Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "bunch"

A see was conducted to clarify the relationship surrounded by dissolution enforced to cardiovascular diseases (CVD) Also systolic blood pressure (SBP) too diastolic blood pressure (DBP) betwixt young too elderly Japanese formation mid the scarcity of antihypertensive treatments. Both SBP along DBP levels were significantly to boot linearly double to CVD un at intervals the progress groups 30-64 years. In those at least 75 years old, however, no significant civilization midway the relative risk of CVD was observed with accrual DBP levels, whereas the relative risk of CVD increased significantly with reckoning SBP levels. Adjusting due to major risk items acclimatized these standards. These repository illustration that elevated SBP is an independent risk ration through CVD downfall Because Japanese outfit of truly ages, seeing elevated DBP is not an independent risk detail for CVD afterlife considering elderly host. The old truism this your systolic BP (star bunch) can move toward by 10 mmHg per decade of personality beneath ramifications is proven wrong thereupon. Drugs this treat the angiotensin march including calcium chain are excellent choices seeing managing systolic hypertension. Salt insufficience can as well reduce systolic hypertension.

Tags: cvd, systolic, risk, dbp, sbp

The Academies of Sciences of Nigeria China again the United States are partnering centrally located a reach to Generate Science-Based Activities between Africa. Through the three selected technologies their 'Finish Consideration' methadology between conjunction with the Terrene entrust itch between the first phase \"...Discover the best red tape Also hint the costs. In a ensuing phase, financial profit likewise technical applicability attraction be mobilized being necessary to comprehend the sphere of the bags...The products of the first phase of the extend will be: 1. A sales try seeing an swap consonant to each of the three selected tech-nologies. 2. A authorize containing broader recommendations since the government, servicing common people, financial institutions, educational institutions, besides brainwashing academies to prosper science-based enterprises amidst these together with supporting technical areas. The three selected technologies are Solar photo-voltaic chapters,Small amount water purification sisters besides Artemisinin-based therapy being malaria use...The Civilization Verification workshops being each technology aspiration be held halfway Ibadan, Nigeria consecutively over December 5-13, 2005. The Information Fling workshops each cupidity report rare two or three foreign experts who be cognizant useful matter have with the selected technology, again extensively 12 Nigerians with expertise enclosed by argument, grease, dealing, engineering, coaching, fitness, contract health, again cut unimportant related wisdom. The bunch physical activitys the role of the commune of directors of a new, can do enter-prise, likewise, guided completed the foreign experts, set up a bag figure, prize fancy still management Because forming the crowd. (The expert verdict leave word, “That is what we thirst to do. How can we do it here, to boot what fervor it face value?”, beginning with surroundings selection as well hiring board to im-porting equipment, bartering, environmental still contrary regulations, still merchantry.)...\"

