More Thoughts on The Obama Space Policy

Posted on by

Space Watchers Critique President Obama's Proposal for NASA's Future, PBS NewsHour

"Keith Cowing, editor, NASA Watch: It's a paradigm-shifting proposal. It has matured a little over the past few months and will continue to mature. But what it does overall is challenge the status quo as to how America explores space. And that involves making some difficult decisions. It's changing the policy begun by President Bush with the Constellation program, and it says we want to go further in terms of using private sector than ever before.

Tom Young, former Lockheed Martin executive vice president and former NASA official: I think it's a significant mistake. Not because I don't think the aerospace industry is enormously capable, but I think it's not capable of doing something as challenging as humans in space by itself. I think the probability of it being unsuccessful is very high."

Yawn – Yet Another Space Poll

Posted on by

Americans Back Space Exploration, Know Little About Proposed Policy Changes, Everett Group 'Space Poll' Finds

"As Pres. Barack Obama vows continued commitment to space exploration, including increased funding to explore the solar system and the ultimate goal of landing astronauts on Mars, he finds support from many Americans. Most Americans have a positive image of NASA, the country's space agency, and one-third say it's very important to them that the U.S. continue to explore the solar system (with one-third more saying it's somewhat important to them)."

Keith's note: Yawn - yet another space poll with the same results as the last dozen space polls. I am not certain why people keep paying to do these polls. The polls always come up with the same answers - yet government, private sector, and the general public do not care about the results enough to do anything to change the situation. Until someone, somewhere gets off their ass, nothing is going to change.

For half a decade Americans were told by the White House and NASA, with great excitement, that we were going back to the Moon. Then the next President suddenly tells everyone "Why go to the Moon?, we've already done that". Its as if we walked away from Apollo in 1967. These back and forth policy changes leave everyone with a case of intellectual whiplash. Why should anyone understand (or care) about policy changes when they end up meaning little in the end.

Consumers spent billions to see a space-themed film like "Avatar" and yet NASA was incapable of seizing the opportunity to capitalize on this interest before, during, or after the film's release. And then there is the "Summer of Innovation" that NASA has the lead on from the White House. Summer is only a matter of weeks away. Has anyone heard anything about what this project is going to do? Finally, there was the Space Summit/Conference last week with the President. NASA/OSTP waited until only hours before the event to tell people what was actually going to happen at this event. As for follow-up, how will all Americans learn of the event's results?

Don't hold your breath. If NASA does not care enough to reach out and inform the taxpayers who fund its activities, why should it get upset when people's interest in what the agency does is not all that it could be?

CAP and ASCO Release New ER/PR Testing Guideline

Posted on by

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) issued a joint guideline today aimed at improving the accuracy of immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing for the expression status of estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) in treating breast cancer patients.
Because as many as two-thirds of breast cancers are ER and/or PR-positive, the new guideline has the potential to prolong and save the lives of the vast majority of breast cancer patients worldwide.

To improve the accuracy of ER and PR testing, the CAP and ASCO recommend the following:

  • Testing ER and PR status on all newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers (primary site and/or metastatic site), and whenever appropriate, repeat testing in patients with a known breast cancer diagnosis who now present with a local or distant recurrence.
  • Establishing uniform testing measures that focus on proven, reliable and reproducible assays and procedures.
  • Having testing laboratories validate their assays against existing and clinically validated tests. Results should agree at least 90 percent of the time with those of the clinically validated assays for positive receptor status and at least 95 percent for negative receptor status.
  • Transporting breast tissue specimens from the operating room to the pathology laboratory as soon as they are available for gross assessment. The time from tumor removal to initiation of fixation should be kept to one hour or less.
  • Performing ER and PR testing in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation requirements spelled out in the guideline. The CAP will require that every accredited lab performing testing participate in a mandatory proficiency testing program.
  • Considering an ER and PR test, performed by IHC, positive if at least one percent of the tumor in the sample tests positive, which helps predict whether a patient is likely to benefit with endocrine treatment. The panel recognized that it is reasonable for oncologists to discuss the pros and cons of endocrine therapy with patients whose tumors contain low levels of ER by IHC (one percent to ten percent weakly positive cells) and to make an informed decision based on available information.

