the end of World War II, the American Red Cross has not charged military personnel -- not in the Korean, Vietnam, or Persian Gulf conflicts, for example.
-- http://www.redcross.org

Donate and help:

USA Redcross Japan Fund (Credit Card or Amazon Payments):

https://american.redcross.org/site/Donation2?idb=0&5052.donation=form1&df_id=5052

Redcross Japan (Via Google Crisis Response, using Google Checkout):

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html

Is there any guarantee that money donated to the American Red Cross will actually be spent on tsunami relief?

Why are you asking that in response to a suggestion to donate to the International Red Cross? (The ICRC donations page does not yet list Japan.)

Anyway, american.redcross.org says:

Your gift to the American Red Cross will support our disaster relief efforts to help those affected by the earthquake in Japan and tsunami throughout the Pacific. On those rare occasions when donations exceed American Red Cross expenses for a specific disaster, contributions are used to prepare for and serve victims of other disasters.

just as a note
http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_src=RSG000000000&s_subsrc=RCO_BigRedButton

should be close enough of a link to be useable (this is the ARC site for those not in the US)

There are other sites out there like this one. http://www.redcross.org/en/volunteertime

Sean

I've done volunteer work through the RedCross. http://www.redcross.org/ Like others have mentioned if you are just wanting to help a week at best you'll be digging ditches or sorting donations. Small things like sponsoring a blood drive or working the refreshment stands at a blood drive is very helpful and can be done short term.

They've got chapters all over the world so they may be able to hook you up with a foreign "office" for something short term. They are a great group to volunteer with year round and they give you a ton of options so you can find something that fits in your life.

You may also want to try http://www.volunteermatch.org/ I've never used them, but RedCross uses them as the backend for their volunteer search pages.

Call me crazy, but can you imagine a charity (secular) giving away only 10c on the dollar and not being hassled for it?

Yes. Yes I can. Charity Navigator is your friend.

Uh.. why not just give directly to the Red Cross, then? It's not like they don't have a website.

It has the advantage that if so many people send money for the storm that they have way more money than they know what to do with, the remainder can go for preparing for the next disaster.*

*Please don't stipulate that they can't do this. The cryogenic blood storage facilities they wanted to build with the surplus 9/11 money would have been extremely useful for future disasters, especially considering the razor thin surplus of blood and it's short viability with current storage techniques. But because of the shortsighted specificity of a huge number of people's altruism, that money was instead used to make a few financially well off people who suffered a tragic loss even more financially well off.

That's as intelligent as saying:
"Well, we shouldn't trust black people, because IIRC, black people commit more crimes and there are more black people in jail."
Way to go, Texas Ranger.

I personally believe you shouldn't trust anyone you don't personally know. But please, take your indignation elsewhere, I don't make the policies at the Red Cross, nor do I have anything to do with them really. (Hint: Do a search for 1977 on that link).

I wouldn't say black people commit more crimes, I woudl say that poor people do. And yes, there are statistics that back that up. Also, black people seem to over-represent poor people as well, so that explains why more are in jail. Finally, I hope you realize there's a bit more to what lands blacks in jail than gays having AIDS.

Oh so you know that their family never experienced failure, and that explains why someone would go on shooting rampage? Because mom and dad's lives were perfect?

Seems to me that in every school shooting the parents were 100% out of touch with their kid. Poor parenting is poor parenting, whether you're over-sheltering or not involved at all.

This makes as much sense as when Bush said we should tape our windows because of the fear of a chemical attack on U.S soil.

I wish he would follow his own advice.

So according to your logic, there are more nuts in the U.S than in Canada (my country), because clearly we are less armed than you yet we have less school shootings (even in % of the population).

There's probably the same number, but Canadians also own more guns than Americans. Hmm.. isn't that part of what I said?

Congrats. Mission accomplished. (you know what I'm referencing to)

One is not a reasonable sample size to make any kind of generalization. Sorry, you lose.

Most nuclear plants have been running in the U.S. and France for more than 30 years without issues.

Most, without issues?. Not all? What does most mean to us?

