i did read what you previously wrote. probably i comprehended what you wrote differently than what you intended to convey. i think i better understand now.
are saying you reject liquid or solid CO2 because it takes energy to store?
i originally read, "due to the energy requirements of storing it" to mean that you saw the energy requirements as too large. that's why i wrote, "the location [siberia] would require less energy for storage" because i thought you might be open to a solid solution that required *less* energy.
do you not think a storage solution that took a small amount of energy might be viable?
well maybe solar power isn't the power source, there are alternatives.
one of the bigger questions however in my mind is that we are actually talking about CO2 rather than straight carbon. isn't the requirement for removing carbon and not necessarily oxygen too? i also wonder if it may in fact not be a good idea to remove the oxygen in addition to the carbon. any thoughts on this?
mozilla is relicensing all of their code under a triple mpl/lgpl/gpl license in order to make their products compatible with the gpl. please consider doing the same with freeswitch.
read this if you need some more convincing as to why to relicense:
> The real losers will be people > like me who'll be forced to > re-buy ephemeral content that > disapears with time.
if you re-buy, it will be because _you_ *choose* to re-buy.
language is powerful. by using language that denies that you are always at choice you likely make it more difficult to create the kind of world that you really want to live in. by denying choice you may bolster the perception that you are being victimized which frequently contributes to apathy.
here's an example* of how you could say what i quoted while acknowledging your choice:
"i will choose to re-purchase old content in the new format because i want to be able to access new content and old content without having to keep two sets of equipment setup."
saying it this way implies that you are free to choose otherwise (unlike your original phrasing).
*this example may not be accurate for you. it's just intended to exemplify my point.
and prior to recycling there is the impact of resource consumption.
i wonder how many more resources go into the production of e-paper over tree/hemp/etc. paper? anyone feel like doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations?
i feel very concerned when i notice so much focus on recycling and very little focus on consumption. if you are concerned about the earth/your home/"your back yard" ask yourself "how can i consume *less*?" because by consuming less we make the recycling problem smaller.
if this site http://www.weeeman.org/ is at all accurate, we geeks are using quite a bit of our share of the earth's resources with each new computer we purchase. according to this site, if we divide the earth's resources evenly amongst the current population, our individual "earthshare" is equal to ~two football fields. purchasing *one* computer uses ~4.25% of your earthshare. if you purchase six computers you consume 25% of your earthshare. and this doesn't include _any_ of the other things you are consuming (car, house, other electronic devices, etc.).
here's a couple more sites for more information about e-waste:
originally the imdb was a community project. when the database that the community created was purchased by amazon quite a few folks were unhappy that their contributions to a public database were turned into a private database.
see if you can get amazon to give you a copy of the community created data.
does anyone know whether or not there was some kind of free documentation license attached to the original data?
this is exactly what i did for the one salaried position i ever held. i was a contract worker and the company had been trying to get me to switch to salaried for about 8 months. my immediate boss kept asking me what it would take. amongst other things, i said there's no way i'm going salaried and then working overtime without pay (they didn't like me working overtime being paid on an hourly basis on contract - and of course i noticed my salaried co-workers worked plenty of overtime - chumps!).
anyway, my boss finally agree to my price and no overtime. then i went to sign the papers and noticed some fine print i didn't like. the HR person thought i was a bit odd for marking the contract up, crossing things out, and initialing my changes. but she went along with it and signed as a witness. she just wanted to get done with something that normally took seconds and was pushing 45 minutes with me!
people are becoming more and more aware that they are being tracked and profiled nonconsensually.
many people _doing_ the tracking and profiling _think_ that doing so nonconsensually is acceptable.
the people _being_ tracked and profiled nonconsensually know that it's not acceptable.
the people _doing_ the tracking and profiling know _unconsciously_ that doing so nonconsensually is _not_ acceptable. they know that if they explicitly informed the "trackees" about this activity and how the collected information was being used (in the form of an agreement, i.e. "by shopping at this website you are agreeing to be tracked and profiled and this is how we are using this information . ..) _many_ of the people would choose not to accept the agreement.
business models predicated on nonconsensual agreements are unacceptable and rampant.
While doing research for a novel that I've been working on for six years and I came across a piece of information that absolutely stunned me. I was discussing emergency room procedures with Darla Neff--an emergency room nurse--and we eventually got around to the "defibrillator."
You seen it in action hundreds of times on television. The doctor or nurse grabs these paddles, slaps them on a patient and jolts the patient to get their heart started when the patient goes flatline. Except . ..
That's not how a defibrillator works!!
According to Darla, a defibrilator "de-fibrillates." When the heart is fibrillating, it is fluttering. The heart monitor looks like a series of "V"s. The defibrillator jolts the heart back into a normal rhythm so it can actually pump blood to the body. If a person is flatline, Darla says that the defibrillator won't do any good!
This piece of information was absolutely amazing to me. How many times have we seen this on television? I've seen it so many times that I think I could operate the machine. Darla tells me that if you have a person who is flatline, you either have to do chest compressions or use an external pacemaker or use drugs.
I mentioned this little tidbit in one of my "This Week At NitCentral" updates and promptly received the following comments from Robert J. Woolley, a medical doctor, "You're completely correct about defibrillators. What's a little scary is that I've watched a fair number of my fellow doctors (not just TV docs!) shock a flatline heart, which, as your consultant pointed out, does no good. I suspect that this is not because of television portrayals, but because the image of jump-starting cars is so deeply ingrained. The correct procedure is to administer epinephrine and/or atropine, and hope that these produce an irregular rhythm that you can then shock back to a regular one."