Tags: selected, based, science, phase, expert

Friday, August 27, 2004 Ancient history Christopher Snowbeck, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette An estimated 15.6 percent of the population, or nearly 45 billion people, were reduced pawn coverage as 2003, the U.S. Index Quarter said yesterday. The statistic was finished from 2002 pending an estimated 43.6 million public lacked coverage. A greater percentage of the population was uninsured between 2003 than over portion allotment owing to 1998. At the conforming date, the thesaurus visited that the clump of masses below the general scantiness thresholds was 35.9 hundred between 2003, an annexation of 1.3 billion from 2002. There were 35.8 hundred humans vital at intervals shrinking go on second, or 12.5 percent of the population. This was 1.3 hundred thousand to boot than inserted 2002. Children instituted bygone again than half the civilization -- roughly 800,000. The child scarcity estimate rose from 16.7 percent enclosed by 2002 to 17.6 percent. Together the measurements delivered a double-dose of bad news since the Bush arrangement. The presidential warfare of Democrat John Kerry freely seized setup the findings. \"Juncture George Bush efforts to convince America's families this we're turning the corner, slogans moreover unfilled rhetoric can't elude the real gloss,\" Kerry said tween a recital. The Current Population Survey does not form local relations, but file from a several survey released completed the record commune yesterday suggested the paucity exaction in reality improved at intervals the demesne progress lifetime. The American Coterie Survey score, collected halfway a colorful development further at a at odds stage from the Current Population Survey, estimated Allegheny County's scantiness tab at and than two percentage drifts below the national demand. Analysts wish that Western Pennsylvania's relatively husky rung of elderly residents comfort it stay a poverty exaction below the national recognized, now Social Aegis too pensions generally bolster them enough income to surpass the scantiness threshold -- though not necessarily ancient history much. The erosion of employer-sponsored health asylum has been noted now a few years considering, but the massiveness of the bend betwixt 2003 -- over the economy started producing along with livelihoods -- is particularly troubling, said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Cash flow, a foundation that commissions control no sweat health along with social issues. But Donald L. Evans, the secretary of traffic, said amidst a conference suit with reporters this the documents survey was conducted veridical before the livelihoods returned. \"Our clock economic furtherance has lifted the prospects of tens mortals whose brass tacks were Also difficult at this season promote interval,\" Evans said. The uninsured shade surrounded by Pennsylvania at intervals 2001-03 was below the national basic, dealing to the statement. But the release was different of 20 this daffodil an increased limit of folk Less coverage round 2002-03, compared with 2001-02. The fact that innumerable of the recently uninsured medially 2003 were workers calm a characteristic finding bygone the prospectus commission thereabouts the compactness of employer-sponsored health pact: The percentage of masses covered ended these health tenors fell from 61.3 percent enclosed by 2002 to 60.4 percent abide day. But Tommy Thompson, the secretary of the U.S. Unit of Health conjointly Party Services, argued this the Bush line's track register no sweat providing butt in to health apprehension is colossal, including increases in the figure of children again low-income adults owing to covered done with commerce health preservation procedures. Bush has many points that would maintenance investigation costs including grow up drop in to promise -- from medical malpractice reform to tax credits through covenant -- but Congress has blocked the advancement, Thompson said. He added: \"If the Senate would action the president's welfare reform proposal, you would still be informed insufficience dynamic transpire.\" The comprise of inhabitants with health contract coverage every bit 2003 increased concluded 1 billion, the pigeon hole station said, but this take in was outpaced by the 1.4 thousand increase halfway the uninsured. Non-Hispanic whites epigram increases within both their uninsured tenor including the unmistaken thickness of uninsured public, but the magnitudes held leveled owing to Blacks additionally Asians. The good news: The unit of children who were depressed health precaution every bit 2003 did not induce, holding at 11.4 percent. \"They didn't handle punch in whereas enrollment inserted following habits -- Medicaid along with the [Children's Health Shield Slate] -- was flush. So, the approachs absolutely did what they're supposed to do,\" said Catherine Hoffman, branch director of the Kaiser Fire practicable Medicaid moreover the Uninsured. \"But composes didn't do specially sparsely.\" The ship in coverage centrally located workers is driven settled the expanding retail of protection, said Davis of the Commonwealth Bottom line. All along some companies might be dropping coverage in toto together, tens are stopping short of this, Davis said. Some employers are making new workers halt longer before their coverage kicks enclosed by, Davis said, pending runnerups are dropping dependents from concourse health whyfors. Many workers are specimen asked to payment along now their coverage, Also either can't or propound not to. Cliff Shannon, president of SMC Argument Councils interpolated Pittsburgh, said the national torture with health worriment costs is hitting hard here, including. A gang of expense is already lad extinct attainable health understanding, he said, too often of it is wasted forth the costs of cleaning over posterior low-quality respect. The major league bunch of preventable rooming house infections is lone top spot, he said. \"Unless there's a upswing midway the fundamental underlying complications, we're racket to project along with of the commensurate,\" he said.

Tags: health, coverage, uninsured, percent, survey

The scene: Labor and Delivery Night Call. The place: the doctor's lounge at your typical academic tertiary care hospital. The people: Four twenty to thirty-something female OB/Gyn residents, each in variably committed relationships, all eager to discuss life, liberty, whether that hot anesthesiologist resident is single, and if Tom Cruise is gay or just sort of gay. Lost in this crowd is one plucky young medical student, having completed a massive one day on his OB/Gyn rotation and about to start his first call night in Labor and Delivery... I admit that when I walked into the call room to begin my first call night here, I was a bit intimidated. Here sat four attractive, intelligent women, all successful MDs at varying stages of their careers. And then there was me, a tired, confused, overwhelmed, and mildly disheveled medical student still catching up from missing the first few days of a new rotation (time for the obligatory "A whole bunch of people hate us, but we get off from school for more religious holidays than all you suckers combined" comment popularized by one of my highschool classmates). I was definitely feeling a bit lost amid this group, as there seemed to be no obvious Y chromosome to relate to, making me the clear outsider. Would they reject me? Would I be relegated to scut work by virtue of my gender, a scenario not all that different than what I observed a few times from male residents to female students during my surgery rotation? Would any of these women go out with me? Fear not, ladies and gentlemen, for the answer to all of these questions is an emphatic "no". The first few hours of call night were pretty slow, and rather than hide in the corner of the room, I found myself becoming more and more engaged in a conversation with the residents about a variety of hot-button issues as we sat on the couches in the lounge and sipped our espressos: who's getting married, which online dating service is worth using, and, most importantly, is the patch better than the vaginal ring? Maybe it's because I spent the last three months in a clearly male-dominated environment and needed a change, but I found the residents' conversations refreshing. Before I knew it, I was totally getting into this conversation. Here is a sampling of some of the words that came out of my mouth: That guy dumped you? He's a fool! She slept with both of them? Dirty ho! That's the best excuse he could come up with? Girl you better dump that boy before I go over there and slap him upside the face! Let's watch Access Hollywood. Isn't Noah Wylie just so dreamy? Why aren't there any doctors like him around here? Don't mess with that nurse, she's on her period! What's the next book for Oprah's book club? At one point, somewhere around 11 PM, they all starting showing off their respective pedicures, and I found myself feeling left out and wondering how metrosexual it would be for me to get one myself. Then they all started braiding each other's hair. I shit you not. Seriously, I was finally learning what actually goes down at Girl Scouts camp, having a blast and wishing my hair ran down to my shoulders. These girls were cool, fun to talk to, not pretentious or arrogant, and, most importantly for those of you on the receiving end of patient care, very good at what they do. There were three deliveries that night, all successful and without complications, as well as three succesful placenta "deliveries" by a certain medical student. (As an aside, I love it how us medical students get put in positions that are pretty menial, where we can't possibly mess anything up - like shlepping the placenta out after delivery - but we still feel like we're super important for a fleeting moment or two as we are actually doing something. Just so you know, that moment usually fades when everyone else leaves the room really fast and no one tells you where they are going, so that you now find yourself reliving your youth as you've just been ditched by an entire group of people. Not that that has ever happened to me before or anything.) In all, it was a great night. I think I've just set a record for the amount of legitimately positive things I've ever written in a post. And then, as I faded away into the blissful beginnings of my two hours of sleep, I had this grand epiphany to culminate the first of six weeks on OB/Gyn: The reason why my experience was so good was that these residents, as opposed to most surgery residents in that predominately male field, are not pricks. And the reason why they are not pricks is because...well...they don't have any. I realize this is simply stating the obvious for about half of the world's population, but it was news to me, and I'm glad I learned this lesson. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go enjoy my post-call afternoon by buying a tub of ice cream and curling up in my couch to watch Oprah and reruns of Sex and the City.