The CAP also developed a list of frequently asked questions to help members and laboratories understand what the new guideline will mean in their practice setting. In addition, a joint press release was posted today on the College's website and on ASCO's website, illustrating the collaboration between the two organizations on behalf of breast cancer patients.

Patients can find a resource guide on the College's patient website, http://www.MyBiopsy.org. In addition, the homepage of MyBiopsy.org features ER/PR breast cancer survivor Ruth Chermok and highlights the life-saving role of pathologists in diagnosing and assisting with the treatment of breast cancer patients.
This is the second time that the two organizations have collaborated on guidelines. In 2007, the CAP and ASCO issued clinical practice guideline recommendations to improve HER2 testing accuracy.

Christian Punk: Tom Schweich Republican for Missouri Auditor

Posted on by

Fighting Authority Tea Party style

Tom Schweich is running in a 3-way primary for Missouri Auditor. He produced this video to break out of the pack. It may have worked. The video has gone viral.

According to MO Prime Buzz:

Missouri state auditor candidate Tom Schweich, a Republican and former U.S. ambassador, has a music video up on YouTube. Yes, a music video. On YouTube. Check it out -- it's like John Cougar Mellencamp channeling the tea party movement with absolutely no sense of irony.

Obama chooses Harvard professor Donald Berwick to run Medicare, Medicaid – Boston Globe

Posted on by
Obama chooses Harvard professor Donald Berwick to run Medicare, Medicaid
Boston Globe
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff WASHINGTON -- Harvard Medical School professor Donald Berwick's nomination to run the nation's Medicare and Medicaid programs ...
Obama nominates head of Medicare, Medicaid CentersReuters
President Nominates Professor to Health JobNew York Times
Obama Picks Harvard's Berwick for Medicare, MedicaidBusinessWeek
Medscape -Washington Post -The Associated Press
all 127 news articles »

Your ‘Sick’ Kid May Be Well Enough for Day Care – U.S. News & World Report (blog)

Posted on by

Scope (blog)
Your 'Sick' Kid May Be Well Enough for Day Care
U.S. News & World Report (blog)
"There's a lot of phobia regarding pinkeye and colds," which isn't justified, says study lead author Andrew Hashikawa, a pediatrician at the Medical College ...
Day Care Centers Send Kids Home With Minor IllnessesSmartAboutHealth
Survey shows day cares are too quick to send sick kids homeUSA Today
Too Sick for Day Care? Depends Who You AskWall Street Journal (blog)
CBS MoneyWatch.com (blog)
all 122 news articles »

LPIN Podcast: State Chair Sam Goldstein on upcoming state convention

Posted on by

The second-most important event in the LPIN’s annual calendar, the state convention, approaches. Delegates from all across the state meet to do the business of nominating candidates to statewide office (Secretary of State, Auditor, etc.), Indiana legislative office (Indiana House and Indiana Senate), and Congressional office (US Senate and US House of Representatives). In addition, [...]

80% of People Say: No More Government

Posted on by

So why don't we have a nationwide vote on whether or not to just get rid of government altogether? Ironically, being an anarchist, I myself would abstain from voting even on this issue.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 80 percent of Americans say they do not trust the government to do what is right, expressing the highest level of distrust in Washington in half a century, according to a public opinion survey.

Only 22 percent of Americans say they trust the government "just about always" or "most of the time," according to the Pew Research Center survey released on Sunday.

Americans' trust in the federal government has been on a steady decline from a high of 73 percent during the Eisenhower administration in 1958, when the "trust" question was first posed in a national survey, the research center said.

Economic uncertainty, a highly partisan environment and overwhelming discontent with Congress and elected officials were all factors contributing to the current wave of public distrust, the report said.

The long, bitter debate over the healthcare law that President Barack Obama signed last month made negative feeling about government, particularly Congress, even worse, according to the report based on a series of surveys of some 5,000 people.

About 25 percent had a favorable opinion of Congress, the lowest in 25 years of surveying, and less than half (40 percent) said the Obama administration was doing an excellent or good job, Pew said.

Americans were found to be more frustrated than angry, with 56 percent expressing frustration with the federal government, compared with 21 percent who said they were angry.

Forty-three percent of Republicans, 50 percent of independents who lean Republican and 57 percent of those who agree with the Tea Party movement said the government presents a major threat to their personal freedom.