Then Lee Lorenz came up with a great idea. He suggested that I start a file to see how many instances we can find of incorrect usage of a defibrillator. Since I had just seen several on an avalanche of American Gothic episodes, I thought this would be fun!
Here's the rules for submission: The scene must show a heart that is flatline on a monitor. While the heart is flatline, the scene must show someone attempting to shock the heart back to life using the defibrillator. When you submit, please include the name of the series, the name of the episode (if possible, if not just include a line saying what the episode was about), a short description of the scene and, if possible, the date you saw it. I won't have time to double-check them so let's try to be accurate out there!
ADDITION TO THE RULES (April 27, 1997): Some have said that it is possible that the monitor might not be calibrated correctly and therefor show a flatline when in fact there's fibrillations. So . . . we will make this allowance. If the code blue team administers a drug intercardially (sticks it in their heart) before they shock the patient the first time, we'll let that one pass. (As was done in a recent X-File episode, "Synchrony.") This also means that with this additional rule, some of the defib-flubs a listed here may actually not be defib-flubs if they were sent in prior to April 27, 1997 because members of the Nitpickers Guild didn't know to check for the injection! (Always need to cover our bases!)
I'll start us off with the ones I saw in the last six episodes of American Gothic.
American Gothic: To Hell and Back (7/3/96). A woman goes flatline. The monitor shows it and the nurse substatiates it. The doctor calls for the paddles. The scene cuts away. When we come back, the doctor is using chest compressions. Then, the crash cart rolls in. The doctor start hallucinating and the nurse steps in with the paddles
you would think, given iPod/iTunes is the current DRM poster child, that if anyone accepted DRM it would be iPodders. not so. check out the results of an informal survey:
> For anyone interested, I'd also recommend the > book "Thinking in Pictures" by Temple Grandin > (an autistic woman who has redesigned livestock > handling machinery). She is quite eloquent and > probably the most famous autistic person (she > has also been interviewed by Terry Gross, which > I suppose is online)
From: David M. Besonen panix.com> Subject: Re: Registrars serve no useful purpose Newsgroups: gmane.org.operators.nanog Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:06:31 -0800
[a dated, biased (what isn't?), insightful, and relevant interview]
Published on Policy DevCenter (http://www.oreillynet.com/policy/)
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/12/05/ karl.html
Karl Auerbach: ICANN "Out of Control" by Richard Koman 12/05/2002
Editor's note: Strong forces are reshaping the Internet these days. To understand these forces--governmental, business, and technical--Richard Koman interviews the people in the midst of the changes.
This month, Richard talks to Karl Auerbach, a public board member of ICANN and one of the Internet governing body's strongest critics.
October's distributed, denial-of-service attack against the domain name system--the most serious yet, in which seven of the thirteen DNS roots were cut off from the Internet--put a spotlight on ICANN, the nongovernmental corporation responsible for Internet addressing and DNS. The security of DNS is on ICANN's watch. Why is it so susceptible to attack, when the Internet as a whole is touted as being able to withstand nuclear Armageddon?
It's religious dogma, says Karl Auerbach, a public representative to ICANN's board. There's no reason DNS shouldn't be decentralized, except that ICANN wants to maintain central control over this critical function. Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names.
Auerbach--who successfully sued ICANN over access to corporate documents (ICANN wanted him to sign a nondisclosure agreement before he could see the documents)--will only be an ICANN director for a few more weeks. As part of ICANN's "reform" process, the ICANN board voted last month to end public representation on the board. As of December 15, there will be zero public representatives on the ICANN board.
How does ICANN justify banishing the public from its decision-making process? Stuart Lynn, president and CEO of ICANN, said the change was needed to make ICANN's process more "efficient." In a Washington Post online discussion, Lynn said: "The board decided that at this time [online elections] are too open to fraud and capture to be practical, and we have to look for other ways to represent the public interest. It was also not clear that enough people were really interested in voting in these elections to create a large enough body of voters that could be reflective of the public interest. This decision could always be reexamined in the future. In the meantime, we are encouraging other forms of at-large organizations to self-organize and create and encourage a body of individuals who could provide the user input and public interest input into the ICANN process."
Former ICANN president Esther Dyson is also supporting the move away from public representation on the board. "I did believe that it was a good idea to have a globally elected executive board, [but] you can't have a global democracy without a globally informed electorate," Dyson told the Post. "What you really need [in order] to have effective end-user representation is to have them in the bowels (of the organization) rather than on the board."
Auerbach isn't buying. "ICANN is pursuing various spin stories to pretend that they haven't abandoned the public interest," he says in this interview. "ICANN is trying to create a situation where individuals are not allowed in and the only organizations that are allowed in are those that hew to ICANN's party line."
Re: Registrar and registry backend processes.
on
The Race Is On For .net
·
· Score: 2, Informative
From: panix.com> Subject: Re: Registrar and registry backend processes. Newsgroups: gmane.org.operators.nanog Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:16:25 -0800
[second posting attempt, apologies if the first identical post ever arrives]
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:47:50 -0700, Michael Loftis
wgops.com> wrote:
>It's clearly broken, and needs to be put up for >public review by 'the powers that be' so that it can >be fixed. What's happening now feels close to a >boiler room poker game, noone seems to know all the >players, and even fewer know all the rules, so in the >end everyone is a loser.
i suspect part of the reason for it feeling this way is because of the large amounts of money that are made specifically off of the.com and the.net registries. ~$1.2 _billion_ for.com and ~$30 million for.net annually (numbers from the following article). for what? the actual costs involved in administering these databases can't be anywhere near the revenue generated. the public is being bled for the greed of a few (as usual), imho.
anyhow, it also makes me wonder about the motivations behind this incident coming so close to the application deadline for administration of the.net registry ($30 million/year x 6 years minimum = $180,000,000). i dislike conspiracy theories but i'm also a realpolitiker.
david -- P.S. can anyone comment on the reputations of the.net registry administration contenders (no need to comment on verisign)?