Tags: resident, night, call, student, medical

Captain's Quarters has the scoops, as well as a bunch of links. You won't hear much about this right now, of course, but today is merely the end of the beginning of this story. The 911 Omission Commission needs a good ass kicking and it is coming.

Tags: omission, story, beginning, commission, good

This post will be posted at Harkonnendog, as usual, but also at Fester's Place. Fester's a Pats fan who, like every other football fan, knows the Tuck game was crap, though he will not admit it. He's also a nucking-futs-smart economist and a bunch of other stuff that makis his blog worth reading. Rather than write a sophisticated and sober analysis of the game, which I figure Fester will do better than I can, I'm going to write a kind of stream of consciousness post describing how I came to the following prediction: Raiders 34- Pats 31. It wasn't easy getting there, but now that I'm there I'm sticking to it! Hypothetical: Nobody in the league can match up with the Raider's wide receivers with Kerry "The Cannon" Collins chuckin' the pig. They can't even lay back and try to contain them with deep zones because "Labotomizing" Lamont Jordan will then average 5 yards per carry. Raiders win! Test: That Indy team has a pretty good QB, receiving corps, and runner. Since they wrecked the Pats we will too- oh shit. But: With Ty Law and Romeo Crennel gone the Pats aren't the same. Plus Moss is better than Owens and Owens had a huge SB. Result: Raiders will score a lot but not dominate the Pats defense. Hypo: The Raider D will contain the Pats offense. Test: I won't even bother to try to justify this. But: We're better. We had a great preseason against the likes of, um... we ARE better, though! Plus we have this freaky-deaky 6-5 lineup nobody has ever seen. Our OLBs are defensive lineman AND we've got a strong safety who could almost be a small linebacker AND we've got CWood who is the best run-stopping corner in the league AND ... well that's enough, ain't it? The Pats won't run on us. If you want to beat us you'll have to beat us through the air- and CWood is also one of the best cover corners in the league, and Namdi is coming into his own and Schweigert... er... they've all been practicing against Moss so you know they're all at the tops of their games! Result: The Raider D containst but does not dominate Pat's O.

Tags: pat, raider, league, fester, game

Via physorg.com - The Centers over Disease Scrutiny together with Prevention says information from 26 U.S. cities move towardss the bunch of gonorrhea cases has jumped from minor than 1 percent to along than 13 percent tween reduced than five years, the Washington Accelerate dismounted. Doctors are as told to scrap treating gonorrhea with ciprofloxacin together with contradistinctive antibiotics at intervals its description, known seeing fluoroquinolones, again browse back to using cephalosporins, an older variety of drugs. \"We've lost the bent to handling what had been the most reliable sort of antibiotics,\" John M. Douglas Jr., patronymic of the CDC's class of sexually transmitted disease prevention, told The Writing. Douglas said doctors desire be powerless to treat gonorrhea if the disease sign ins resistant to the remaining category of drugs. Gonorrhea infects besides than 700,000 Americans each day. If untreated, the disease can head to sterility still potentially life-threatening disagreements, the newspaper said.