1. 1. -- There is NO safe dose of ionizing radiation, and also economic viability
2. 2. -- Nuclear power plant incidents at home and abroad
3. 3. -- Nuclear power plant incident preparedness documents
4. 4. -- A little alarmist media, because sometimes we should be alarmed

1. -- Some exerpts from "The Politics of Power: Risks and Costs of Nuclear Power Plants": http://www.garynull.com/The%20Politics%20of%20Power%20Final%20&%20Final%20Footnotes.pdf

The NAS (The National Academies of Science (NAS) report, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,) finding had long ago been discovered and presented by John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California and Chairman of the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility (CNR). Dr. Gofman said the following in 1994:

The lowest dose of ionizing radiation is one nuclear track through one cell...Either a track goes through the nucleus and affects it, or it doesn't...I came up with nine studies of cancer being produced where we're dealing with up to maybe eight or 10 tracks per cell. Four involved breast cancer ... it's not a question of 'We don't know.' The DOE has never refuted this evidence. They just ignore it, because it's inconvenient. We can now say, there cannot be a safe dose of radiation. There is no safe threshold. If this truth is known, then any permitted radiation is a permit to commit murder.

and

Critics complain that nuclear energy is expensive because of (1) the time and resources it takes to build and decommission nuclear power plants and other nuclear facilities; (2) the hidden costs of mining the uranium ores, reprocessing and storing the waste, and purging the environment of radioactive pollution; and (3) costly health problems from exposure to low level radiation. The Department of Energy (DOE) has admitted that, "economic viability for a nuclear plant is difficult to demonstrate."

Thomas Cochran, a nuclear physicist and Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says that nuclear power is "uneconomical, it has a safety problem, it has a horrendous proliferation problem on the global level, and it has a long-term waste problem that hasn't been solved."iii He notes that "nuclear power would be a great solution to greenhouse gases" that cause global warming, were it not for those four problems!

2. -- http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml This link is a list of "Major Nuclear Power Plant Incidents" from around the world, including the US.

Here's another one from last year in Michigan: http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2008/02/palisades_nuclear_power_plant.html

3. -- http://www.redcross.org/images/pdfs/code/nuclear_power_plant.pdf and http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/nuclear_power_plants.shtm are links to the Red Cross and FEMA nuclear power plant incident preparedness documents.

4. -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7553564094124690254

Its not trademarking colors its the theme that is being used. I mean look at the page it looks like a whole t-mobile add. Plus They are known for magenta. I am sure Victoria secret would have something to say if ford started to make a pink car that said "Think Pink" on it in a like font. I see both sides, also lets not forget the Johnson & Johnson v. Red Cross of something not too far from this. http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_314_6907,00.html

Nanny-ocracy at its best.
Life is hazardous to your health.
Get over it. No amount of military funding will prevent terrorists and spending money for hardware to "protect" us is stupid. Put more money into killing them all and all their family members who believe this is a way to heaven.

My brother-in-law fell off a ladder yesterday and died. There are 22k people still alive with SCI, http://www.spinalcord.org/ - rather than waste this money on something for 400 people at a time, an airliner, take all that money and put it towards SCI instead. Or the pediatric brain tumor foundation http://www.pbtfus.org/ or the Red Cross http://www.redcross.org/ .

There is no protection from a suicide bomber.
- President Musharraf

A lot of good is done in the name of religion. In 2006 the Southern Baptist Convention members gave over $150,000,000 for international missions. Most of these missions meet a physical or social need of the target people group. In other words this money goes towards orphanages, medical clinics, schools, etc.

Some of these missionaries risk their lives to help others. There are covert missions taking place that could be taken out of the pages of a spy novel.

The SBC is "one of the closest key partners" of the American Red Cross. After Katrina they provided over 8,000,000 meals.

I tout the SBC only because I am most familiar with it. I'm sure there are other religious organizations "bringing [something] good" to the world.

You need 2 buckets, a cotton t-shirt, propane camp stove ( or a heat source to boil water of some kind ) and bleach.

Cover the mouth of the empty bucket with the cotton t-shit.

Fill the other bucket with suspect water.

Pour the water from the full bucket into the empty bucket through the t-shirt. This filters out the larger baddies.