VeriSign Has Challengers to Run.Net, the Domain By ELIZABETH OLSON The New York Times
Published: January 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - As long as the Internet runs smoothly, few people think too much about its workings. But later this month, the system's underpinnings will become a topic of debate when rival companies publicly bid to run.net, one of the Internet's most popular domains.
This will be the first time that VeriSign's.net franchise will be challenged. While.net is not as ubiquitous as.com, it has more than five million registered domain names, which translates daily into millions of page views, 155 billion e-mail messages and some $1.4 million in commercial transactions, according to VeriSign, the company in Mountain View, Calif., that manages.com, as well as.net.
About 40 percent of government domains allow access through.net, including the White House, the United States Senate, Homeland Security agencies and the Social Security Administration, making it a vital Internet transportation layer, said Tom Galvin, a spokesman for VeriSign.
So far, at least three companies in addition to VeriSign have indicated that they plan to vie for the franchise, which expires June 30. They are NeuStar, a Sterling, Va., company that runs.biz, and Afilias, which manages.info. A nonprofit firm in Frankfurt, Denic eG, which manages Germany's eight million registered.de domain names, has also indicated that it is planning to bid.
Selecting the domain manager is the job of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. But Icann finds itself in a ticklish position because it has publicly clashed with VeriSign over the company's proposed Site Finder service, which would redirect queries from inactive or defunct Web addresses to a search engine supported by advertisers signed up by VeriSign.
When Icann concluded that was an unacceptable diversion and refused to allow the service, VeriSign accused the group
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:07:04 +0000 From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: brunner@nic-naa.net, alexis@panix.net Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
Oki all,
Its dawn in Maine, the caffine delivery system has only just started, but I'll comment on the overnight.
You're welcome alexis@panix.net. If you'll send me the cell phone number for the MIT managment I will call wearing my registrar hat and inform whoever I end up speaking with that Bruce needs to call me urgently, on Registrar Constituency business.
Next, put a call into the Washingtom Post. They lost the use of the name "washpost.com" which all their internal email used, to due to expiry, so their internal mail went "dark" for several hours. This was haha funny during the primary season (Feb 6). If they don't get it try the NYTimes. Put the problem on record. There is an elephant in the room.
The elephant is that the existing regime is organized around protecting the IPR lobby from boogiemen of their own invention. They invented the theory that trademark.tld (and trademark.co.cctld) existence dilutes the value of trademark, hence names-are-marks, bringing many happy dollars (10^^6 buys) into the registrar/registry system ($29-or-less/$6, resp., per gtld and some cctlds), and retarding new "gTLD" introductions, as each costs the IPR interests an additional $35 million annually.
To solve their division of spoils problem, is "united.com" UAL or is it UA?, we had DRPs, which is now a UDRP, and more DRPs for lots of cctlds.
These [U]DRPs take many,many,many,many units of 24x7. They were invented for the happy IPR campers, who care about _title_, not _function_. If the net went dark that would be fine with them to, so long as the right owners owned the right names.
Restated, there is no applicable (as in "useful for a 24x7 no downtime claimant") law in the ICANN jurisdiction.
And it is your own damn fault. Cooking up the DRPs took years of work by the concerned interests, and they were more concerned with enduring legal title then momentary loss of possession. During those years, interest in the DNSO side of ICANN by network operators went from some to zero, and at the Montevideo meeting the ISP and Business constituencies were so small they meet in a small room and only half the seats were taken. After that point they were effectively merged. IMHO, Marilyn Cade and Phillipe Shepard are the ISP/B Constituency, and they can't hear you (for all 24x7 operational values of "you").
In case it isn't obvious, the "your own damn fault" refers to a much larger class of "you" than Alexis Rosen.
[Oh, the same happy campers are why:43 is broken. They want perfect data at no cost and w/o restriction. Registrars don't want slamming, today's owie, and registrants don't want spam (which some ISPs do), so the whole:43 issue is a trainwreck of non-operational interests overriding operational interests. Registrars would be happy to pump:43 data to operators, if we could manage the abuse, instead we get knuckleheads who insist that spam would be solved forever if...]
There is a fundamental choice of jurisdictions question. Is ICANN the correct venue for ajudication, or is there another venue? This is what recourse to the "ask a real person" mechanism assumes, that talking to a human being is the better choice.
Bill made this comment:
> Since folks have been working on this for hours, and > according to posts on NANOG, both MelbourneIT and > Verisign refuse to do anything for days or weeks, > would it be a good time to take drastic action? > > Think of what we'd do about a larger ISP, or the > Well, or really any serious financial target. > > Think of the damage from harvesting logins and > mail passwords of panix users.
there's no way *any* certificate or degree program can hold a candle to someone driven to learn about topic on their own.
i've been in IT for over 20 years. like most in-demand consultants i taught myself everything. if i had went for some kind of certification or degree i wouldn't have nearly the flexibility and creative opportunities i have today.
not only that, i've seen too many IT people become complacent and mired in some technical backwater. you can't become any expert in IT and rest on you laurels. the minute you do that you're obsolete. certificates and degrees can offer folks the false notion that someone is and always will be an expert.
you want to find a sharp IT person who's going to guide you through the technology minefield? find someone with a consistent history of creative and ongoing IT projects.
all the consultants i know with certificates don't know their shit.
all of the consultants i call on for advice are major self-starters and are *never* certified and rarely have a degree.
