My wife was served with court papers (for me) in Washington state while I was in Nebraska for an extended period of time (hadn't been home for over 7 months). I talked to a lawyer here in Nebraska. He advised several things:
1) I was not properly served and did not have to respond 2) They would not issue a bench warrant for my arrest (which I think was more because it was just a debt matter and not a criminal matter) 3) I was not in the courts jurisdiction 4) Sending a letter to the court explaining why I couldn't attend would put me in the courts jurisdiction and then I would be in trouble if I didn't show up.
This gave me great leverage over the creditor and I was able to negotiate down what they wanted to collect (which included exorbitant fees) to an amount just over how much I actually did owe them
Damn kids and their new-fangled "clouds" anyway...
Why in my day, if you wanted clouds you damn well hiked you ass up a mountain!
Regarding the electricity "rant", I wonder if that's what the people in Texas were thinking when they put Texas on their own electrical grid.
"This allows the spotlight to focus on online applications."
Who has been asking for all these online applications? I keep reading about the freakin' "CLOUD!!!" and am just not impressed. I wouldn't trust anyone's Cloud platform with my company's data.
As many people have mentioned, once the network goes down, no more online anything. I want my apps, my data and my work all under my control on my local machine/network. There are uses for online applications but to rely on them for business, private data or to store anything that lack of access to would cause a work stoppage is a bad idea.
Here at US Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force base in Omaha, Nebraska (a joint command), we don't need no stinkin' Windows XP! Why, Win2k is just fine for all us folk here. In fact, we are going to SKIP windows XP and move straight to Windows Vista last year... uh I mean this year (major roll-out keeps getting pushed back-can't understand why). Yep! In the works right now. What's that? Win 7 is coming out this year? Nah. We don't need that either. We'll go to Vista instead! Keep in mind that 98% of all the machines there are still on Win2k and the Vista migration still hasn't happened in force, but there are no plans yet to skip Vista and wait for Windows 7. My guess is that they already bought the licenses for Vista, but I can neither confirm or deny that.
Every time I have a prescription filled that I have never had before, I always ask for a consultation with the pharmacist to go over possible side-effects, warnings and possible negative reactions with other meds I am currently taking (trust but verify). The pharmacist eventually explains that they go over that information in the computer when they are filling the prescription. So as long as I stay with the same pharmacy in the same retail chain (like Wal-Mart pharmacies) my drug history records should be available to the pharmacist. I have to call and ask that my information be transferred from one Wal-Mart to another though, it appears that it isn't a shared database. I have switched between different WM's twice and the system appears to work fine as far as patient drug history is concerned-but I haven't had a chance to actually view my records on their computer screen of course.
Having that information easily available to my doctor would also be useful because then you would have the doctor doing his personal "brain check" of possible negative interactions, a computer telling them if there are potential dangers and then the pharmacy would be doing the same thing: a mental check by the pharmacist and an "AI" check by the computer. Plus, doctors see so many people and it may have been months since I last saw him/her, I can't really expect them to remember my what he prescriped to me three months ago. Guess that's why we have medical records-electronic or otherwise.
I saw my doctor last week and was presented with a new form to sign to opt-in or opt-out of putting my records into an electronic format. Being a paranoid, tinfoil-hat wearing, "I remember Diebold voting machines" kind of nerd, I opted out. The form explained what EHR's are and espoused the benefits of them. I'll continue to rely on good old fashioned paper records for now, thank you. This is very new because I lost saw this doctor four weeks before then. They also mentioned that psychiatric information will not be stored in the EHR.
In other related news:
This 2-page PDF from the Nebraska Medical Association and Creighton University Medical Center dated June 27th, 2007 gives some numbers on offices that have adopted or thinking about adopting an EHRs.
If you are a Nebraska health professional or just have too much time on your hands from hiding from the pending Swine flu pandemic, you can go to this website whose tag-line is, "Enhancing clinical practices through the adoption of health information technology in Nebraska".
Here is a letter (blog entry?) from the office of the Governor of Nebraska posted on April 10, 2009 talking about the pilot EHR project in Nebraska.
"Low Cortisol is the effect not the cause." Whoops! You are correct. My post was incorrectly assuming low-cortisol as the cause. I really do need to read more carefully.
Does this mean my implying that spanking could help those with AS was ass-backwards?
Thank you for explaining that so eloquently! Why is everyone so freakin' afraid of the BSA? They have no authority to come in and do a survey. Some of these CEO's and IT Admins need to grow a set of balls. Where did I put my mod points?