That compares with 18 percent of Democrats, 21 percent of independents who lean Democratic and 9 percent of those who disagree with the Tea Party movement.

The main survey of 2,505 adults was conducted March 11-21. Three other surveys of about 1,000 adults each were conducted March 18-21, April 1-5 and April 8-11. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

(Reporting by Joanne Allen, Editing by Vicki Allen)

OtherGuy’sDime Blog

Posted on by

post thumbnail

Sometimes, you just have to take the advice of someone else. In this case, Michael Schneider listened to his wife – a decision that opened his (and his family’s) eyes to unexpected and very rewarding opportunities. The OtherGuy’sDime Blog is a demonstration that you don’t have to give up your “day job” to travel the world.

© Gretchen for TravelBlogs, 2010. |
OtherGuy’sDime Blog |
No comment |

Post categories: Blogs
Post tags: , , , ,

The Planet @ Cloud Expo East

Posted on by

Kevin HazardWhile Jay-Z may have impressed upon you that New York has streets that will make you feel brand new and lights that will inspire you, the fact that he cut his verse about The Planet’s participation in Cloud Expo East from “Empire State of Mind” means you might not know how to meet us at the Jacob Javits Convention Center this week. I’m tempted to provide the details in an exceedingly awkward rap over the song’s instrumental track. As I think about the sheer horror of that final product, this tried-and-true blog post is probably the best for all parties (especially you).

Expo Hall: Booth 118

If you’re an avid reader of The Planet Blog, you’ll remember the video we shot in the expo hall at the 2009 Cloud Computing Conference in Santa Clara, CA. That interview is probably the reason you decided to attend Cloud Expo East 2010, and we’re happy to have inspired you.

This year, you can find us in Booth 118 on the expo hall floor. Some of our hosting and cloud subject matter experts will be in attendance, and we’d love to share our experience and expertise with you. To commemorate your visit, be sure to snag one of our “refreshing approach to hosting” water bottles, and don’t forget to drop your business card in our fishbowl to enter our random drawing for a Flip UltraHD camcorder.

The Cloud’s Not the Revolution: Monday, 3:30 p.m. | Duke Skarda

Duke Skarda, our vice president of information technology and software development, is presenting a contrarian point of view about the significance of “the cloud” in a general session on Monday afternoon: The Cloud’s Not the Revolution: Cloud Usage Is.

It’s hard to read any technology news that doesn’t include an emerging technology or new products with the cloud moniker attached, so it’s no wonder technology professionals and IT teams are concerned and confused. The goal of the session to help you understand the ‘real’ adoption curve of these technologies and the ’silver bullets’ from days past. Duke will share several use cases where cloud adoption makes sense, and with those examples you should be more prepared to evaluate your own cloud decisions.

Finding Your Cloud Source: Wednesday, 8:20 a.m. | Carl Meadows

On Wednesday morning, our senior product manager Carl Meadows will share Five Steps to Sanity: Methodologies for Finding Your Best Cloud Source.

All clouds aren’t the same, and adoption hasn’t begun to lay claim to 1.0 adoption criteria. In this session, Carl will share a comprehensive five-step methodology for choosing the right cloud platform for your business. From profiling your applications to clearly articulating a capacity plan, defining security requirements and even hybrid options, he will provide the resources, considerations and questions companies should ask to be fully informed.

The Linux Foundation & The Planet Server Cloud

Not coincidentally, today is a banner day for our Server Cloud product. We were just announced as a new member of the Linux Foundation, and they have some great things to say about our cloud computing strategy. As Linux Foundation vice president of marketing and developer programs Amanda McPherson explains in a press release today, “We expect The Planet to be among the first companies to launch a large-scale public-cloud service on KVM and we applaud their foresight and vision,” so the pressure is on as our Server Cloud offering blazes a new trail.

We believe KVM is the future of Linux-based server virtualization, and our membership in the Linux Foundation reflects our commitment to the Linux development community. The Planet Server Cloud is currently in beta with more than 500 customers testing the new architecture.

Duke and Carl are two of friendliest and most engaging guys you’ll meet at the conference, so don’t hesitate to seek us out to ask questions and share your thoughts on our presentations. We are happy to talk to you about our involvement in the Linux Foundation, and we can share some great reasons for developing on the KVM hypervisor. In short, if you want to talk cloud, you should seek out The Planet.