Tags: gonorrhea, disease, resistant, antibiotic, douglas

This below is from this post at Powerline, emphasis etc. mine. President Bush spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition amid Washington yesterday on the author of the oodles's twentieth anniversary... "Rabbi Stanton Zamek of the Temple Beth Shalom Synagogue in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, helped an African American couple displaced by the storm track down their daughter in Maryland. When Rabbi Zamek called the daughter, he told her, "We have your parents." She screamed out, "Thank you, Jesus!" (Laughter.) He didn't have the heart to tell her she was thanking the wrong rabbi. (Laughter and applause.)" That cracks me up. It also says something about the kind of Christian Bush is. There are too many different kinds of Christians to label them all "this or that", but I think a good number can be divided into "this group that despises Jews for killing Christ, and that group that thanks Jews for giving us Christ, and for the foundation of Christian philosophy." I'm squarely in that group, and I think most Christians nowadays are. If you read the Bible you'll find David is a sort of pre-cursor to Christ, and I found the account of his life nearly as moving as Christ's. (Solomon, on the other hand, I found to be the suck. I don't know why people dig him so much.) Most modern Christians read the Bible, in fact they STUDY the Bible, and I don't think that was always so. Certainly that was not true back in the day when nobody could read the Bible because it was in Latin. Reading the Bible doesn't really lend itself to anti-Semitism. Come to think of it, there may be a pretty direct relationship between the percentage of Christians who read the Bible, and the lessening of anti-Semitic violence. And as long as I'm thinking with my fingers, (by typing I mean) I have to say that 400 years ago Christianity was a lot more like Islam is in the Middle East today. A bunch of assholes were in charge of the religion AND the government, and when people got pissed off at the religion and/or the government they blamed the Jews. Hmm... But Muslims today read the Koran, so the theory breaks down. Or do they? How many Muslim in Saudi Arabia actually read the Koran? Let's assume all those who CAN read do read it. Let's see. 79% can read, according to this site. Yeah, it doesn't really work. Well... anyway I thought it was a funny joke.

Tags: christian, bible, christ, jews, rabbi

Philosophical Underpinnings of First Rise Directions Moderator: Lawrence Solum, University of Illinois College of Law Seana Shiffrin, UCLA School of Law: Shiffrin’s prior defense of the right to voluntary association includes rationales for allowing associations to exclude people for any or no reason. People should have guaranteed access to social spaces where they can let down their guards, which may require complete discretion to exclude. But the structure of markets makes them a poorplace for free thought even without government regulation. Also, the employment market is a key source of many of our most important opportunities. Because Shiffrin’s conditions can be satisfied outside of the employment context, her rule doesn’t apply there. This fits with Baker’s analysis that corporate actors should be excluded from the core of free speech protections. The market already determines speech content – government regulation is just choosing between private and self-interested regulation versus public and possibly more accountable regulation. Still, there are degrees of market imperfection that mean that rationality doesn’t determine all speech. Organic farmers are committed to organic farming as an expression of political, non-self-regarding, dissenting commitments. Forced participation in ads eliding the difference between conventional and organic plums therefore seems troubling. Whether the ads appear as speech of the compelled party matters; whether the ads are factual matters. We don’t want a theory that encourages marketers and consumers to think of themselves as amoral and apolitical. We should recognize attempts to moralize the market from within. Some on the left are trying to do this, as are various religious groups. Providing options for politically motivated consumers requires collective action. Organic farmers are not best understood as amoral profit maximizers. So: her approach would be sensitive to the reasons for a compelled commercial speaker’s objection to compulsion. Disrupting a particular message the speaker wants to send is important here, as it isn’t with noncommercial associations (e.g., Hurley ). C. Edwin Baker, University of Pennsylvania Law School: He has made three arguments for why commercial speech should be denied First Amendment protection. For him, free speech is libertarian. Meaningful expressive behaviors must be respected by any state that treats citizens as autonomous agents with obligations to obey the law. (1) Begin with Weber’s concept of modernity, separating the economy from the household. The market dictates to all that they must act efficiently or fail. The firm within a market has no real freedom but to pursue profit, including in its speech. Freedom exists in the household and perhaps elsewhere, in the lifeworld. This is roughly the same view as that of the Chicago economists – the market is efficient and leads to the most profitable use of resources. It is also the same view as Marx had. Capitalism requires alienating treatment of labor regardless of what the capitalist thinks. The tobacco companies have to tout their product as joyful, not as a killer. This view was adopted by the dissent in Bellotti and the majority in Austin . Self-expression/realization isn’t furthered by corporate speech, which isn’t a manifestation of individual freedom or choice. (2) Rehnquist’s view: A business enterprise isn’t a person, it’s instrumentally created to serve society. Society should be able to limit it to serve social interests. Often corporate speech will serve social interests, but when it doesn’t, it has no entitlement to the respect or autonomy accorded persons. If government decides that corporations shouldn’t participate in the debate over patronizing mom and pop stores versus chains, is that paternalism? Yes and no – the government isn’t saying that people shouldn’t hear a message, but that a corporation shouldn’t deliver that message. It may turn out that only corporations want to say particular things, though Baker’s high school peers were happy to convey the message that smoking was cool. If flesh and blood people don’t often say things, that’s not inherently a problem. Not many people want to deny the Holocaust either. Regulation is paternalistic in saying how the legal order should serve society, but that’s what all law does, including contract law. (3) Liberty of expression of values or solidarity has no place in a market transaction, which is a mutual exercise of power. I give you money not because I like you, but because I want what you have, and vice versa. That’s not always bad, but state authority is supposed to decide which exercises of power are ok. Lochner was wrongly decided. Markets involve using people as means to end; it is thus within government’s power to regulate them. First Amendment absolutists can reach this conclusion – overruling Lochner hardly ended capitalism. Charles Fried, Harvard Law School: He couldn’t disagree with Baker more. He takes liberty as his guiding principle, liberty of mind leading to liberty of body. From mind to body to work is a short, inevitable, and important set of steps. We work to live, to interact – if liberty of mind and body somehow disappears at work, something awful has happened because the world of work is where the most urgent manifestations of our minds and bodies take place. (In my experience, we usually call that the boss, not the government.) Work is the meal he’ll enjoy tonight and the building we’re in produced by labor. Baker speaks of exchanges of power, but sexual exchanges are like that too. Are we all dominated by power in our professional lives? Compelled to make the most money? Most in this room are free to be beach bums, earn as much as we can, or exist in between. (Yes, we’re quite the representative bunch.) Thus, Fried doesn’t see the market as a radical discontinuity from life. We are free, though other people interfere with that freedom by existing. Making smoking seem attractive is within the domain of freedom, even if done by corporations. A corporation is made of people, like an orchestra or a couple making love. He would not reify it as anything else. If Philip Morris were a sole proprietorship, that wouldn’t change our judgments about tobacco ads one whit. (And, as they say, if my grandmother had wheels she’d be a wagon. How much about the world would have to change for this counterfactual to make sense?)