You are correct, it is a Sectera. I am a software engineer and am working on a web app for the dissemination of classified information on secure US networks. General Dynamics and the NSA worked together to create a mobile device that was both secure and rugged and it received final approval in late 2008. When that occurred, we began modifying our code to ensure it could run on the mobile device and even have one in the office for testing. After the election we learned that Obabma's "Blackberry" is really the GD Sectera or SME-PED.. There was one article that actually got it right soon after the election and turns out a news.google.com search for SME-PED reveals some good articles (I can't remember where I found the original article I referred to). From a Geek perspective, this is REALLY cool! Specs are freely available at the first link.
"I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision,"
"is unlikely to see public adoption."
Why not? How is a crash on this type of vehicle any different from a crash with a regular motorcycle? Ok, so you have some impact absorption from the front fork, but you are still going to be catapulted off the bike and into either the ground or some other object (vehicle, light pole, llama, etc.). I guess the difference is then that you won't be catapulted off of this one and whatever it hits, you hit. No chance to be be rocketed off of it and maybe hit/land on something softer, like maybe a poodle.
In the case of a motorcycle, you will be thrown head first. In the case of the wearable you will impact something chest first. Hmmm...can they make a helmet for your chest?
I am not sure how you can claim being neutral on the Second Amendment constitutes the ACLU as being an "organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda." They clearly state their position here (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html). Their position statement follows:
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- Policy #47
Now, not being an expert on Supreme Court rulings, I wonder if there are later cases where the opinion of the court was different. The case the ACLU references is from 1939.
I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."
"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals" do you think the founding fathers meant ALL types of arms? It was pretty limited back then...cannons, pistols, rifles, swords, so maybe at that time they did. If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now? There are quite a few people I can think of that don't really need to be carrying around grenades or rockets.:) My ex-wife is one example.
If they did mean individuals and arms in general and not specifically "small arms" and non-automatic weapons, then there is a constitutional right for individuals to actually own those types of weapons and where can I get mine?
It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.
Oops! Sorry. I included two different topics. I went from "The ACLU is not choosing to only promote it's own agenda" to a discussion on what the founding fathers meant by "militia" and "arms". My mind tends to wander as the caffeine wears off in the evening.
I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. Except, we are all wrong.
"This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):"
"In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution.
Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that:"
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
"The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that:"
"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
Call me crazy, but that is one of the most stupid things the Supreme Court ever decided. I think I understand where they were going, but the precedent they set is really scary and, I am sure, has something to do with the rise of coporate power and influence in America today.
"...the growth in the now $18 billion gaming market is in simple, user-friendly experiences that families and friends can enjoy together.'"
I continually look for games that my 11-year old son and my wife and I can all play together and those are rather hard to find. I would rather the entire family play together on the 360 instead of my son playing on his XBox in his room, my wife watching TV in the living room and with myself playing GOW in the basement.
We used to play Crash Team Racing together, but it didn't appeal to my wife too much. ACME Arsenal looks promising though co-op mode is only 2-player and my wife isn't big on multi-player, "kill everyone else" battles (available for 1-4 players in A.A.). Of course, we haven't tried it yet-maybe she would enjoy it. Funny, silly, simple games (like, perhaps A.A. is) are what appeals to her. We enjoy playing Toe Jam and Earl (now available for the 360 too), but again, it is only 2-player co-op.
At the very least, we always look for 2-player co-op games that we can play. "Destroy All Humans 2" and "MW: Lone Wolf" are games that my son and I enjoy playing together, but unfortunately, "Ace Combat 6" is only 1 player. Fortunately, we have Halo 1, 2 and 3 to enjoy and GOW when he gets older. However, when we look for new games, it seems we find many more single-player games than 2-player co-op (or 3 player co-op). If MS hopes to make the Xbox the center of the family living room, (which they do), then they need to hurry up and do it (this article says that is what they are planning to do. I'm still waiting.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife was served with court papers (for me) in Washington state while I was in Nebraska for an extended period of time (hadn't been home for over 7 months). I talked to a lawyer here in Nebraska. He advised several things:
1) I was not properly served and did not have to respond
2) They would not issue a bench warrant for my arrest (which I think was more because it was just a debt matter and not a criminal matter)
3) I was not in the courts jurisdiction
4) Sending a letter to the court explaining why I couldn't attend would put me in the courts jurisdiction and then I would be in trouble if I didn't show up.
This gave me great leverage over the creditor and I was able to negotiate down what they wanted to collect (which included exorbitant fees) to an amount just over how much I actually did owe them
Damn kids and their new-fangled "clouds" anyway... Why in my day, if you wanted clouds you damn well hiked you ass up a mountain! Regarding the electricity "rant", I wonder if that's what the people in Texas were thinking when they put Texas on their own electrical grid.
