It's got nothing to do with what you can view, and everything to do with the principle of supporting those enterprises that do not share your values. Paying extra for a movie tier that includes Disney but also other channels that aren't acceptable is a price that is too high to pay for people making such a principled stand. For the longest time waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, my parents couldn't get the Disney channel without also getting HBO, Showtime and Cinemax, so, they didn't, even though because of the way the network was configured at the time there was an A/B switch that they could take out of the line which would eliminate access to the channels they found offensive. Then Disney channel became available just as a straight premium channel and they bought in, even though at that time the programming sucked.
Fast forward a long time, and for what we actually WATCH, I could probably get away with 20 channels to satisfy every single member of my family, and that includes all the local over-the-air channels. Incidentally, that does NOT include ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNHD/ESPNNews/ESPNU. The ability to terminate Spongebob and the rest of the brain-dead programming on Nick? Hell yes sign us up.
The idea that this sort of plan is going to cost more is unreasonable. There will still be bundling, because consumers will demand it, and the cost of the bundle will be less than the cost of each of those channels together. However, the idea of having the freedom to choose what channels you receive in your home is appealing, even if that freedom comes with less-aggressive pricing.
For the record, even though the Director of the FCC used the example of minority-driven networks, I'm not sure that minority-driven networks will be the benefactors here, or that a la carte is going to be the thing that radically changes the way cable works. The ability to send targeted ads downstream to a particular set may have a bigger impact. If your digital box upstairs tells the operator that there is a lot of Disney and Nick being viewed, then there will be a lot of toy ads coming their way (yes, I understand that there are almost no ads on Disney, and I like it that way, but when that set is viewing other channels...).
If ever I had a reason to homeschool my kids, this is it right here: a) They're already smarter than their peers and b) your ringing endorsement. Thanks for the encouragement. I can hardly think of a better reason to keep 'em home than to avoid all the temptation they will experience with their peers until College, when IMHO they're much more mature (as their peers are) and capable of handling it better.
I don't believe this is correct. The offer is two phone LINES, not numbers. It is explained in detail on their site. One number, two lines. In order to get a second phone number you have to sign up for a virtual phone number, which is $3.95/mo or so.
No. If you read the sunrocket forums (www.sunrocketforum.com), there is lengthy discussion about people jumping ship. Just to find out what the deal is I did a sales chat with VT. It took almost two hours for the chat to connect to someone. That person said they were getting slammed with SR customers after the discussion on the forums last night. Personally I'm uneasy about moving to another firm with a questionable future, especially since their parent is a company called HostRocket, which seems too similar to be coincidence to me.
Anyway, the person I was chatting with didn't have any information on how to convert a SR Gizmo, but they did have info for a PAP2, which happens to be what's sitting in the basement from when I was a Vonage customer.
The next question that logically enters my mind is - why not switch to Skype since it's so cheap? I could buy a phone adapter and be up and running. I don't know how good or bad the QoS is, though. I didn't see anyone on the SR forums discussing going that route.
This really blows. I switched from Vonage two-plus years ago to SunRocket, and now I'm scrambling. Many of the subscribers have been moving to ViaTalk, which is offering to honor existing SunRocket contracts and has a similar price (but only one phone number instead of two).
I have one of the ORIGINAL original 360's - I won it from Mountain Dew's EveryTenMinutes.com promotion. So I've literally had my 360 at leat two days longer than anyone...other than the other ETM winners. I have played the tar out of standard games on that thing both with and without Live, played a bunch of movies on it, and hours and hours of Arcade on it. I've played single player, two-player, and even three and four player both online and off. For all the hype about issues with the 360, I have had not one second of trouble with it (other than the well-documented headset crapping out in GRAW2, which seems to be more a GRAW2 thing than anything else).
So at least in my case, my free 360 works just fine, thank you very much. See you on Live.