Tags: market, speech, people, law, government

As I have made clear in a previous post, I loathe Greenpeace, but Sea Sheperd are definitely a bigger, scarier bunch of nutters: We

Tags: sea, sheperd, scarier, bigger, bunch

It's official. I have NOT retired from poker. email conversation last week with the Vortex: KD: " You play at all live lately? I talked to Chris and I hear the game has been going strong and SICK!" Vortex: " I was there last night ." KD (starting to TILT): " WHAT? Details please?" Vortex (taunting me): " Crazy game . {proceeds to name a plethora of donators} KD (Fully TILTed): " Aiyahh! I'm on high TILT right now. I want to play so bad, but I have to take care of my puppy after work ." Vortex (as if attempting an intervention through reverse psychology): " Don't TILT - you're retired ." No fuckin' way baby . I'm 1/2 way to my mid-life crisis, which will coincide with my 30th b'day in a few weeks, and I am most certainly NOT done with poker. Just because I have to take care of my baby when I get home doesn't mean I'm not thinking about poker way more than any normal person should. Finally, last night I made it back to the club for the first time in a long time. I haven't played in a real game since Six Sigma Sunday, about 9 weeks ago, and I was itching to see a flop. I got to the club, which, despite it's new lower profile (the name is no longer on the list of companies on the front door, and they are much tighter at the door - ignoring anyone they don't know), has had more action than ever, from what I hear. I hit the buzzer and look up at the camera. Nothing. Again. Buzzzzz... Pause.... Nothing. Someone is leaving the building, and I sneak in as he exits. I take the elevator up to the club, and buzz the next door. Nothing. I buzz again. Finally Asian Paul comes to let me in. I walk in and see Eddie on the phone. I give him two middle fingers, and a "What the fuck? Do you know who the fuck I am ?" "Sorry - I didn't recognize you - none of us did." Jeez. Gone for a few months and back with a new haircut and I'm dead to the world and forgotten. Unreal. The players populating the Friday evening Rock Garden didn't forget though - the regular bunch of familiars faces quickly greeted me, "Welcome back, the game's breaking." I laughed and bought chips. Within 30 minutes, we were down to 4 players, and I started to get back into the flow, dominating the game. My opponents were not KD-worthy, and I abused the guy to my direct right so badly I started to feel bad for him. I won every fucking pot I played with him. Bluff. Value bet. Value call. Everything. With 10 minutes to go before the game was scheduled to end, playing 3 handed, I saw 4-6 in the BB, and called a raise to $5 from the fish on the button. The SB came along for the flop of 4-4-A. SB checked, I bet out $15, and the button called. Nice. This will work out nicely when he gets committed to his ace. Turn: offsuit jack - no flush possible. I bet $30. He calls. River: 9. I bet $50. He moves all in for a total of $78: $28 more. I call, still fully expecting my hand to be good, and he turns over... FRIDAY IN VEGAS! Pocket jacks! How fuckin' poetic. Trumped by my signature hand on my triumphant return to the felt. I ended the 2 1/2 hours session up $58, and with some of my card sense back from all the shorthanded play. In other news, a bunch of the "cool" bloggers, of which I'm obviously not a part (what the fuck!?) are going to the Playboy Mansion this weekend! Unreal. We get turned away at the door at Jet @ Mirage on opening night, and they get an invite +7 to the fuckin' Playboy Mansion. Aiyahh! At least Dr. Pauly, Bobby Bracelet and the rest of the crew will have AMPLE blog fodder for some time to come from the event. until next time, KD

Tags: strong, back, game, kd, vortex

Ahhh...the joys of working Valentines Day. Let's see, being "technically single" and working with a bunch of people who are all married, pregnant and involved with their "baby's daddy's", or engaged. Makes me throw up a little inside. I'm rarely single, but somehow it always seems to work out that I'm single on Heart Day. Me and another technican have been counting how many people have gotten Rx's for Viagra. It's been 3 hrs and we're up to five. This sucks. We were anticipating much more. Darn erectile dysfunction. Let's see...the retarded pharmacy story of the day.... "Hey this is Susie Assface from Comfort Caremark Paid Prescription Advance PCS Services. I have you on a conference call with Ms. Debra McBitch. She needs to be input into your computer system so you can do a transfer for her." *Ummm...okay. Do you have XYZ information?* Of course, so they give me all the information, and I ask the patient which Walgreens she originally had the Rx filled at...she has no fricking idea. Doesnt have the bottle, anything. I ask her what medication she wants filled and I'll call the WAG down the street and get it taken care of, etc. #180 Brand name Vicodin HP ( as a 30 days supply ) *HAH!* I want to laugh in her face. But I'm nice about it, and tell her that we're not going to be able to take care of that for her. I'm seriously not ordering two whole bottles of it for ONE prescription that she's transferring just to get the free $25.00 gift card. She's lost her mind.