[WARNING: what follows is a rant. please do not read any further if you don't understand that i need to let off some steam.]
the next block of text is similar to a spoiler alert - i.e. text that gives people an opportunity to choose to read something that they may not want to bump into accidentally
[btw, thanks to ortholattice for the heads-up on how to tame the lameness filter]
a few years back i was falsely accused of breaking into and thieving half a dozen houses in broad daylight. a felony crime.
well, there i am, at home in my pajamas one morning and a knock at the door. two police officers, one local, one state trooper, ask if they can come in. being completely naive and a bit frightened i let them in.
they tell me that half a dozen homes were robbed in broad daylight and that neighbors said they saw a man fitting my dark complexion driving up and down the street days in advance of the robberies.
i explain (to no avail) to the officers that i had been on that road exactly *once* in my life (the day before) when i accompanied my girlfriend to her friend's home to feed her cat while she was away.
the officers didn't care what i had to say and they proceeded to play good-cop bad-cop and tell some enormous lies about me in the process. one of them asked if he could use my bathroom and then proceeded to case my home.
then they told me that they needed to take my picture and fingerprint all of my fingers. after about one hour they finally left.
after a few weeks had passed (in which i heard nothing from the police) i called the police department to find out what was going on. it took a couple weeks to get through the police bureaucracy, but eventually someone was able to tell me that i was no longer under suspicion.
when i expressed concern about having my picture and fingerprints taken and said i wanted them back i was told that wasn't possible. after expressing my displeasure and complaining to various people in the police department eventually my picture and fingerprints were released to me.
unfortunately, my friend who is a police officer told me that my picture and fingerprints had been scanned and sent to the national FBI database. when i asked him about having them removed from that database he gave me a look that indicated the possibility of that happening was as likely as a cold day in hell.
that experience taught me how easy it is to have your unique unchangeable biometric information stolen and forever stored in government databases just waiting to be abused.
Slashdot Mirror
the part about _why_ you reject it out of hand.
and i get now that you have no intention of dialoguing about this detail so i won't mention it to you again.
please mod parent up.
it's the only post i've seen so far that correctly states that the $25 million is for a design not an implementation.
i tire of reading all these comments about $25 million not being enough to solve the problem.
i did read what you previously wrote. probably i comprehended what you wrote differently than what you intended to convey. i think i better understand now. are saying you reject liquid or solid CO2 because it takes energy to store? i originally read, "due to the energy requirements of storing it" to mean that you saw the energy requirements as too large. that's why i wrote, "the location [siberia] would require less energy for storage" because i thought you might be open to a solid solution that required *less* energy. do you not think a storage solution that took a small amount of energy might be viable?
well maybe solar power isn't the power source, there are alternatives.
one of the bigger questions however in my mind is that we are actually talking about CO2 rather than straight carbon. isn't the requirement for removing carbon and not necessarily oxygen too? i also wonder if it may in fact not be a good idea to remove the oxygen in addition to the carbon. any thoughts on this?
on Friday February 09, @06:45PM, DerekLyons (302214)
4 &cid=17958434
wrote (#17956950):
> I'm rejecting liquid CO2 or dry ice out of hand
> due to the energy requirements of storing it.
what about Sethra's idea of collecting and storing
dry ice in siberia since the location would require
less energy for storage?:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22162
what would be the sublimating mechanism?
how efficient is it?
and how large would it have to be in order to remove a billion tons of carbon per year (2.7 million tons per day) from the atmosphere?
from: http://www.freeswitch.org/docs/
l
"Licensing
Freeswitch is licensed under the terms of the MPL 1.1"
this license is *not* compatible with the gpl. even mozilla.org has stopped using this license:
Mozilla Relicensing FAQ
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
mozilla is relicensing all of their code under a triple mpl/lgpl/gpl license in order to make their products compatible with the gpl. please consider doing the same with freeswitch.
read this if you need some more convincing as to why to relicense:
Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.htm
bottom line, if freeswitch isn't gpl-compatible it's much less likely to be successful.
Total_Wimp (564548) wrote:
> The real losers will be people
> like me who'll be forced to
> re-buy ephemeral content that
> disapears with time.
if you re-buy, it will be because _you_ *choose* to re-buy.
language is powerful. by using language that denies that you are always at choice you likely make it more difficult to create the kind of world that you really want to live in. by denying choice you may bolster the perception that you are being victimized which frequently contributes to apathy.
here's an example* of how you could say what i quoted while acknowledging your choice:
"i will choose to re-purchase old content in the new format because i want to be able to access new content and old content without having to keep two sets of equipment setup."
saying it this way implies that you are free to choose otherwise (unlike your original phrasing).