I don't think that it's the family appeal of the Wii that is drawing people. I believe it is the price and the novelty of it. At least in my family, I have an original XBox and a 360 (Thank you very much EveryTenMinutes.com/Mountain Dew), and my brothers all have PS/2's. When they were deciding which game console to get next, the immediately ruled out the PS/3 on price and what they considered to be lame titles. Despite the fact that they have kids 10 down to 3, they think the Wii is actually too kid-friendly, so their tweens will get bored, and so will the adults.
The 360 had a year to itself, and sold like it did. The problem it has is that the Wii came in at a significantly lower price-point, and didn't try to wow anybody with the graphics and sound, unlike the 360. That said, GRAW2 is insane (the smoke grenades especially), and the 360 just flat-out r0x. It would be nice if there were more kids games for it, or a way to plug in our XBox-era DDR pads, but they seem to enjoy Lego Star Wars and DDR on the old XBox just fine.
For all of that, my four-year-old daughter likes nothing better than beating the **** out of some level 25 prima donna on the new Halo3/Halo2 maps.
That has got to be the weakest attempt to extort money I've ever read. If you read the claims in the complaint, essentially the amblance-chasers are trying to attack Netflix not by invalidating the patents, but by arguing that the patents are invalid and therefore Netflix is guilty of abusing monopoly power given to it (by the existence of patents that the complaint contends are invalid).
That's pretty weeak. Looks like they're going for extortion and to certify a class all in one shot. Amazing. Only in the 9th Circuit could something like this be perpetrated.
To be fair, much of any company's stock is owned by mutual funds and other investment vehicles. As a result, many of the votes come from parties that hold large blocks but are more interested in ROI more than anything else. So it's frequently hard to get much of anything passed by "shareholders" since many "shareholders" aren't individuals.
That being said, as a shareholder I voted for the proposal.
Do any other shareholders remember if Google's BOD recommended voting FOR or AGAINST the proposal? I think I vaguely remember them recommending voting AGAINST, but I don't remember for sure.
Ugh. I hate it when Slashdot eats fake tags. Let's try the first one again with parens instead of brackets:
1) You didn't include a disclaimer (WARNING: Swallow liquid contents in mouth before continuing to read/), so you now owe me a new monitor and keyboard. "cheese-eating surrender-monkey" is priceless. (golfclap/)
1) You didn't include a disclaimer, so you now owe me a new monitor and keyboard. "cheese-eating surrender-monkey" is priceless. (golfclap/)
2) The signature is great, too. Well done. I have no mod points today or I'd give you one. The only question would be for funny or underrated. Watch - now I'll have them for the next four days running.
Mod this summary misleading. TFA, and all other coverage of this comes as a result of a letter from Henry Waxman to the Republican National Committee. Why? Because this doesn't have anything to do with the White House, it has to do with the RNC. The emails in question were on RNC servers, which is not subject to the laws and regulations that constrain the White House. Indeed, RNC has a 30-day retention/deletion policy, which was partially suspended in 2004 in response to legal inquiries submitted to it.
Trying to make this into a scandal is stupid. Your PERSONAL ISP and your PERSONAL wireless phone carrier aren't required to keep the emails or text messages from one of your 50 PERSONAL accounts that you used for your work unless they host for your company. RNC isn't, either. Now you might want to change the law, but until you do, there is absolutely nothing to see here. TFA even states that the White House retained email as it was required to do. Rove AND OTHERS, using RNC-issued hardware (a Blackberry) on RNC-financed wireless accounts, sent and received messages.
FYI, all Rove messages from 2005-on have been archived at someone's request.
Unfortunately I didn't put "Pay attention to [0001]" in the article submission, which reads "This application relates to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/714,285 filed on Sep. 6, 2005 entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING OBJECT-ORIENTED CODE INTO BROWSER-SIDE JAVASCRIPT."
Sup, geekoid?
I must not have been clear. The reason they can't overcome the router is because the filtering isn't being done by the router, i.e. they can do whatever they want to the router, but it won't affect anything. The filtering is being done inside of Bumper Car (the only browser they can access), which is running in a restricted Mac OS X account for each kid. So, it's really, really unlikely that they'll be able to circumvent it. Even if they were to use the router to redirect (clever bastards), the traffic is still filtered on the inbound side as well.