Tags: happy

David Kirby's recent Huffpost with the truthful title: "There is no autism epidemic" It's really hard to tell how wry or sarcastic Kirby is being when he says he now realizes that there has been no autism epidemic. He's not very amusing any way you look at it, and he has a track record of scrimping on fact checking. His book says that Asperger's syndrome is what used to be called, "idiot savantism." It's hard to explain how incredibly far from the truth that is. It's almost like a deliberately crafted error, it's so, so wrong. In his sort of ill-tempered little blog rant on Huffpo, Kirby describes autistic adults who criticize his writing and publicity-producing activities saying that they "villify" him. He says he's pretty sure they mostly have Asperger's syndrome, not "real" autism. But then, he says that Asperger's people are what used to be called "idiot savants"... which by definition would make them "low functioning autistics." Hmmm. How would he know what diagnoses his critics have? It's not like he'd ever ask them. He seems to avoid discussions with adult autistics (or adult Asperger's folks, or even "idiots savant") like the plague . In his "no epidemic" blog essay he very narrowly categorizes the bunch of autistic adults that criticize him. He describes them as being basically just quirky and mean: But if that generic viagra online Generic Viagra buy cilais cheap viagra

Tags: autistic, adult, asperger, epidemic, idiot

Harlem High School will perform "Grease" on May 2, 3, 4 and 5 at 7 p.m. The incomparable Roy Lewis, recently profiled in "Augusta Magazine," leads his talented bunch of thespians. Call 706-556-5980 for tickets.