Because a post that talks about New York and music isn’t complete until we get Ol’ Blue Eyes in the mix, “Start spreading the news, Cloud Expo’s starting today. We want you to be a part of it, in old New York.”

-Kevin

StumbleUpon
Twitter
DZone
Digg
del.icio.us
Technorati

Chemotherapy versus death from cancer

Posted on by

Editor’s Note: Having pivoted immediately (and dizzyingly) from attending NECSS and participating with John Snyder, Kimball Atwood, and Steve Novella in a panel on the infiltration of quackery into academia to heading down to Washington, DC for the AACR meeting, I’ve neglected my SBM duties a bit this week. After a packed day of talks at the AACR meeting followed by spending an evening with a friend whom I haven’t seen for a long time (complete with a trip to The Brickskeller), there’s–gasp!–no new material today. Because for some reason a decision was apparently made to cut our panel very short in order to get the conference back on schedule, we were unable to answer anywhere near as many questions from the audience as we had originally hoped, I was thinking of doing a post trying to answer a couple of the questions asked by audience members who came up to me after the panel terminated prematurely, because one of them was a particularly dicey situation. Maybe later this week. In the meantime, here’s something that I wrote about a year ago, which I tweaked a bit. It’s a very serious topic, but I think it appropriate because it discusses exactly what science-based medicine tries to prevent using evidence and what “alternative medicine” claims it can prevent based on no evidence.

I’ve written before about the Daniel Hauser case, a 13 year old boy who last year refused chemotherapy for his Hodgkin’s lymphoma, necessitating the involvement of the legal system. Cases like that of Daniel Hauser reprsent supreme “teachable” moments that–fortunately–don’t come along that often. The antivaccine movement, for instance, will be with us always (or at least, I fear, as long as I still walk this earth and beyond), but cases like that of Daniel Hauser tend to pop up only once every couple of years or even less. As tragic as they are, they always bring up so many issues that I have a hard time leaving them alone.

This time around, I wanted to touch on an issue that has come up frequently in the discussions of this case, and that’s the issue of chemotherapy. Specifically, it’s the issue of how horrible chemotherapy can be. Again, make no mistake about it, chemotherapy can be rough. Very rough. But what is often forgotten is that it can also be life-saving, particularly in the case of hematologic malignancies, where it is the primary therapy. What is also often forgotten or intentionally ignored by promoters of unscientific medicine is that doctors don’t use chemotherapy because they have some perverted love of “torturing” patients, because they’re in the pockets of big pharma and looking for cash, or because they are too lazy to find another way. They do it because, at least right now, it’s the best therapy science-based medicine has to offer, and in the case of Hodgkin’s lymphoma, for example, it’s life-saving. You can be sure that if a less harsh way were found to achieve the same results, physicians would jump all over it. Indeed, a major focuse of oncology research these days is to find less brutal regimens and improve the quality of life of cancer patients while still giving them the best shot at survival.

Yes, chemotherapy can make you feel nauseated and make you throw up. It can make your hair fall out. It can temporarily depress the immune system. It can cause bleeding complications, such as GI bleeding. It can cause kidney damage. It can cause heart damage. It can cause lung damage. It can cause nerve damage. It can make you lose weight. It can even result in your death from complications. In short, it is not something to be used lightly. Unfortunately, the disease it’s meant to fight is a formidable foe indeed. It is your own cells, and all too often the difference between the toxicity of chemotherapy against the cancer and against normal cells is not that large.

But what does cancer do? How do cancer patients die? They suffer and die in protean ways. Cancer can do everything chemotherapy can do (with the exception of hair loss) and more. I’ve seen more patients than I care to know suffer and die from cancer. I’ve seen family members suffer and die from cancer, most recently my mother-in-law last year.

One of the most frequent claims of cancer patients who opt for quackery instead of chemotherapy and effective science-based therapies is that they want to remain healthy. Some, as Abraham Cherrix did, state that, even if they end up dying, they want to “die healthy.” It’s a dangerous delusion. There is nothing “healthy” about dying from cancer. Dying from cancer is anything but “healthy.” But it is perfectly natural, as natural (or even more so) than the herbal concoctions that so many alt-med believers put their faith into. But what does dying from untreated cancer mean? What happens? What does it involve?