Taking the remaining stuff out of order (you'll see why in a moment), the wife and I have both raised 'coons. They're absolutely adorable as kittens, but crazy as adults, 'specially in season. That being said, the easiest way to coon-proof the trash is to do the same thing you do with squirrels - feed them away from where the goodies are. In this case, our coons (as adults) had a feeding area, and a food-washing area, and play area, etc. They didn't go to the trash because they didn't have to. It works great, if you don't mind coons. Oh, there's another coon-proof trashcan as well - it's called the garage, and yessiree we have one of them newfangled thingies here.
Anyway, now that we've determined that I might as well be a damn hillbilly, 'taint likely that the youngins'll be snarfing dat thar wifi from the neighbors...wait...we have neighbors? Can't see 'em from here, nosir. That would be one helluva wifi sniper rifle, yesindeedy.
Late, dude.
My eldest daughter is a tween, and she is all over this. For her and her friends it's a fun social event, much like online console games are for us adults. She is constantly on Club Penguin, and Disney.com, and Webkins, etc. and is frequently making "dates" with her friends to "meet" there. For them it is much-appreciated social time that they wouldn't otherwise get because we just aren't going to make play dates for them every single day. As parents we appreciate the diversion that this gives them, and we definitely are more brand-loyal due to furries.
Just one good example is Disney.com. All the kids, from the three-year-old on up are on it all the time. It's safe. It's fun, just like Disney Channel, which winds up being one of only a handful of channels that we let them watch. No commercials: Big bonus. No commercials causing them to ask awkward questions when we aren't ready to talk about some topic: Big bonus. When the kids get together, furries are what they talk about (although today is the first time I've heard that term applied), and adults take notice that they enjoy the fare that we serve, so we naturally support their interest in the products connected to these sites.
Nickelodeon is generally less popular in our circle, as we don't appreciate Spongebob and many of the other characters as being too "below" the kids' level, and encourage the least common denominator (there are some Disney shows that do as well, but we don't let them have all-they-can eat of those, either).
The only thing than safe online places to play is the safety afforded by a kid-proof browser. We have used Bumper Car for OSX for years, and swear by it. It's easy enough for the three-year-old, but by a whitelist and hueristic system, lets me control what the older kids can get onto. Since each user has their own account, I can easily customize what each kid is allowed to access. If I don't trust the hueristics (uh, I'm a geek and they're still young, so I don't), then they are even more locked down than they would be with the use of a filtering firewall, because as they get older they won't be able to overcome the router, even if they know how.
Time Warner's service is expensive, and certainly no better. I switched a year-and-a-half ago to SunRocket because Vonage was too expensive at $25.00 per month. With SunRocket at $200.00 per year I can put up with the issues I've had with them.
However, if this crap continues, I'll probably buy a Skype peripheral and wire in that way.
I'm a little surprised this is news. Generally speaking third parties are entitled to be compensated for their costs of complying with subpoenas in civil cases. Normally the receiving parties notify the issuer of the subpoena what the reasonable and necessary costs are of complying with the subpoena, and generally demand payment up front. I don't know why this is any different.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr.
I'm not sure where I sit on this law, but this seems like an odd reason to strike it down, since children aren't given the same rights as adults in our society. The most obvious example of this is the right to vote. This comment seems to be out of line with the rest of the opinion.
1) So did they figure out where pieces parts would have come down? Since Kwaj is just under 5,000 miles from Cali I'm assuming that splashdown was in the Eastern Pacific
2) Too bad they won't do another test launch. Kwaj's facilities are second-to-none, the weather is always great, and the diving is the finest on the planet (and the fishing isn't bad, either).
Well, that will mean lower cloud cover as the sunspots will reduce cosmic radiation reaching the earth, which will mean warmer temperatures for that period.