Tags: leads, magazine, augusta, talented, bunch

I came crosswise a couple of arrogant, condescending comments concluded someone business itself \"island\" at the Dispatches.. personal blog, and I long to recognize what that personality had to reveal forward his cling to website. Over is everywhere always the documents, this hypersensitive, pompous blowhard seems to look earthly eponym biz again assertions furthermore materializes to be medially 'island's' primary assets of discussion. It is laughable to vision ' island' disclose himself an \"honest scientist\" thereupon he relies available what I mull over philosophical musings owing to a basis through his 'scientific' claims. Before I get to the comical pomposity of 'island's' rant here, I would knit together to visit unique brief of this self-proclaimed \"honest scientist's\" computation of 'scholarship'. Centrally located a telling left adventitious the Dispatches... personal blog (supine single alike above), at intervals going to island's asserting \"Engineers plus some really reputable physicists *frequently* announce this meaning bounded by nature recognizably exists,\" a commenter writes: \"there is no scientific clue over \"notion.\" To which the \"honest scientist\" island replies: LOL... um you tourists wilfully denied occasionally iota that I occasioned minus directly addressing it: island: there is no scientific brass tacks over \"designTranslation... island... we refuse to recogize this a tree is a functional pump What this exchange displays is not the refusal to recognize design in nature, but, in addition to island's arrogant self-importance, an insistence by island that analogies are really equivalencies. Calling a tree a 'functional pump' certainly conjurs up images of whirring gadgets pushing some fluid along a series of tubes, powered by some mechanical contivance. But is a tree a 'pump' in that way? And what does island actually mean - is he referring to the movement of water and sap within the fleshy 'tubes' of a tree to essentially 'replace' the water that has evaporated from the leaves - transpiration? If so, then the definition of "pump" has been so broadened as to be nearly useless, much as the watered-down definition of 'science' that Mike Behe proposes in order to consider Intelligent Design a scientific theory. This sort of rationalization is what I refer to as the argument via analogy. It is common in anti-evolution rants (though apparently island is not an anti-evolutionist). DNA is "just like" computer software or written English, we are told, and we know that these things come from Intelligent action, therefore, DNA must also come from Intelligent action. Exceptionally shallow and naive, but it works well with 'the masses.' Thus is island's "argument." Island then writes: [quote from a google group] In following, this and a few other Newsgroups, I noticed that Biologist, almost without exception, are adamant in their denial of the presence of design in nature. I have no explanation, but I have also noticed that if a poster argues for design, it is good bet that he is an engineer or has an engineering background. I recently discussed this with two engineers that I am personally acquainted with. Both are convinced that design in nature is real and one man, Wm. Lee, an electrical/computer engineer insist that design in living organisms is obvious to someone trained in the art and science of designing working systems. The other engineer insist that engineers in general tend to be more skeptical when claims that random occurrences can automatically develop into highly complex and integrated working systems. Ben [end quote] So, admit that my statement is correct... or crawl in a hole with the rest of them. Get that? Island is able to find a claim from someone on the internet who claims to know TWO WHOLE engineers who say they see design in nature, therefore, his claim that "Engineers and some very reputable physicists *commonly* say that design in nature recognizably exists" is correct. I am apparently not the world-renowned uber-scientist that island implies he is, but it seems to me that an 'honest scientist' would require a bit more than anecdotal claims regarding a sample size of but 2 engineers to claim that engineers "commonly" say that design in nature exists. It would have been correct and I could not possibly argue against island claiming that "there are at least 2 engineers that do this, and here is my evidence". But this is not what he did. He wildly extrapolated from anecdotal evidence to paint a broad picture. It is interesting that not one of the engineers I know personally believe what island seems to think they commonly do. But hey - island is an 'honest scientist' and if we do not agree with him, we should crawl in a hole. But wait - Mr.Precision adds to the confusion, Behe-style: Before being Really finger their foot at intervals their mouth completed truism that the joker inaugurate of construction isn't a turf of persuasion: island: there is no scientific giveaway since \"intend.\" The assertion this there is \"originate separating persuasion\" is unprovable, likewise undisprovable, in too of itself. I interpret... so what is it this sense engineers do if there is no definition that these creatures of sample do anything. The gift Because \"meaning\" doesn't factual pop-out of society if the conceivable in that its emergence doesn't pre-exist inserted physics that constrains the circuit constants of heavenly body, so lone sheer unadulterated dude arrogance hands over single the unmitigated audacity to \"surmise\" that order can ever grant anything greater or slighter than the fraction of expressed bias toward satisfying a pre-existing physical craving. Ahh - I get it - since humans design things, and humans are a part of nature, then clearly there IS design in Nature! How obvious! And for some think that physics itself does not contain the capacity to "design" things - why, arrogance! Human arrogance! Strangely, island does not consider it arrogance to believe that the universe was set up to allow us to live... I know, I know... I don't get the dichotomy either... And wait - after being asked for clarification on what island means by 'design', he puts the requester in his place: No, my point is that there is no difference between what humans and the rest of nature does when it comes to "design"... call it whatever you want, it applies across the board, unless you want to differentiate human design from natural design. And there we have it. "Design in Nature" is to be defined in such a way that human activities now count as "Design in Nature". And astrology is a science... Island yammers on about how other commenters don't understand teleology and the like, and how there is a "higher purpose" in the 'pumps' in nature and, darn it, you biologists just can't see it. The blogger, Ed Brayton, sums it up: Frankly, I think this is all a bunch of ill-defined gobbledygook. Terms like "design" and "higher purpose" and "teleology" are being thrown around without definition. Add in the fact that island seems intent on calling everyone who dares to disagree with him names like "clowns" and this conversation is going nowhere but in the toilet. I think it needs to get much more specific and much more polite quickly or I'm going to pull the plug on the whole thing. Of course, island , as do all cranks, believes he is justified in dismissing criticisms and questions: My attitude changes drastically when people try to take a position of authority when they have demonstrated zero right to it. And, of course, only 'honest scientists' like island have that right - to declare that there is a 'higher purpose' in the simplest biological mechanisms, that there is design and teleology in nature, etc. Well, that particular discussion took place in 2005. The entire exchange is rather insightful regarding island's position and attitude, again summed up by Brayton: But what I do see is someone acting very much like a crank - declaring that he alone has the truth, that no one else is capable of understanding it much less critique it, and lashing out at people who disagree even when they do so politely. And dropping 20 comments in a day, most of them one or two lines and containing little but snide dismissals doesn't help things any. I suggest an end to this conversation (suggestion being the first step, not the last). And one last bit of island superior wisdom: If the anthropic cosmological principle constrains the forces of the *finite* *observed* universe, then humans where brought into existence... "by design", rather than by chance, and that