Presuming at least one of the buckets is metal, you can boil water in that. If not, a pot of some sort is required. The idea is to boil the water to a rolling boil for at least one minute.

Allow the water to cool for at least 30 minutes. Once cool, add 16 drops of bleach per gallon ( or 8 drops per 2 liter bottle ). If the water smells faintly of chlorine, it's safe to drink. If not, repeat adding the bleach.

Thanks to the Red Cross for directions.

A $400 water filtration system is nice, and can be cost effective in some cases ( as others pointed out, shipping and distributing small empty bottles is easier that shipping and distributing water ), but not having one doesn't mean you have no options.

Ah, about that cross...

From the Canadian Red Cross page on the Red Cross emblem:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=0 19

It may be worth it to clarify that the emblem that they're defending (the one backed by the Geneva Convention) is "five equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background". It is not the Knights Templar cross, nor the Cross of St. George. Concerning the British and various other nations/religions/knightly orders that have commented on the idea of Amcross (or JnJ or the ICRC) defending a trademark over something that is also "theirs", mind that as I understand it, trademarking specifies a particular type of mark, not a general concept. They're not "fighting over your mark", they're fighting over theirs. Specifically, a trademark of five, equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background. I would think that the Cross of St. George (since it seems to traditionally have its arms stretch to the boards of the shield/device/background) is sufficiently different. Ditto with the "latin" cross normally associated with Christianity (at least in North America, no offense intended towards any of the Orthodox/Papal groups)

Here's the Wikipedia link on crosses (kinda nifty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross


As for the other issues mentioned about Amcross, well, that's another kettle of fish. Here's a few links to audit-related articles about Amcross:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningn ews/main516700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningn ews/main516886.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/eveningn ews/main517045.shtml

...and their explanations of their actions concerning not operating in New Orleans:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.h tml

...and some other info at a glance:
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/2005/fa cts.html

Here's some more grease for the fires. Rebuttals, anyone?
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_489_ 5052,00.html


For the Americans, here's a link to what Amcross says they can do for you in case of a disaster:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1095,0_378_,00.html

For everyone else, try www.redcross.(insert country code here). For us Canadians, it's http://www.redcross.ca/. Here's the disaster link: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000302&tid=0 25

The South Asian Tsunami was again a different sort of beast, since it was overseen by the ICRC (not Amcross). I can't back this up, since it's hearsay from someone with the CRC, but I had it explained to me that much of the money raised for the SAT was in fact sent to the area. I've have heard people complain that millions of dollars were spent on administration costs. This is true as well. I take it to be a matter of different POVs, since I understand the overhea

Ah, about that cross...

From the Canadian Red Cross page on the Red Cross emblem:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=0 19

It may be worth it to clarify that the emblem that they're defending (the one backed by the Geneva Convention) is "five equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background". It is not the Knights Templar cross, nor the Cross of St. George. Concerning the British and various other nations/religions/knightly orders that have commented on the idea of Amcross (or JnJ or the ICRC) defending a trademark over something that is also "theirs", mind that as I understand it, trademarking specifies a particular type of mark, not a general concept. They're not "fighting over your mark", they're fighting over theirs. Specifically, a trademark of five, equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background. I would think that the Cross of St. George (since it seems to traditionally have its arms stretch to the boards of the shield/device/background) is sufficiently different. Ditto with the "latin" cross normally associated with Christianity (at least in North America, no offense intended towards any of the Orthodox/Papal groups)

Here's the Wikipedia link on crosses (kinda nifty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross


As for the other issues mentioned about Amcross, well, that's another kettle of fish. Here's a few links to audit-related articles about Amcross:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningn ews/main516700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningn ews/main516886.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/eveningn ews/main517045.shtml

...and their explanations of their actions concerning not operating in New Orleans:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.h tml

...and some other info at a glance:
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/2005/fa cts.html

Here's some more grease for the fires. Rebuttals, anyone?
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_489_ 5052,00.html


For the Americans, here's a link to what Amcross says they can do for you in case of a disaster:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1095,0_378_,00.html

For everyone else, try www.redcross.(insert country code here). For us Canadians, it's http://www.redcross.ca/. Here's the disaster link: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000302&tid=0 25

The South Asian Tsunami was again a different sort of beast, since it was overseen by the ICRC (not Amcross). I can't back this up, since it's hearsay from someone with the CRC, but I had it explained to me that much of the money raised for the SAT was in fact sent to the area. I've have heard people complain that millions of dollars were spent on administration costs. This is true as well. I take it to be a matter of different POVs, since I understand the overhea

Ah, about that cross...