*this example may not be accurate for you. it's just intended to exemplify my point.
peace
and prior to recycling there is the impact of resource consumption.
i wonder how many more resources go into the production of e-paper over tree/hemp/etc. paper? anyone feel like doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations?
i feel very concerned when i notice so much focus on recycling and very little focus on consumption. if you are concerned about the earth/your home/"your back yard" ask yourself "how can i consume *less*?" because by consuming less we make the recycling problem smaller.
if this site http://www.weeeman.org/ is at all accurate, we geeks are using quite a bit of our share of the earth's resources with each new computer we purchase. according to this site, if we divide the earth's resources evenly amongst the current population, our individual "earthshare" is equal to ~two football fields. purchasing *one* computer uses ~4.25% of your earthshare. if you purchase six computers you consume 25% of your earthshare. and this doesn't include _any_ of the other things you are consuming (car, house, other electronic devices, etc.).
here's a couple more sites for more information about e-waste:
Basel Action Network - BAN
http://www.ban.org/
Computer TakeBack Campaign
http://www.computertakeback.com/
btw, here's where you can get the most eco-friendly paper i know of: http://www.livingtreepaper.com/products.html
peace
exactly.
originally the imdb was a community project. when the database that the community created was purchased by amazon quite a few folks were unhappy that their contributions to a public database were turned into a private database.
see if you can get amazon to give you a copy of the community created data.
does anyone know whether or not there was some kind of free documentation license attached to the original data?
this is exactly what i did for the one salaried position i ever held. i was a contract worker and the company had been trying to get me to switch to salaried for about 8 months. my immediate boss kept asking me what it would take. amongst other things, i said there's no way i'm going salaried and then working overtime without pay (they didn't like me working overtime being paid on an hourly basis on contract - and of course i noticed my salaried co-workers worked plenty of overtime - chumps!).
anyway, my boss finally agree to my price and no overtime. then i went to sign the papers and noticed some fine print i didn't like. the HR person thought i was a bit odd for marking the contract up, crossing things out, and initialing my changes. but she went along with it and signed as a witness. she just wanted to get done with something that normally took seconds and was pushing 45 minutes with me!
people are becoming more and more aware that they are being tracked and profiled nonconsensually.
.) _many_ of the people would choose not to accept the agreement.
many people _doing_ the tracking and profiling _think_ that doing so nonconsensually is acceptable.
the people _being_ tracked and profiled nonconsensually know that it's not acceptable.
the people _doing_ the tracking and profiling know _unconsciously_ that doing so nonconsensually is _not_ acceptable. they know that if they explicitly informed the "trackees" about this activity and how the collected information was being used (in the form of an agreement, i.e. "by shopping at this website you are agreeing to be tracked and profiled and this is how we are using this information . .
business models predicated on nonconsensual agreements are unacceptable and rampant.
Do good work.
It's longer in the short run,
But shorter in the long run.
- Christopher A. Young (alt.hvac)
http://www.nitcentral.com/oddsends/defibril.htm
.
The Defibrillator File
Begun on July 15, 1996
Latest Defib-Flubs from the Guild
While doing research for a novel that I've been working on for six years and I came across a piece of information that absolutely stunned me. I was discussing emergency room procedures with Darla Neff--an emergency room nurse--and we eventually got around to the "defibrillator."
You seen it in action hundreds of times on television. The doctor or nurse grabs these paddles, slaps them on a patient and jolts the patient to get their heart started when the patient goes flatline. Except . .
That's not how a defibrillator works!!
According to Darla, a defibrilator "de-fibrillates." When the heart is fibrillating, it is fluttering. The heart monitor looks like a series of "V"s. The defibrillator jolts the heart back into a normal rhythm so it can actually pump blood to the body. If a person is flatline, Darla says that the defibrillator won't do any good!
This piece of information was absolutely amazing to me. How many times have we seen this on television? I've seen it so many times that I think I could operate the machine. Darla tells me that if you have a person who is flatline, you either have to do chest compressions or use an external pacemaker or use drugs.
I mentioned this little tidbit in one of my "This Week At NitCentral" updates and promptly received the following comments from Robert J. Woolley, a medical doctor, "You're completely correct about defibrillators. What's a little scary is that I've watched a fair number of my fellow doctors (not just TV docs!) shock a flatline heart, which, as your consultant pointed out, does no good. I suspect that this is not because of television portrayals, but because the image of jump-starting cars is so deeply ingrained. The correct procedure is to administer epinephrine and/or atropine, and hope that these produce an irregular rhythm that you can then shock back to a regular one."
Then Lee Lorenz came up with a great idea. He suggested that I start a file to see how many instances we can find of incorrect usage of a defibrillator. Since I had just seen several on an avalanche of American Gothic episodes, I thought this would be fun!
Here's the rules for submission: The scene must show a heart that is flatline on a monitor. While the heart is flatline, the scene must show someone attempting to shock the heart back to life using the defibrillator. When you submit, please include the name of the series, the name of the episode (if possible, if not just include a line saying what the episode was about), a short description of the scene and, if possible, the date you saw it. I won't have time to double-check them so let's try to be accurate out there!
ADDITION TO THE RULES (April 27, 1997): Some have said that it is possible that the monitor might not be calibrated correctly and therefor show a flatline when in fact there's fibrillations. So . . . we will make this allowance. If the code blue team administers a drug intercardially (sticks it in their heart) before they shock the patient the first time, we'll let that one pass. (As was done in a recent X-File episode, "Synchrony.") This also means that with this additional rule, some of the defib-flubs a listed here may actually not be defib-flubs if they were sent in prior to April 27, 1997 because members of the Nitpickers Guild didn't know to check for the injection! (Always need to cover our bases!)
I'll start us off with the ones I saw in the last six episodes of American Gothic.