Dying from untreated cancer can mean unrelenting pain that leaves you the choice of being drugged up with narcotics or being in agony.

Dying from untreated cancer can mean unrelenting vomiting from a bowel obstruction. It can mean having a nasogastric tube to drain your digestive juices and prevent you from throwing up. Alternatively, it can mean having to have a tube sticking out of your stomach to drain its fluids.

Dying from untreated cancer can mean bleeding because you don’t have enough platelets to clot. The bleeding can come in many forms. It can be bleeding into the brain, in essence a hemorrhagic stroke. It can mean bleeding from the rectum or vomiting blood incessantly. And, because so many transfusions are all too often necessary, immune reactions can chew up new platelets as fast as they’re infused. Yes, paradoxically, even when a cancer patient’s immune system is suppressed in late stage cancer, frequently it does work against the one thing you don’t want it to: Transfusions of blood products.

Dying from untreated cancer can mean horrific cachexia. Think Nazi concentration camp survivor. think starving Africans. Think famine. Think having cheeks so sunken that your face looks like the skull underlying it.

Dying from untreated cancer can mean your lungs progressively filling with fluid from tumor infiltration. Think choking on your own secretions. Think a progressive shortness of breath. Think an unrelenting feeling of suffocation but with no possibility of relief ever.

Dying from cancer can mean having your belly fill with ascites fluid due to a liver chock full of tumor.

Dying from cancer can mean a progressive decline in mental function due to brain metastases.

Dying from cancer can mean so many other horrific things happening to you that they are way to numerous to include a comprehensive list in a blog post, even a post by a blogger as regularly logorrheic as I am.

Modern medicine can alleviate many of the symptoms people with terminal cancer suffer, but all too often it can’t reverse the disease process. However, the relief of these symptoms requires that the patient actually accept treatment. Hospice can minimize such symptoms, often for significant periods of time. However, even with the very best hospice care, there is nothing “healthy” or pleasant about dying from cancer. It means a loss of control. It can mean being too weak to get up by yourself, to feed yourself, to go to the bathroom yourself, to bathe yourself, or do do much other than lie in your bed and wait for the end. Without such treatment, a patient who chooses quackery over effective curative or palliative therapy dooms himself to a painful and unpleasant death. He in effect dooms himself to the sorts of ends untreated cancer patients suffered hundreds of years ago, before there was effective therapy. It doesn’t have to be this way, but the seductive promise of a cure without pain, without hair falling out, without nausea lures cancer patients to havens of quackery in Tijuana or to flee from authorities trying to see that a child obtains potentially life-saving treatment, all because of a magnified fear of chemotherapy, all because of the propaganda that paints chemotherapy as “poison,” radiation as “burning,” and surgery as “slashing.”

Here’s the dirty little secret behind “alternative cancer cure” (ACC) promises. They are seductive because it is true that cancer patients who stop their chemotherapy will feel better than they did when undergoing chemotherapy. Of course they do, at least for a while! Often what happens, as in Daniel Hauser’s case, is that the tumor shrinks, and, once the chemotherapy course is done, the patient does feel better because the tumor is no longer causing B symptoms or compressing lungs and making him short of breath, and other symptoms are also relieved. It is also true that more chemotherapy will make the patient feel lousy again for a time. Unfortunately, in the case of Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the additional chemotherapy is necessary to maximize the chance of cure. Hodgkin’s disease frequently relapses without the additional courses of chemotherapy. Science and clinical trials have told us that. Daniel Hauser is living proof, an anecdote that is consistent with what science tells us.

In other words, the promise of ACCs is a lie. They promise that cancer patients will always feel the way they do after the first course of chemotherapy is over and they have recovered or the way they feel before the tumor has grown beyond what can be cured. They are either deluded or lying. That’s because cancer doesn’t give up. It’s like the Terminator. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And, if it is not treated, it absolutely will not stop, ever, until the patient is dead. And it rarely will be a pretty end. There’s a case to be made that it isn’t worth they symptoms to undergo chemotherapy when it has a very small chance of success. Such a judgment is up to the patient, based on his or her values and an accurate knowledge of the risks and benefits, which we as science-based physicians must provide them. However, all too often, by foregoing effective palliation, patients who choose ACCs condemn themselves to an end far more brutal than is necessary even if their cancer is terminal when diagnosed, and patients whose cancer is not terminal when diagnosed give up their one best shot at life.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

Ready… Set… GO!