Stanmann, I know you think you're right, but the mistake you're making is a common one. This is an important detail because for patients in respiratory arrest you actually can make the situation worse as performing CPR on victims with a pulse can induce arythmias or arrest.
Here's the easy way to determine which goes first - the respirations or the pulse. If you have a victim who has full airway obstruction due to choking - can they breathe? No. Is their heart still beating? Yes - they're probably still conscious, and are standing up giving the universal choking sign - and they might even be running full speed in a panic. Right? OK, then.
If you still don't believe it, google "CPR Procedure". Here are a couple of sites I just pulled up quickly. The fist one lists the new protocol for lay people. http://globalcrisis.info/cpr.html http://www.he althatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/trans form.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/cardiopu lmonary_resuscitation_cpr.jsp
PLEASE before you hose it and make matters worse, contact an instructor or get recertified. If your certification is current, you might be able to get your recert expedited. Try contacting the BLS/ALS dispatchers in your area as they will probably know of a class coming up shortly, or they might even have a class with you by yourself by appointment.
AED is for anyone. The AED attempts to determine cardiac rhythm by monitoring electrical activity on the pt. That's why you are told "Stand clear, analyzing rhythm", because if the pt. is jostled during this time, the AED can get a bad read, and follow the wrong algorithm.
IANAL, but I am reasonably sure that regardless of what you do or don't do you can be sued. However, if your pt. is in cardiac arrest, they are already dead, so if you at least attempt to do SOMETHING for the pt., and that something isn't stupid, I believe that precedent is on your side. However, if an AED is available and you don't use it, you open yourself to criticism and/or challenges unless you have a good reason. You should check with the practice that you work for to ensure that you are personally insured for your actions at work, including negligence in treating dead people.
I can't speak for all AEDs, but the ones we carry on our rigs have voice recording on them, so if you follow the voice instructions, chances are the recording will back you up. In any case, at least in my state, unless you are an EMT, Medic, PHRN, or MD/DO etc., once one of those show up they're in charge (that's right, you RN's, the EMT's rule when they show up), so if you follow their instructions (unless they seem to be counter to your training), I believe your liability concern should be reduced.
Um. I think you misunderstand the meaning of Cardiac Arrest, and I can tell you didn't RTFA. When an individual is in respiratory arrest such as when they are suffering from anaphylactic shock, they have stopped breathing, but their heart is still pumping. If they are in cardiac arrest then they have both stopped breathing and their heart is in an unsustainable rhythm, e.g. asystole (flatline), or ventricular fibrillation.
There is no such thing as cardiac arrest with continued respirations.
The study discusses many different reasons why lay persons should focus on chest compressions alone if a victim is in cardiac arrest. One of the most important reasons is that lay people avoid providing chest compressions (felt to be the most important part of CPR for the first few minutes) because they don't want to give rescue breaths.
The protocol for lay people has already been changed to reduce the number of rescue breaths given, and the duration at which they are given.
There are also contraindications to full rescue breaths for emergency responders, such as asthma-induced respiratory (and then later cardiac) arrest, COPD, etc. It was also noted by the study that "saves" (conversions, survivors, whatever you want to call them) tend to suffer from less brain damage if they are not given rescue breaths, but the mechanism for such a claim is unclear to me.
For the time being, professional rescuers will continue to follow the newest protocols for CPR, which involves chest compressions, rescue breaths via BVM or advanced airways (ET tubes), and AED application ASAP.
I'm not sure why this is even much of a topic for discussion anyway. AED is the tool that actually saves lives. CPR is generally not effective except in witnessed arrests, and even then the probability of a save is frequently low. Speaking from personal experience, I've performed CPR 20+ times, and have yet to get a save. Even though I get recertified every year, you should expect your experience to be about the same. You need paramedics with drug bags, and defibrillation, and you need them yesterday. The rest of us are just trying to buy time.
For as long as I can remember there have been attempts to fix email so that it won't be subject to spammer stupid-tactics. How long is it going to take? Answer: Until M$ makes OE use digital signatures by default.