From the Canadian Red Cross page on the Red Cross emblem:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=0 19

It may be worth it to clarify that the emblem that they're defending (the one backed by the Geneva Convention) is "five equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background". It is not the Knights Templar cross, nor the Cross of St. George. Concerning the British and various other nations/religions/knightly orders that have commented on the idea of Amcross (or JnJ or the ICRC) defending a trademark over something that is also "theirs", mind that as I understand it, trademarking specifies a particular type of mark, not a general concept. They're not "fighting over your mark", they're fighting over theirs. Specifically, a trademark of five, equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background. I would think that the Cross of St. George (since it seems to traditionally have its arms stretch to the boards of the shield/device/background) is sufficiently different. Ditto with the "latin" cross normally associated with Christianity (at least in North America, no offense intended towards any of the Orthodox/Papal groups)

Here's the Wikipedia link on crosses (kinda nifty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross


As for the other issues mentioned about Amcross, well, that's another kettle of fish. Here's a few links to audit-related articles about Amcross:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningn ews/main516700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningn ews/main516886.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/eveningn ews/main517045.shtml

...and their explanations of their actions concerning not operating in New Orleans:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.h tml

...and some other info at a glance:
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/2005/fa cts.html

Here's some more grease for the fires. Rebuttals, anyone?
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_489_ 5052,00.html


For the Americans, here's a link to what Amcross says they can do for you in case of a disaster:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1095,0_378_,00.html

For everyone else, try www.redcross.(insert country code here). For us Canadians, it's http://www.redcross.ca/. Here's the disaster link: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000302&tid=0 25

The South Asian Tsunami was again a different sort of beast, since it was overseen by the ICRC (not Amcross). I can't back this up, since it's hearsay from someone with the CRC, but I had it explained to me that much of the money raised for the SAT was in fact sent to the area. I've have heard people complain that millions of dollars were spent on administration costs. This is true as well. I take it to be a matter of different POVs, since I understand the overhea

Ah, about that cross...

From the Canadian Red Cross page on the Red Cross emblem:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=0 19

It may be worth it to clarify that the emblem that they're defending (the one backed by the Geneva Convention) is "five equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background". It is not the Knights Templar cross, nor the Cross of St. George. Concerning the British and various other nations/religions/knightly orders that have commented on the idea of Amcross (or JnJ or the ICRC) defending a trademark over something that is also "theirs", mind that as I understand it, trademarking specifies a particular type of mark, not a general concept. They're not "fighting over your mark", they're fighting over theirs. Specifically, a trademark of five, equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background. I would think that the Cross of St. George (since it seems to traditionally have its arms stretch to the boards of the shield/device/background) is sufficiently different. Ditto with the "latin" cross normally associated with Christianity (at least in North America, no offense intended towards any of the Orthodox/Papal groups)

Here's the Wikipedia link on crosses (kinda nifty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross


As for the other issues mentioned about Amcross, well, that's another kettle of fish. Here's a few links to audit-related articles about Amcross:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningn ews/main516700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningn ews/main516886.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/eveningn ews/main517045.shtml

...and their explanations of their actions concerning not operating in New Orleans:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.h tml

...and some other info at a glance:
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/2005/fa cts.html

Here's some more grease for the fires. Rebuttals, anyone?
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_489_ 5052,00.html


For the Americans, here's a link to what Amcross says they can do for you in case of a disaster:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1095,0_378_,00.html

For everyone else, try www.redcross.(insert country code here). For us Canadians, it's http://www.redcross.ca/. Here's the disaster link: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000302&tid=0 25

The South Asian Tsunami was again a different sort of beast, since it was overseen by the ICRC (not Amcross). I can't back this up, since it's hearsay from someone with the CRC, but I had it explained to me that much of the money raised for the SAT was in fact sent to the area. I've have heard people complain that millions of dollars were spent on administration costs. This is true as well. I take it to be a matter of different POVs, since I understand the overhea

Ah, about that cross...