American Gothic: To Hell and Back (7/3/96). A woman goes flatline. The monitor shows it and the nurse substatiates it. The doctor calls for the paddles. The scene cuts away. When we come back, the doctor is using chest compressions. Then, the crash cart rolls in. The doctor start hallucinating and the nurse steps in with the paddles
you would think, given iPod/iTunes is the current DRM poster child, that if anyone accepted DRM it would be iPodders. not so. check out the results of an informal survey:
r eadid=85534
http://forums.ipodlounge.com/showthread.php?s=&th
only 5% (1 out of 20), at the time of this posting, of iPodders have more DRM'd audio on their iPod than non-DRM'd audio.
like an earlier poster stated, DRM is unlikely to be accepted while alternatives exist. if it's going to take hold will have to be forced upon people.
> For anyone interested, I'd also recommend the
y Id=4278538
> book "Thinking in Pictures" by Temple Grandin
> (an autistic woman who has redesigned livestock
> handling machinery). She is quite eloquent and
> probably the most famous autistic person (she
> has also been interviewed by Terry Gross, which
> I suppose is online)
here it is:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
i just listened to and very much enjoyed it. highly recommended.
from: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog /28565
From: David M. Besonen panix.com>
Subject: Re: Registrars serve no useful purpose
Newsgroups: gmane.org.operators.nanog
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:06:31 -0800
[a dated, biased (what isn't?), insightful, and
relevant interview]
Published on Policy DevCenter
(http://www.oreillynet.com/policy/)
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/12/05/ karl.html
Karl Auerbach: ICANN "Out of Control"
by Richard Koman
12/05/2002
Editor's note: Strong forces are reshaping the Internet these days. To understand these forces--governmental, business, and technical--Richard Koman interviews the people in the midst of the changes.
This month, Richard talks to Karl Auerbach, a public board member of ICANN and one of the Internet governing body's strongest critics.
October's distributed, denial-of-service attack against the domain name system--the most serious yet, in which seven of the thirteen DNS roots were cut off from the Internet--put a spotlight on ICANN, the nongovernmental corporation responsible for Internet addressing and DNS. The security of DNS is on ICANN's watch. Why is it so susceptible to attack, when the Internet as a whole is touted as being able to withstand nuclear Armageddon?
It's religious dogma, says Karl Auerbach, a public representative to ICANN's board. There's no reason DNS shouldn't be decentralized, except that ICANN wants to maintain central control over this critical function. Worse, Auerbach said in a telephone interview with O'Reilly Network, ICANN uses its domain name dispute resolution process to expand the rights of trademark holders, routinely taking away domains from people with legitimate rights to them, only to reward them to multinational corporations with similar names.
Auerbach--who successfully sued ICANN over access to corporate documents (ICANN wanted him to sign a nondisclosure agreement before he could see the documents)--will only be an ICANN director for a few more weeks. As part of ICANN's "reform" process, the ICANN board voted last month to end public representation on the board. As of December 15, there will be zero public representatives on the ICANN board.
How does ICANN justify banishing the public from its decision-making process? Stuart Lynn, president and CEO of ICANN, said the change was needed to make ICANN's process more "efficient." In a Washington Post online discussion, Lynn said: "The board decided that at this time [online elections] are too open to fraud and capture to be practical, and we have to look for other ways to represent the public interest. It was also not clear that enough people were really interested in voting in these elections to create a large enough body of voters that could be reflective of the public interest. This decision could always be reexamined in the future. In the meantime, we are encouraging other forms of at-large organizations to self-organize and create and encourage a body of individuals who could provide the user input and public interest input into the ICANN process."
Former ICANN president Esther Dyson is also supporting the move away from public representation on the board. "I did believe that it was a good idea to have a globally elected executive board, [but] you can't have a global democracy without a globally informed electorate," Dyson told the Post. "What you really need [in order] to have effective end-user representation is to have them in the bowels (of the organization) rather than on the board."
Auerbach isn't buying. "ICANN is pursuing various spin stories to pretend that they haven't abandoned the public interest," he says in this interview. "ICANN is trying to create a situation where individuals are not allowed in and the only organizations that are allowed in are those that hew to ICANN's party line."
from: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog /28482
.com and the .net registries. ~$1.2 _billion_ for .com and ~$30 million for .net annually (numbers from the following article). for what? the actual costs involved in administering these databases can't be anywhere near the revenue generated. the public is being bled for the greed of a few (as usual), imho.
.net registry ($30 million/year x 6 years minimum = $180,000,000). i dislike conspiracy theories but i'm also a realpolitiker.
.net registry administration contenders (no need to comment on verisign)?
.Net, the Domain
.net, one of the Internet's most popular domains.
.net franchise will be challenged. While .net is not as ubiquitous as .com, it has more than five million registered domain names, which translates daily into millions of page views, 155 billion e-mail messages and some $1.4 million in commercial transactions, according to VeriSign, the company in Mountain View, Calif., that manages .com, as well as .net.
.net, including the White House, the United States Senate, Homeland Security agencies and the Social Security Administration, making it a vital Internet transportation layer, said Tom Galvin, a spokesman for VeriSign.
.biz, and Afilias, which manages .info. A nonprofit firm in Frankfurt, Denic eG, which manages Germany's eight million registered .de domain names, has also indicated that it is planning to bid.
From: panix.com>
Subject: Re: Registrar and registry backend processes.