Slashdot Mirror
It's got nothing to do with what you can view, and everything to do with the principle of supporting those enterprises that do not share your values. Paying extra for a movie tier that includes Disney but also other channels that aren't acceptable is a price that is too high to pay for people making such a principled stand. For the longest time waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day, my parents couldn't get the Disney channel without also getting HBO, Showtime and Cinemax, so, they didn't, even though because of the way the network was configured at the time there was an A/B switch that they could take out of the line which would eliminate access to the channels they found offensive. Then Disney channel became available just as a straight premium channel and they bought in, even though at that time the programming sucked.
Fast forward a long time, and for what we actually WATCH, I could probably get away with 20 channels to satisfy every single member of my family, and that includes all the local over-the-air channels. Incidentally, that does NOT include ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNHD/ESPNNews/ESPNU. The ability to terminate Spongebob and the rest of the brain-dead programming on Nick? Hell yes sign us up.
The idea that this sort of plan is going to cost more is unreasonable. There will still be bundling, because consumers will demand it, and the cost of the bundle will be less than the cost of each of those channels together. However, the idea of having the freedom to choose what channels you receive in your home is appealing, even if that freedom comes with less-aggressive pricing.
For the record, even though the Director of the FCC used the example of minority-driven networks, I'm not sure that minority-driven networks will be the benefactors here, or that a la carte is going to be the thing that radically changes the way cable works. The ability to send targeted ads downstream to a particular set may have a bigger impact. If your digital box upstairs tells the operator that there is a lot of Disney and Nick being viewed, then there will be a lot of toy ads coming their way (yes, I understand that there are almost no ads on Disney, and I like it that way, but when that set is viewing other channels...).
If ever I had a reason to homeschool my kids, this is it right here: a) They're already smarter than their peers and b) your ringing endorsement. Thanks for the encouragement. I can hardly think of a better reason to keep 'em home than to avoid all the temptation they will experience with their peers until College, when IMHO they're much more mature (as their peers are) and capable of handling it better.
I don't believe this is correct. The offer is two phone LINES, not numbers. It is explained in detail on their site. One number, two lines. In order to get a second phone number you have to sign up for a virtual phone number, which is $3.95/mo or so.
No. If you read the sunrocket forums (www.sunrocketforum.com), there is lengthy discussion about people jumping ship. Just to find out what the deal is I did a sales chat with VT. It took almost two hours for the chat to connect to someone. That person said they were getting slammed with SR customers after the discussion on the forums last night. Personally I'm uneasy about moving to another firm with a questionable future, especially since their parent is a company called HostRocket, which seems too similar to be coincidence to me. Anyway, the person I was chatting with didn't have any information on how to convert a SR Gizmo, but they did have info for a PAP2, which happens to be what's sitting in the basement from when I was a Vonage customer. The next question that logically enters my mind is - why not switch to Skype since it's so cheap? I could buy a phone adapter and be up and running. I don't know how good or bad the QoS is, though. I didn't see anyone on the SR forums discussing going that route.
This really blows. I switched from Vonage two-plus years ago to SunRocket, and now I'm scrambling. Many of the subscribers have been moving to ViaTalk, which is offering to honor existing SunRocket contracts and has a similar price (but only one phone number instead of two).
I have one of the ORIGINAL original 360's - I won it from Mountain Dew's EveryTenMinutes.com promotion. So I've literally had my 360 at leat two days longer than anyone...other than the other ETM winners. I have played the tar out of standard games on that thing both with and without Live, played a bunch of movies on it, and hours and hours of Arcade on it. I've played single player, two-player, and even three and four player both online and off. For all the hype about issues with the 360, I have had not one second of trouble with it (other than the well-documented headset crapping out in GRAW2, which seems to be more a GRAW2 thing than anything else).
So at least in my case, my free 360 works just fine, thank you very much. See you on Live.