From the Canadian Red Cross page on the Red Cross emblem:
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000340&tid=0 19

It may be worth it to clarify that the emblem that they're defending (the one backed by the Geneva Convention) is "five equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background". It is not the Knights Templar cross, nor the Cross of St. George. Concerning the British and various other nations/religions/knightly orders that have commented on the idea of Amcross (or JnJ or the ICRC) defending a trademark over something that is also "theirs", mind that as I understand it, trademarking specifies a particular type of mark, not a general concept. They're not "fighting over your mark", they're fighting over theirs. Specifically, a trademark of five, equal-sized red squares arranged in a cross pattern on a white background. I would think that the Cross of St. George (since it seems to traditionally have its arms stretch to the boards of the shield/device/background) is sufficiently different. Ditto with the "latin" cross normally associated with Christianity (at least in North America, no offense intended towards any of the Orthodox/Papal groups)

Here's the Wikipedia link on crosses (kinda nifty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross


As for the other issues mentioned about Amcross, well, that's another kettle of fish. Here's a few links to audit-related articles about Amcross:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningn ews/main516700.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/30/eveningn ews/main516886.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/eveningn ews/main517045.shtml

...and their explanations of their actions concerning not operating in New Orleans:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.h tml

...and some other info at a glance:
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html
http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/2005/fa cts.html

Here's some more grease for the fires. Rebuttals, anyone?
http://www.redcross.org/pressrelease/0,1077,0_489_ 5052,00.html


For the Americans, here's a link to what Amcross says they can do for you in case of a disaster:
http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1095,0_378_,00.html

For everyone else, try www.redcross.(insert country code here). For us Canadians, it's http://www.redcross.ca/. Here's the disaster link: http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000302&tid=0 25

The South Asian Tsunami was again a different sort of beast, since it was overseen by the ICRC (not Amcross). I can't back this up, since it's hearsay from someone with the CRC, but I had it explained to me that much of the money raised for the SAT was in fact sent to the area. I've have heard people complain that millions of dollars were spent on administration costs. This is true as well. I take it to be a matter of different POVs, since I understand the overhea

If you go to both homepages, J&J and Red Cross, I see a red cross on the Red Cross page but not on the J&J one. Even after a few clicks on the J&J page, not a single red cross. Yes I am sure one exists somewhere but their "Johnson & Johnson" signature is their brand logo. Plus I was always under the impression that a red cross was an international symbol for medicine. Why the fuss now?

Red cross on heat-related illnesses
Still, I agree with you.

Here are some other interesting examples. I used to work for a company that compiled and published huge clip art collections, and we kept track of a list of specific things to watch out for and remove whenever we spotted them, because we'd gotten C&D letters from the IP holders. I don't know if these are all actually trademarks, or some are trade dress, or some are just lawyers talking through their hats, but...

• Olympic rings. Probably not a big surprise that the IOC defends this tooth and nail.
• A wavy line anywhere on a crayon wrapper infringes Crayola.
• Carnival cruise lines claims to own the style of putting little "wings" on the sides of their smokestacks.
• The Red Cross. You may think that a red cross on a white background is a generic symbol for first aid or medical care, but the American National Red Cross begs to differ. A bright green version is the legally unencumbered alternative. But damned ugly.
• And definitely my favorite: Dairy Queen. Dairy Queen claims that putting a curl at the top of a soft-serve cone makes it a Dairy Queen cone.

PS: This even applies to labor markets. In that case we call the piracy 'slavery', and the low end versions 'volunteers'.

For once, I'm glad to be lower than a slave, courtesy of the American Red Cross.

Dacelo Gigas

Google has a special page http://earth.google.com/katrina.html for the katrina data, but now some of the links on that page report "Sorry! The Katrina Hurricane Overlay service has been suspended. To stop showing this message, please disable the Network Link you downloaded. For more information on how you can help the victims of the recent hurricanes, please see: http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina _facts.html" in google earth.