Newsgroups: gmane.org.operators.nanog
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:16:25 -0800
[second posting attempt, apologies if the first identical post ever arrives]
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:47:50 -0700, Michael Loftis
wgops.com> wrote:
>It's clearly broken, and needs to be put up for
>public review by 'the powers that be' so that it can
>be fixed. What's happening now feels close to a
>boiler room poker game, noone seems to know all the
>players, and even fewer know all the rules, so in the
>end everyone is a loser.
i suspect part of the reason for it feeling this way is because of the large amounts of money that are made specifically off of the
anyhow, it also makes me wonder about the motivations behind this incident coming so close to the application deadline for administration of the
david
--
P.S.
can anyone comment on the reputations of the
VeriSign Has Challengers to Run
By ELIZABETH OLSON
The New York Times
Published: January 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - As long as the Internet runs smoothly, few people think too much about its workings. But later this month, the system's underpinnings will become a topic of debate when rival companies publicly bid to run
This will be the first time that VeriSign's
About 40 percent of government domains allow access through
So far, at least three companies in addition to VeriSign have indicated that they plan to vie for the franchise, which expires June 30. They are NeuStar, a Sterling, Va., company that runs
Selecting the domain manager is the job of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. But Icann finds itself in a ticklish position because it has publicly clashed with VeriSign over the company's proposed Site Finder service, which would redirect queries from inactive or defunct Web addresses to a search engine supported by advertisers signed up by VeriSign.
When Icann concluded that was an unacceptable diversion and refused to allow the service, VeriSign accused the group
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:07:04 +0000
:43 is broken. They want perfect data at no cost and w/o restriction. Registrars don't want slamming, today's owie, and registrants don't want spam (which some ISPs do), so the whole :43 issue is a trainwreck of non-operational interests overriding operational interests. Registrars would be happy to pump :43 data to operators, if we could manage the abuse, instead we get knuckleheads who insist that spam would be solved forever if ...]
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: brunner@nic-naa.net, alexis@panix.net
Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
Oki all,
Its dawn in Maine, the caffine delivery system has only just started, but I'll comment on the overnight.
You're welcome alexis@panix.net. If you'll send me the cell phone number for the MIT managment I will call wearing my registrar hat and inform whoever I end up speaking with that Bruce needs to call me urgently, on Registrar Constituency business.
Next, put a call into the Washingtom Post. They lost the use of the name "washpost.com" which all their internal email used, to due to expiry, so their internal mail went "dark" for several hours. This was haha funny during the primary season (Feb 6). If they don't get it try the NYTimes. Put the problem on record. There is an elephant in the room.
The elephant is that the existing regime is organized around protecting the IPR lobby from boogiemen of their own invention. They invented the theory that trademark.tld (and trademark.co.cctld) existence dilutes the value of trademark, hence names-are-marks, bringing many happy dollars (10^^6 buys) into the registrar/registry system ($29-or-less/$6, resp., per gtld and some cctlds), and retarding new "gTLD" introductions, as each costs the IPR interests an additional $35 million annually.
To solve their division of spoils problem, is "united.com" UAL or is it UA?, we had DRPs, which is now a UDRP, and more DRPs for lots of cctlds.
These [U]DRPs take many,many,many,many units of 24x7. They were invented for the happy IPR campers, who care about _title_, not _function_. If the net went dark that would be fine with them to, so long as the right owners owned the right names.
Restated, there is no applicable (as in "useful for a 24x7 no downtime claimant") law in the ICANN jurisdiction.
And it is your own damn fault. Cooking up the DRPs took years of work by the concerned interests, and they were more concerned with enduring legal title then momentary loss of possession. During those years, interest in the DNSO side of ICANN by network operators went from some to zero, and at the Montevideo meeting the ISP and Business constituencies were so small they meet in a small room and only half the seats were taken. After that point they were effectively merged. IMHO, Marilyn Cade and Phillipe Shepard are the ISP/B Constituency, and they can't hear you (for all 24x7 operational values of "you").
In case it isn't obvious, the "your own damn fault" refers to a much larger class of "you" than Alexis Rosen.
[Oh, the same happy campers are why
There is a fundamental choice of jurisdictions question. Is ICANN the correct venue for ajudication, or is there another venue? This is what recourse to the "ask a real person" mechanism assumes, that talking to a human being is the better choice.
Bill made this comment:
> Since folks have been working on this for hours, and
> according to posts on NANOG, both MelbourneIT and
> Verisign refuse to do anything for days or weeks,
> would it be a good time to take drastic action?
>
> Think of what we'd do about a larger ISP, or the
> Well, or really any serious financial target.
>
> Think of the damage from harvesting logins and
> mail passwords of panix users.
You (collectively) are
>With modern, fast CPUs, software RAID can
>easily outperform hardware RAID.
except RAID 1, IIRC
here's some secure end-to-end SSL encryption for jabber/gaim:
/ sourceforge.net/projects/gaim-encryption/
http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/
http:/
especially in the quickly changing field of IT.
there's no way *any* certificate or degree program can hold a candle to someone driven to learn about topic on their own.
i've been in IT for over 20 years. like most in-demand consultants i taught myself everything. if i had went for some kind of certification or degree i wouldn't have nearly the flexibility and creative opportunities i have today.
not only that, i've seen too many IT people become complacent and mired in some technical backwater. you can't become any expert in IT and rest on you laurels. the minute you do that you're obsolete. certificates and degrees can offer folks the false notion that someone is and always will be an expert.
you want to find a sharp IT person who's going to guide you through the technology minefield? find someone with a consistent history of creative and ongoing IT projects.
all the consultants i know with certificates don't know their shit.
all of the consultants i call on for advice are major self-starters and are *never* certified and rarely have a degree.
certificates, bah!