I don't think that it's the family appeal of the Wii that is drawing people. I believe it is the price and the novelty of it. At least in my family, I have an original XBox and a 360 (Thank you very much EveryTenMinutes.com/Mountain Dew), and my brothers all have PS/2's. When they were deciding which game console to get next, the immediately ruled out the PS/3 on price and what they considered to be lame titles. Despite the fact that they have kids 10 down to 3, they think the Wii is actually too kid-friendly, so their tweens will get bored, and so will the adults.
The 360 had a year to itself, and sold like it did. The problem it has is that the Wii came in at a significantly lower price-point, and didn't try to wow anybody with the graphics and sound, unlike the 360. That said, GRAW2 is insane (the smoke grenades especially), and the 360 just flat-out r0x. It would be nice if there were more kids games for it, or a way to plug in our XBox-era DDR pads, but they seem to enjoy Lego Star Wars and DDR on the old XBox just fine.
For all of that, my four-year-old daughter likes nothing better than beating the **** out of some level 25 prima donna on the new Halo3/Halo2 maps.
That has got to be the weakest attempt to extort money I've ever read. If you read the claims in the complaint, essentially the amblance-chasers are trying to attack Netflix not by invalidating the patents, but by arguing that the patents are invalid and therefore Netflix is guilty of abusing monopoly power given to it (by the existence of patents that the complaint contends are invalid).
That's pretty weeak. Looks like they're going for extortion and to certify a class all in one shot. Amazing. Only in the 9th Circuit could something like this be perpetrated.
To be fair, much of any company's stock is owned by mutual funds and other investment vehicles. As a result, many of the votes come from parties that hold large blocks but are more interested in ROI more than anything else. So it's frequently hard to get much of anything passed by "shareholders" since many "shareholders" aren't individuals.
That being said, as a shareholder I voted for the proposal.
Do any other shareholders remember if Google's BOD recommended voting FOR or AGAINST the proposal? I think I vaguely remember them recommending voting AGAINST, but I don't remember for sure.
Ugh. I hate it when Slashdot eats fake tags. Let's try the first one again with parens instead of brackets: 1) You didn't include a disclaimer (WARNING: Swallow liquid contents in mouth before continuing to read/), so you now owe me a new monitor and keyboard. "cheese-eating surrender-monkey" is priceless. (golfclap/)
1) You didn't include a disclaimer, so you now owe me a new monitor and keyboard. "cheese-eating surrender-monkey" is priceless. (golfclap/)
2) The signature is great, too. Well done. I have no mod points today or I'd give you one. The only question would be for funny or underrated. Watch - now I'll have them for the next four days running.
Mod this summary misleading. TFA, and all other coverage of this comes as a result of a letter from Henry Waxman to the Republican National Committee. Why? Because this doesn't have anything to do with the White House, it has to do with the RNC. The emails in question were on RNC servers, which is not subject to the laws and regulations that constrain the White House. Indeed, RNC has a 30-day retention/deletion policy, which was partially suspended in 2004 in response to legal inquiries submitted to it. Trying to make this into a scandal is stupid. Your PERSONAL ISP and your PERSONAL wireless phone carrier aren't required to keep the emails or text messages from one of your 50 PERSONAL accounts that you used for your work unless they host for your company. RNC isn't, either. Now you might want to change the law, but until you do, there is absolutely nothing to see here. TFA even states that the White House retained email as it was required to do. Rove AND OTHERS, using RNC-issued hardware (a Blackberry) on RNC-financed wireless accounts, sent and received messages. FYI, all Rove messages from 2005-on have been archived at someone's request.
Unfortunately I didn't put "Pay attention to [0001]" in the article submission, which reads "This application relates to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/714,285 filed on Sep. 6, 2005 entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SYNTHESIZING OBJECT-ORIENTED CODE INTO BROWSER-SIDE JAVASCRIPT."
That's 2005, not 2006.