Go to Google and punch in "American Red Cross" "30 compressions". The lucky result: a pdf from ARC from 2005 detailing the change.

Please show me a photo of HIV

If you ever get a chance (/. "girlfriend" jokes aside), buy the lab diamonds, or buy your to-be a genuinely rare gem such as a Ruby (diamonds are not rare).

About a year ago or so an article came up somewhere about LifeGem, one of the companies in the "cultured diamond" business. (Yes, "cultured" is just a dumb marketing term; not the point, here.) For those who haven't heard of them before, LifeGem's twist is they make diamonds as a memorial to "the dear departed", using carbon harvested before cremation. (Insert old "that's not grandma's ring, that is grandma on the ring" jokes here.)

Since I regularly donate blood, I wondered if one's own donated blood could be used as a suitible carbon source, thus allowing for an engagement ring that truly comes "from the heart". While it would tend to be pricier than a boring white stone, they usually make very nice colored stones, and the only human exploited would be the willing donor. After looking at their website to see how much carbon was required, and making some rough calculations, it looked possible, although IIR about three pints would be needed (and thus, a minimum of 16 weeks prep time) for a ring-worthy gem. So, being curious, I called Lifegem and asked about the idea.

Since it's a small company, I talked with one of the founders. He seemed to think I was a weirdo (true), and that it wasn't their usual fare, but said that "if you supply the carbon, we can make the diamond". He also said that he wasn't sure what the (hypothetical) girl would think of the idea of a "cultured" stone. He said he has access to some of the largest and finest synthetics ever made, but when proposal time came, his financee would settle for nothing but a "real" rock.

Still, not all women are that way. My sister (a mechanical engineer) got a little tipsy at the family reunion this summer, and admitted that the huge 2.5 carat rock on her finger for the last decade is actually a cubic zirconia. The pricetag for the real ring was put as a downpayment for a house; the wedding reception was held in the huge backyard. Mom still doesn't know. =)

As I've done everytime the OSS folks at slashdot have posted these self-serving articles, if you really want to help someone in need, here's a link to the Red Cross. http://www.redcross.org/

It's about time someone got the starving and AIDS infected children of Africa laptops with Open Source Software preinstalled.

http://www.redcross.org/

This is nice and all but if you want to donate $200 do it here:

http://www.redcross.org/donate/donate.html

This article , and its replies, gets my vote for "worst ever" on slashdot.

With millions dieing in Africa every year, the idea of sending them $100.00 laptops is worse than stupid. Send them food. Send them medicine. Do something to actually help them. That the shallow folks on this board would be arguing over Java and open source in this context is disgusting.

http://www.redcross.org/

Why doesn't that constitute torture? It's certainly the type of coercion used by the Nazi's to gain intelligence when they "interviewed" my great grandmother for 12 continuous hours.

With all due respect to your grandmother, no, 12 hrs of talk does not constitute torture. I'm sorry, but when compared to say, 12 hrs of bamboo splints up the fingernails, or 12 hrs of having some guy named Hanz beat you with a sock full of coins, even 12 hrs of seeing your wife, daughter or mother raped is toruture... but no, sorry, 12 hrs of questioning is not turture.
Under your rules, is 6 hrs of questioning torture? How about 2 hrs. What if I ask a single question or look inquisitive? Is that torture? Where do you draw the line?
From Gitmo, the torture that has been reported has been having the AC too cold, sleep deprivation, having to hear a female and male prisoner talk to each other, and having a fellow inmate flush a Koran.

You may also recall that Abu Ghraib was under our control at the time of the openly admitted action there. The supposedly rogue agents were trained by our military and intelligence agencies to perform such actions, supposedly that would be for them to *use* such tactics. Whether they did so under direction of our government or not makes little material difference when you consider the fact we trained them to do it under precisely the circumstances they were presented.

The comment I was referring to mentioned the torture at Gitmo. I have heard of nothing coming out of Gitmo that I would call torture. As to the torture at Abu Ghraib, I'd call that abuse, but still does not qualify as torture in my book. Those responsibe for that are now in a military stockade. I've been to a military stockade. Trust me, they would much rather be in Abu Ghraib.