[WARNING: what follows is a rant. please do not read any further if you don't understand that i need to let off some steam.]
the next block of text is similar to a spoiler alert - i.e. text that gives people an opportunity to choose to read something that they may not want to bump into accidentally
[btw, thanks to ortholattice for the heads-up on how to tame the lameness filter]
rant warning1 warning foul1 language1 rant2 warning foul2 language2 rant3 warning foul3 language3 rant4 warning foul4 language4 rant5 warning foul5 language5 rant6 warning foul6 language6 rant7 warning foul7 language7 rant8 warning foul8 language8 rant9 warning foul9 language9 rant10 warning foul10 language10 rant11 warning foul11 language11 rant12 warning foul12 language12 rant13 warning foul13 language13 rant14 warning foul14 language14 rant15 warning foul15 language15 rant16 warning foul16 language16 rant17 warning foul17 language17 rant18 warning foul18 language18 rant19 warning foul19 language19 rant20 warning foul20 language20 rant21 warning foul21 language21 rant22 warning foul22 language22 rant23 warning foul23 language23 rant24 warning foul24 language24 rant25 warning foul25 language25 rant26 warning foul26 language26 rant27 warning foul27 language27 rant28 warning foul28 language28 rant29 warning foul29 language29 rant30 warning foul30 language30 rant31 warning foul31 language31 rant32 warning foul32 language32 rant33 warning foul33 language33 rant34 warning foul34 language34 rant35 warning foul35 language35 rant36 warning foul36 language36 rant37 warning foul37 language37 rant38 warning foul38 language38 rant39 warning foul39 language39 rant40 warning foul40 language40 rant41 warning foul41 language41 rant42 warning foul42 language42 rant43 warning foul43 language43 rant44 warning foul44 language44 rant45 warning foul45 language45 rant46 warning foul46 language46 rant47 warning foul47 language47 rant48 warning foul48 language48 rant49 warning foul49 language49 rant50 warning foul50 language50 rant51 warning foul51 language51 rant52 warning foul52 language52 rant53 warning foul53 language53 rant54 warning foul54 language54 rant55 warning foul55 language55 rant56 warning foul56 language56 rant57 warning foul57 language57 rant58 warning foul58 language58 rant59 warning foul59 language59 rant60 warning foul60 language60 rant61 warning foul61 language61 rant62 warning foul62 language62 rant63 warning foul63 language63 rant64 warning foul64 language64 rant65 warning foul65 language65 rant66 warning foul66 language66 rant67 warning foul67 language67 rant68 warning foul68 language68 rant69 warning foul69 language69 rant70 warning foul70 language70 rant71 warning foul71 language71 rant72 warning foul72 language72 rant73 warning foul73 language73 rant74 warning foul74 language74 rant75 warning foul75 language75 rant76 warning foul76 language76 rant77 warning foul77 language77 rant78 warning foul78 language78 rant79 warning foul79 language79 rant80 warning foul80 language80 rant81 warning foul81 language81 rant82 warning foul82 language82 rant83 warning foul83 language83 rant84 warning foul84 language84 rant85 warning foul85 language85 rant86 warning foul86 language86 rant87 warning foul87 language87 rant88 warning foul88 language88 rant89 warning foul89 language89 rant90 warning foul90 language90 rant91 warning foul91 language91 rant92 warning foul92 language92 rant93 warning foul93 language93 rant94 warning foul94 language94 rant95 warning foul95 language95 rant96 warning foul96 language96 rant97 warning foul97 language97 rant98 warning foul98 language98 rant99 warning foul99 language99 rant100 warning foul100 language100
rant warning1 warning foul1 language1 rant2 warning foul2 language2 rant3 warning foul3 language3 rant4 warning foul4 language4 rant5 warning foul5 language5 rant6 warning foul6 language6 rant7 warning foul7 language7 rant8 warning foul8 language8 rant9 warning foul9 language9 rant10 warning foul10 language10 rant11 warning foul11 language11 rant12 warning foul12 language12 rant13 warning foul13 la
a few years back i was falsely accused of breaking into and thieving half a dozen houses in broad daylight. a felony crime.
well, there i am, at home in my pajamas one morning and a knock at the door. two police officers, one local, one state trooper, ask if they can come in. being completely naive and a bit frightened i let them in.
they tell me that half a dozen homes were robbed in broad daylight and that neighbors said they saw a man fitting my dark complexion driving up and down the street days in advance of the robberies.
i explain (to no avail) to the officers that i had been on that road exactly *once* in my life (the day before) when i accompanied my girlfriend to her friend's home to feed her cat while she was away.
the officers didn't care what i had to say and they proceeded to play good-cop bad-cop and tell some enormous lies about me in the process. one of them asked if he could use my bathroom and then proceeded to case my home.
then they told me that they needed to take my picture and fingerprint all of my fingers. after about one hour they finally left.
after a few weeks had passed (in which i heard nothing from the police) i called the police department to find out what was going on. it took a couple weeks to get through the police bureaucracy, but eventually someone was able to tell me that i was no longer under suspicion.
when i expressed concern about having my picture and fingerprints taken and said i wanted them back i was told that wasn't possible. after expressing my displeasure and complaining to various people in the police department eventually my picture and fingerprints were released to me.
unfortunately, my friend who is a police officer told me that my picture and fingerprints had been scanned and sent to the national FBI database. when i asked him about having them removed from that database he gave me a look that indicated the possibility of that happening was as likely as a cold day in hell.
that experience taught me how easy it is to have your unique unchangeable biometric information stolen and forever stored in government databases just waiting to be abused.
I agree. As a society we need to rollback the expansion of corporate rights to pre-1886 levels.