"This allows the spotlight to focus on online applications."
Who has been asking for all these online applications? I keep reading about the freakin' "CLOUD!!!" and am just not impressed. I wouldn't trust anyone's Cloud platform with my company's data.
As many people have mentioned, once the network goes down, no more online anything. I want my apps, my data and my work all under my control on my local machine/network. There are uses for online applications but to rely on them for business, private data or to store anything that lack of access to would cause a work stoppage is a bad idea.
Hey-Do live near me? That sounds like my apartment door!
Here at US Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force base in Omaha, Nebraska (a joint command), we don't need no stinkin' Windows XP! Why, Win2k is just fine for all us folk here. In fact, we are going to SKIP windows XP and move straight to Windows Vista last year... uh I mean this year (major roll-out keeps getting pushed back-can't understand why). Yep! In the works right now. What's that? Win 7 is coming out this year? Nah. We don't need that either. We'll go to Vista instead! Keep in mind that 98% of all the machines there are still on Win2k and the Vista migration still hasn't happened in force, but there are no plans yet to skip Vista and wait for Windows 7. My guess is that they already bought the licenses for Vista, but I can neither confirm or deny that.
...that this is an April Fools Day post?
"Classic era trek was all about Kirk kicking the Klingons tails."
Classic era Trek was all about Kirk kicking EVERYONE's butts.
(And getting the hot green chicks!)
Every time I have a prescription filled that I have never had before, I always ask for a consultation with the pharmacist to go over possible side-effects, warnings and possible negative reactions with other meds I am currently taking (trust but verify). The pharmacist eventually explains that they go over that information in the computer when they are filling the prescription. So as long as I stay with the same pharmacy in the same retail chain (like Wal-Mart pharmacies) my drug history records should be available to the pharmacist. I have to call and ask that my information be transferred from one Wal-Mart to another though, it appears that it isn't a shared database. I have switched between different WM's twice and the system appears to work fine as far as patient drug history is concerned-but I haven't had a chance to actually view my records on their computer screen of course.
Having that information easily available to my doctor would also be useful because then you would have the doctor doing his personal "brain check" of possible negative interactions, a computer telling them if there are potential dangers and then the pharmacy would be doing the same thing: a mental check by the pharmacist and an "AI" check by the computer. Plus, doctors see so many people and it may have been months since I last saw him/her, I can't really expect them to remember my what he prescriped to me three months ago. Guess that's why we have medical records-electronic or otherwise.
I saw my doctor last week and was presented with a new form to sign to opt-in or opt-out of putting my records into an electronic format. Being a paranoid, tinfoil-hat wearing, "I remember Diebold voting machines" kind of nerd, I opted out. The form explained what EHR's are and espoused the benefits of them. I'll continue to rely on good old fashioned paper records for now, thank you. This is very new because I lost saw this doctor four weeks before then. They also mentioned that psychiatric information will not be stored in the EHR.
In other related news:
This 2-page PDF from the Nebraska Medical Association and Creighton University Medical Center dated June 27th, 2007 gives some numbers on offices that have adopted or thinking about adopting an EHRs.
If you are a Nebraska health professional or just have too much time on your hands from hiding from the pending Swine flu pandemic, you can go to this website whose tag-line is, "Enhancing clinical practices through the adoption of health information technology in Nebraska".
Here is a letter (blog entry?) from the office of the Governor of Nebraska posted on April 10, 2009 talking about the pilot EHR project in Nebraska.
Enjoy!
Did anybody else think of the movie, "The Dark Crystal"?
I like your idea about backwards domains though. :) Also, how cool (nerdy?) would it be to own the www.www.www domain?
No! Please don't! Oh the chaos! .
My dad still gets confused when an address ends in something besides, ".com".
"Low Cortisol is the effect not the cause." Whoops! You are correct. My post was incorrectly assuming low-cortisol as the cause. I really do need to read more carefully.
Does this mean my implying that spanking could help those with AS was ass-backwards?
This story about spanking (and cortisol) was posted just the other day and today we have this one. Hmmmm...
Thank you for explaining that so eloquently! Why is everyone so freakin' afraid of the BSA? They have no authority to come in and do a survey. Some of these CEO's and IT Admins need to grow a set of balls. Where did I put my mod points?
I, also, was disheartened to learn that the Sectera was running Windows Mobile. Let's hope he keeps up with those software patches.
I agree. A couple of posts have pointed to a Gizmodo article that apparently states that he has both. Wouldn't be surprised.