Sup, geekoid? I must not have been clear. The reason they can't overcome the router is because the filtering isn't being done by the router, i.e. they can do whatever they want to the router, but it won't affect anything. The filtering is being done inside of Bumper Car (the only browser they can access), which is running in a restricted Mac OS X account for each kid. So, it's really, really unlikely that they'll be able to circumvent it. Even if they were to use the router to redirect (clever bastards), the traffic is still filtered on the inbound side as well. Taking the remaining stuff out of order (you'll see why in a moment), the wife and I have both raised 'coons. They're absolutely adorable as kittens, but crazy as adults, 'specially in season. That being said, the easiest way to coon-proof the trash is to do the same thing you do with squirrels - feed them away from where the goodies are. In this case, our coons (as adults) had a feeding area, and a food-washing area, and play area, etc. They didn't go to the trash because they didn't have to. It works great, if you don't mind coons. Oh, there's another coon-proof trashcan as well - it's called the garage, and yessiree we have one of them newfangled thingies here. Anyway, now that we've determined that I might as well be a damn hillbilly, 'taint likely that the youngins'll be snarfing dat thar wifi from the neighbors...wait...we have neighbors? Can't see 'em from here, nosir. That would be one helluva wifi sniper rifle, yesindeedy. Late, dude.
My eldest daughter is a tween, and she is all over this. For her and her friends it's a fun social event, much like online console games are for us adults. She is constantly on Club Penguin, and Disney.com, and Webkins, etc. and is frequently making "dates" with her friends to "meet" there. For them it is much-appreciated social time that they wouldn't otherwise get because we just aren't going to make play dates for them every single day. As parents we appreciate the diversion that this gives them, and we definitely are more brand-loyal due to furries. Just one good example is Disney.com. All the kids, from the three-year-old on up are on it all the time. It's safe. It's fun, just like Disney Channel, which winds up being one of only a handful of channels that we let them watch. No commercials: Big bonus. No commercials causing them to ask awkward questions when we aren't ready to talk about some topic: Big bonus. When the kids get together, furries are what they talk about (although today is the first time I've heard that term applied), and adults take notice that they enjoy the fare that we serve, so we naturally support their interest in the products connected to these sites. Nickelodeon is generally less popular in our circle, as we don't appreciate Spongebob and many of the other characters as being too "below" the kids' level, and encourage the least common denominator (there are some Disney shows that do as well, but we don't let them have all-they-can eat of those, either). The only thing than safe online places to play is the safety afforded by a kid-proof browser. We have used Bumper Car for OSX for years, and swear by it. It's easy enough for the three-year-old, but by a whitelist and hueristic system, lets me control what the older kids can get onto. Since each user has their own account, I can easily customize what each kid is allowed to access. If I don't trust the hueristics (uh, I'm a geek and they're still young, so I don't), then they are even more locked down than they would be with the use of a filtering firewall, because as they get older they won't be able to overcome the router, even if they know how.
Time Warner's service is expensive, and certainly no better. I switched a year-and-a-half ago to SunRocket because Vonage was too expensive at $25.00 per month. With SunRocket at $200.00 per year I can put up with the issues I've had with them.
However, if this crap continues, I'll probably buy a Skype peripheral and wire in that way.
I'm a little surprised this is news. Generally speaking third parties are entitled to be compensated for their costs of complying with subpoenas in civil cases. Normally the receiving parties notify the issuer of the subpoena what the reasonable and necessary costs are of complying with the subpoena, and generally demand payment up front. I don't know why this is any different.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. I'm not sure where I sit on this law, but this seems like an odd reason to strike it down, since children aren't given the same rights as adults in our society. The most obvious example of this is the right to vote. This comment seems to be out of line with the rest of the opinion.
1) So did they figure out where pieces parts would have come down? Since Kwaj is just under 5,000 miles from Cali I'm assuming that splashdown was in the Eastern Pacific 2) Too bad they won't do another test launch. Kwaj's facilities are second-to-none, the weather is always great, and the diving is the finest on the planet (and the fishing isn't bad, either).
Well, that will mean lower cloud cover as the sunspots will reduce cosmic radiation reaching the earth, which will mean warmer temperatures for that period.