You might also consider the US government's insistence that the Red Cross and various other humanitarian groups *not* be allowed to conduct any extensive audit of our facilities at Gitmo and perhaps draw the conclusion that the government is afraid of what might be found there.

Sorry, but your're wrong. According to the Red Cross it is our very own government that requested the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to visit with the detainees. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Maybe you are thinking of Amnesty International (or AmNasty Intl). They invited, but insisted they be left alone with prisoners. Of course, this was denied for their own security as well as the US's. The last thing the US needs is some anti-American Socialist from AI coaching prisoners or telling them information they are not supposed to have. Even worse, it would be a PR nightmare if a few AI reps were assaulted held hostage by a prisoner. Besides, AI has an agenda. From CNN: The chief of Amnesty International USA alleged Sunday that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is part of a worldwide network of U.S. jails, some of them secret, where prisoners are mistreated and even killed. They also labeled the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as "the gulag of our times." Of course, all this without actually going there. Yeah, they have no agenda. I had no idea that Gulag prisoners were fed three hot meals a day and given an opportunity to practice their faith.

We agreed to the Geneva Accords, can we not restrain ourselves from violating treaties we had a hand in drafting and forcing on other nations?

Geneva Accords refers to uniformed soldiers, not trained terrorists who dress as civilians and hide among and behind women and children.

Are these not the "crimes against humanity" which we are now prosecuting Saddam Hussein for having committed and now we prefer to opt out when

You should check your facts before you go spewing made-up stats. Check out the Red Cross's page for major donors:
http://www.redcross.org/sponsors/corporatelist.htm l

Among them:
Dell = $1 million annually plus matching up to $1 million in employee donations
Intel = $1 million annually plus matching up to $1 million in employee donations

How much money have you given to charitable organizations this year? Was it even $5???

You are absolutely right. And if a random quick check reveals evidence for a BSE case in the US, then the material has to be validated again by a specialized (say qualified) lab in the UK where they use reliable tests.

But, you cannot donate blood in the US if you lived in Europe.
http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/blood/supp ly/tse/bsepolicy.html
Of course, Europeans donate blood for Europeans, without a problem. The problem is that people in the US confuse the UK with the EU. Anybody who thinks that there had been an epidemic in the EU should compare the numbers in the entire EU, except for the UK (!), with the US. Good morning, America!
The point is, we need to get the facts right and learn from mistakes. Otherwise we end up with a situation like the one we had in the UK. For some reason beyond my comprehension it seems we are facing a lot of FUD on the one hand side and total ignorance on the other hand.

BTW the biography of Dr. Hans-Gerhard Creutzfeldt and his family is quite interesting.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Gerhard_Creutzfe ldt
http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/91.html

Lots of information about prions has been published over the past century.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/marcblum/PageCreutzfeld-Ja cob.html
http://www-micro.msb.le.ac.uk/3035/prions.html

From the American Red Cross Disaster FAQ

All assistance is based on verified disaster-caused needs and all assistance is free--literally a gift as a result of the generous support of the American people.

Either your anecdote represents a violation of Red Cross policy, or it is incorrect, or it is an example of the many pernicious rumors about the Red Cross movement.

The American Red Cross was given protected use of the red cross symbol in a federal charter in 1900. It was already in popular use at that time, but so be it. Therefore it isn't likely to be the trademark law that you'll have to deal with.

http://www.redcross.org/museum/charters.html

The charter granted full legal standing to the organization and protected its right to use the red cross emblem while setting fines and punishment for misuse of the emblem and for false representation of the organization.

Otherwise, you guys would be right.

Why would a community collaborative project such as Wikipedia even need sponsorship, other than bandwidth fees? (And they don't go through $750K a year in bandwidth fees). There should be little or no administrative overhead, and I've never seen an advertisement for Wikipedia (and don't know a reason why I should expect to).

While freedom of information is a great goal, it's on of the few that I feel doesn't require large monetary contributions, but rather large intellectual contributions.

I'll keep giving my money to Child's Play, The Red Cross, and Doctors without Borders.