You are correct, it is a Sectera. I am a software engineer and am working on a web app for the dissemination of classified information on secure US networks. General Dynamics and the NSA worked together to create a mobile device that was both secure and rugged and it received final approval in late 2008. When that occurred, we began modifying our code to ensure it could run on the mobile device and even have one in the office for testing. After the election we learned that Obabma's "Blackberry" is really the GD Sectera or SME-PED.. There was one article that actually got it right soon after the election and turns out a news.google.com search for SME-PED reveals some good articles (I can't remember where I found the original article I referred to). From a Geek perspective, this is REALLY cool! Specs are freely available at the first link.
"I would imagine the results of a crash would be much like being strapped to the hood of your car during a collision,"
"is unlikely to see public adoption."
Why not? How is a crash on this type of vehicle any different from a crash with a regular motorcycle? Ok, so you have some impact absorption from the front fork, but you are still going to be catapulted off the bike and into either the ground or some other object (vehicle, light pole, llama, etc.). I guess the difference is then that you won't be catapulted off of this one and whatever it hits, you hit. No chance to be be rocketed off of it and maybe hit/land on something softer, like maybe a poodle.
In the case of a motorcycle, you will be thrown head first. In the case of the wearable you will impact something chest first. Hmmm...can they make a helmet for your chest?
I am not sure how you can claim being neutral on the Second Amendment constitutes the ACLU as being an "organization dedicated to defending those parts of the Constitution it approves of and those interpretations that match its agenda." They clearly state their position here (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html). Their position statement follows:
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." -- Policy #47
Now, not being an expert on Supreme Court rulings, I wonder if there are later cases where the opinion of the court was different. The case the ACLU references is from 1939.
I have heard arguments that feel the definition of a "militia" is not specifically spelled out in the 2nd Amendment and is open to interpretation and that therefore what the founding fathers meant when writing about a "well regulated militia" might mean something more/different than what the ACLU interprets it to mean.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."
"Keep and bear arms"-If they did mean specifically "citizens" or "individuals" do you think the founding fathers meant ALL types of arms? It was pretty limited back then...cannons, pistols, rifles, swords, so maybe at that time they did. If they meant all types of arms then, do you think that would be appropriate now? There are quite a few people I can think of that don't really need to be carrying around grenades or rockets. :) My ex-wife is one example.
If they did mean individuals and arms in general and not specifically "small arms" and non-automatic weapons, then there is a constitutional right for individuals to actually own those types of weapons and where can I get mine?
It all comes down to trying to figure out what people 225+ years ago meant when they said "militia" and "arms". I guess that's why they made the Supreme Court.
Oops! Sorry. I included two different topics. I went from "The ACLU is not choosing to only promote it's own agenda" to a discussion on what the founding fathers meant by "militia" and "arms". My mind tends to wander as the caffeine wears off in the evening.
Corporations are not people.
I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. Except, we are all wrong.
"This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):"
"In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution. Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that:"
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."
"The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that:"
"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.htmlCall me crazy, but that is one of the most stupid things the Supreme Court ever decided. I think I understand where they were going, but the precedent they set is really scary and, I am sure, has something to do with the rise of coporate power and influence in America today.
That, and all their money
You know, I thought you were kidding. I'm thinking, "hee-hee. That's pretty silly." :-P
Then I went to MyBytes.
You were serious.
I... don't know what to say.
Damnit! Where are my mod points? :) That was funny!
Isn't that a line from Zardoz?
" ...the growth in the now $18 billion gaming market is in simple, user-friendly experiences that families and friends can enjoy together.'"
I continually look for games that my 11-year old son and my wife and I can all play together and those are rather hard to find. I would rather the entire family play together on the 360 instead of my son playing on his XBox in his room, my wife watching TV in the living room and with myself playing GOW in the basement.
We used to play Crash Team Racing together, but it didn't appeal to my wife too much. ACME Arsenal looks promising though co-op mode is only 2-player and my wife isn't big on multi-player, "kill everyone else" battles (available for 1-4 players in A.A.). Of course, we haven't tried it yet-maybe she would enjoy it. Funny, silly, simple games (like, perhaps A.A. is) are what appeals to her. We enjoy playing Toe Jam and Earl (now available for the 360 too), but again, it is only 2-player co-op.
At the very least, we always look for 2-player co-op games that we can play. "Destroy All Humans 2" and "MW: Lone Wolf" are games that my son and I enjoy playing together, but unfortunately, "Ace Combat 6" is only 1 player. Fortunately, we have Halo 1, 2 and 3 to enjoy and GOW when he gets older. However, when we look for new games, it seems we find many more single-player games than 2-player co-op (or 3 player co-op). If MS hopes to make the Xbox the center of the family living room, (which they do), then they need to hurry up and do it (this article says that is what they are planning to do. I'm still waiting.