Stanmann, I know you think you're right, but the mistake you're making is a common one. This is an important detail because for patients in respiratory arrest you actually can make the situation worse as performing CPR on victims with a pulse can induce arythmias or arrest.
e althatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/trans form.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/cardiopu lmonary_resuscitation_cpr.jsp
Here's the easy way to determine which goes first - the respirations or the pulse. If you have a victim who has full airway obstruction due to choking - can they breathe? No. Is their heart still beating? Yes - they're probably still conscious, and are standing up giving the universal choking sign - and they might even be running full speed in a panic. Right? OK, then.
If you still don't believe it, google "CPR Procedure". Here are a couple of sites I just pulled up quickly. The fist one lists the new protocol for lay people.
http://globalcrisis.info/cpr.html
http://www.h
PLEASE before you hose it and make matters worse, contact an instructor or get recertified. If your certification is current, you might be able to get your recert expedited. Try contacting the BLS/ALS dispatchers in your area as they will probably know of a class coming up shortly, or they might even have a class with you by yourself by appointment.
Really.
AED is for anyone. The AED attempts to determine cardiac rhythm by monitoring electrical activity on the pt. That's why you are told "Stand clear, analyzing rhythm", because if the pt. is jostled during this time, the AED can get a bad read, and follow the wrong algorithm.
IANAL, but I am reasonably sure that regardless of what you do or don't do you can be sued. However, if your pt. is in cardiac arrest, they are already dead, so if you at least attempt to do SOMETHING for the pt., and that something isn't stupid, I believe that precedent is on your side. However, if an AED is available and you don't use it, you open yourself to criticism and/or challenges unless you have a good reason. You should check with the practice that you work for to ensure that you are personally insured for your actions at work, including negligence in treating dead people.
I can't speak for all AEDs, but the ones we carry on our rigs have voice recording on them, so if you follow the voice instructions, chances are the recording will back you up. In any case, at least in my state, unless you are an EMT, Medic, PHRN, or MD/DO etc., once one of those show up they're in charge (that's right, you RN's, the EMT's rule when they show up), so if you follow their instructions (unless they seem to be counter to your training), I believe your liability concern should be reduced.
Um. I think you misunderstand the meaning of Cardiac Arrest, and I can tell you didn't RTFA. When an individual is in respiratory arrest such as when they are suffering from anaphylactic shock, they have stopped breathing, but their heart is still pumping. If they are in cardiac arrest then they have both stopped breathing and their heart is in an unsustainable rhythm, e.g. asystole (flatline), or ventricular fibrillation.
There is no such thing as cardiac arrest with continued respirations.
The study discusses many different reasons why lay persons should focus on chest compressions alone if a victim is in cardiac arrest. One of the most important reasons is that lay people avoid providing chest compressions (felt to be the most important part of CPR for the first few minutes) because they don't want to give rescue breaths.
The protocol for lay people has already been changed to reduce the number of rescue breaths given, and the duration at which they are given.
There are also contraindications to full rescue breaths for emergency responders, such as asthma-induced respiratory (and then later cardiac) arrest, COPD, etc. It was also noted by the study that "saves" (conversions, survivors, whatever you want to call them) tend to suffer from less brain damage if they are not given rescue breaths, but the mechanism for such a claim is unclear to me.
For the time being, professional rescuers will continue to follow the newest protocols for CPR, which involves chest compressions, rescue breaths via BVM or advanced airways (ET tubes), and AED application ASAP.
I'm not sure why this is even much of a topic for discussion anyway. AED is the tool that actually saves lives. CPR is generally not effective except in witnessed arrests, and even then the probability of a save is frequently low. Speaking from personal experience, I've performed CPR 20+ times, and have yet to get a save. Even though I get recertified every year, you should expect your experience to be about the same. You need paramedics with drug bags, and defibrillation, and you need them yesterday. The rest of us are just trying to buy time.
I guess it depends on the meaning of what "ISS" ISS.
For as long as I can remember there have been attempts to fix email so that it won't be subject to spammer stupid-tactics. How long is it going to take? Answer: Until M$ makes OE use digital signatures by default.