Posted on by

UPDATE:  SOLVED by Nick

Yay, another Saturday.  Are you ready to riddle?  Got those brain cells revved-up and ready?  Okay, today’s subject is an object, and here are the clues:

This is a single object.

It was known to ancient man.

It features a large, well-known optical illusion.

It’s also home to something very large.

If that wasn’t enough, it boasts an impressive pareidolia.

This object is very well represented in literature.

This has been an object of intense scientific scrutiny.

Pieces of this object have recently caused considerable controversy.

There… clear as mud.  Really, it’s an easy riddle, and one of the last easy ones left.  They’ll get progressively harder after this, leading up to the bonus riddle.  Do you think you have the answer?  You know where to find me.

Spidey-smiley - Lurking

Up Close and Personal With Iceland’s Volcanic Eruption | Visual Science

Posted on by

Eyjafjallajökull, Iceland

This is a steam cloud that formed as the lava from the recent volcanic eruption in Iceland flows into steep canyons partly filled with deep snow and ice. Occasional explosions also occur as steam gets trapped under hardened lava, and can make things pretty hairy for anyone nearby, as Icelandic photographer Örvar Atli Þorgeirsson found out first hand as he and friends spent ten hours on the scene.

Þorgeirsson: “To photograph a volcano has always been a dream. The first part of this eruption was a dream come true. The small scale of the first eruption allowed me to get very close to the crater and the lava flow. Even if it was small, being this close to it was thrilling. The heat, the loud noise, the smell, the contrast between the ice and fire was an experience I will never forget.”

Photograph by Örvar Atli Þorgeirsson

Your Augmented Reality Life: Coming Soon in 2020 | Discoblog

Posted on by

whuffiemeter

Just a decade ago, our unsophisticated brains couldn’t even conceive of items like the iPhone–never mind the iPad. Starting with the premise that the unimaginable can quickly become ubiquitous, a group of designers, futurists, and journalists recently sat down in San Francisco to try and imagine our lives in 2020. They focused on how technology will impact social interactions, travel, commerce, healthcare, and the media.

The ideas came thick and fast. One idea for the future is a “Thingbook” that would take augmented reality to the next step. Designers imagined that the Thingbook would catalog and index every visible thing. So if you see someone on the street wearing a cool jacket that you’d like to buy, all you have to do is look at it and your mobile handset or AR-equipped eyeglasses will identify the object and look up the best price and retailer, writes design mind.

Other ideas included the Whuffie Meter, wherein you can immediately access everything public about a person who is sitting across from you, as well as the Bodynet, which would instantly compute the result of that big burger-and-fries lunch.

Related Content:
Discoblog: For the Driver Who Has Everything: An Augmented Reality Windshield From GM
Discoblog: Augmented Reality Phone App Can Identify Strangers on the Street
Discoblog: Augmented Reality Tattoos Are Visible Only to a Special Camera

Image: Designmind


Dilbert gets it right | Bad Astronomy

Posted on by

This sounds about right.

dilbert_homeopathy

I like the cartoon, though I’m not a huge fan of Scott Adams himself; his creationist/Intelligent Design leanings make that difficult. Some people say he’s a gadfly, just trying to get people to think. But I’ve never found his arguments persuasive, and they’re generally just repetitions of some of the more basic (and easily debunked) ID claims. PZ Myers has dealt with him any number of times, and a web search will yield all sorts of interesting results.

Life is full of such conflicts; Jenny McCarthy is actually very funny when she’s not trying to infect the world with measles, Oprah does a lot of actual good work in contrast to her support of McCarthy, and Fred Phelps… no, my mistake. Phelps is just 100% awful.

Tip o’ the tie tip to my brother, Sid.


With Liberty, Justice, and Broadband for All?

Posted on by

The FCC presented its Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan to Congress and the general public at the end of March. Now, industry awaits months of what is sure to be heated debate. At this point, the FCC's plan is merely a set of proposals and guidelines but critics have already started th

Turn Out the Lights — and Computers

Posted on by

A PC Power Management program initiated by Ford Motor Company is expected to save $1.2 million/year in energy costs. Under the program, power settings on computers will be centrally controlled to reduce wasted energy — saving from $20 to $60 per PC, per year. Such savings add up quickly for a