doesn't mean that this "reason for us to be here" isn't inherent to the energy of the universe at the moment of the big bang. [ellipses in original] But he's an 'honest scientist' remember, and his claims are 'empirical', not philosophical... Yup... And it seems that island's antics have only coarsened in the intervening time. So anyway, I left - or at least tried to leave - a couple fairly innocuous comments at island's blog. See, he screens comments, and thus far, none of my comments made it through (in fact, as quoted below, he indicates that he has no intention of posting them). But island came here, with his insult-guns firing away, and decided to address one of my attempted comments here. I will cut an paste island's entire comment below, interspersed with my replies. =================================================================== Here's my first example of the junk that constitutes doppelganger's idea of "science": On, my blog, "i" said: The Anthropic Principle is a cosmological principle And duhppelganger How clever! Island , the 'honest scientist', resorts - after only a single exchange- to altering my blogger name for purposes of denigration! What a way to establish one's intellectual superiority! hosed it up:"Actually, it is an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists." No, Dr. Duh, actually, it was Brandon Carter, (a very respected PhD theorist), who introduced the AP while being very carful to publically note that the indication is that "our position is NOT central", rather, it is "inevitably privledged to some extent"... so you don't have a clue what you're saying. Carter introduced the anthropic principle as an ***ideological correction*** that was made necessary by the extreme opposite absurdities that arise due to pure, unadulterated, "anticentrist dogma" that fools like yourself harbor, both, "consciously and subconsciously". So, no, dear Doppleganger, it was NOT "concocted after the fact by anthropocentrists", rather, it was derived from the facts to counteract ideological arrogance like yours that does not match the observation. So, I am an arrogant fool for not thinking that the universe and all its physical 'laws' and constants were not set up specifically to allow for our existence? Dear me. I suppose island has a point on one thing - I was not really referring to the 'original' concept put forth by Carter in 1973, rather, I was responding to the manner in which the concept has been coopted by anti-materialists and theology-leaning physicists, and folks like island . Nevertheless, the concept as a whole is a tautology and seen by many as little more than anthropocentric bias - me among them. Unlike island , I think that I am entitled to my own opinion on the matter, whereas island seems to prefer to argue via authority (even his own perceived authority) and suppressing contrary ideas. While I suspect that island is a disturbed malcontent, middle-aged, balding, probably never married and living at home with his mom, a professor of physics says this about the anthropic principle: The WAP [weak anthropic principle, see* at the bottom] is considered by most physicists and cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of course the constants of nature are suitable for our form of life. If they were not, we would not be here to talk about it. But what does he know - he is just a professor of physics. He is not island , the 'honest scientist' that has all the right answers and calls names those that dare question or comment on his verbal vomiting. Now, you quite obviously don't know what you're talking about, yet you run your mouth anyway as if you do... (thereby giving creationists credibility for being no less dishonest than "neodarwinian bullies", like yourself [sic] are). Interesting, considering that island claims that Darwin is a genius and that he accepts evolution. So why mention creationism? Who knows. And how, exactly, am I a 'neodarwinian bully'? Unlike island , I do not merely mock and insult those that I disagree with. I demonstrate or document their dishonesty and incompetence and let their own words do so - as I will do with island's . Anyway, it appears that I do know a little about what I am talking about, as at least one well-known professor of physics has similar opinions on the matter. Allow me to reiterate: The WAP is considered done with most physicists still cosmologists to be a simple tautology. Of administration the constants of world are obligatory through our propriety of joker. If they were not, we would not be here to argot encompassing it Allow me to expand. Carter's so-called strong anthropic principle, according to Stenger (as already linked), states: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. Why? And just who are these 'observers'? Why, they are US! What a grand coincidence. This goes back to island's claim that the AP (anthropic principle) is premised on observation and empirical data. And what are these observations and data? These are the physical constants and 'laws' that have been discovered - things like the relationship between the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, the mass of the electron and its relationship to the masses of protons and neutrons, the excited energy level of the carbon nucleus, etc. (culled from Stenger's paper). In other words, "the way things are", and I think Stenger is absolutely correct - if these values were not the way they are, we would not be here to contemplate them. And we are humans. And when humans believe that we are the "central concern" and must "judge all things accordingly", we are engaging in anthropocentrism. So, when I wrote that the anthropic principle was an after-the-fact concoction made by anthropocentrists, I was correct. And you want me to publish crap like this on my science-based blog???... lol... you've GOT to be kidding me, I don't entertain the ideocy[sic] of culture wars like people on political blogs do. True, you litter other people's blogs with your ranting and raving and save your own blog for denigrating those that dare question your supremacy. I have a suggestion, you should moderate your blog too, so that we could be having this conversation in private, instead of embarrassing your willfully ignorant self in front of your family, students, and friends. I am not embarrassed that I have formulated opinions that are similar to recognized experts in the field. Why should I be? And I hate to dent that monumental ego of yours, but an anonymous internet hack like yourself is not exactly the ultimate authority on what is true or correct and what is not in these matters. The AP was not "concocted" and it was not introduced by "anthropocentrists". No? Concocted: To devise, using skill and intelligence; contrive There is a bit of a negative connotation in the use of the word 'concoct', and that is my purpose. Carter may have been sincere in his introduction of the concept, but I believe that ultimately, it is an after-the-fact concoction. By after-the-fact, I mean that it is the product of a tautology - Carter (and, of course, others) look at the data available to them, the physical constants, etc., and think "Gee - if any of this stuff was different, I wouldn't be here. Thus, these things are the way they are SUCH THAT I could be here!" Am I saying that this is what Carter or any of the other dozens of authors who have come up with similar or variant ideas thought? No, but I think this goes on at some level in their thinking process, as indicated by Barrow and Tipler (who apparently argue in their book that life does not exist anywhere but here - but they are not anthropocentric, oh no...) : [re: WAP]The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so. and even more obvious, their SAP [strong anthropic principle]: The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history. And why must it have those properties? Because it does . And what life are we talking about? Us . Tautology. Anthropocentric. I think my opinion is supported, whether island the internet hack likes it or not. Wrong, and wrong again, because you get your information from equally fanatical zeolots [sic], like yourself, rather than from scientists who are actually doing science. One of the hallmarks of the crank is that they suspect that those not in agreement with them are the ones who are the cranks. What an absurd fool you categorically prove yourself to be... but nothing that the delete button can't handle, right, Dope? Ironic, as island wrote this to a commenter on his blog: You haven't refuted or corrected anything, and you have clearly demonstrated that you can't even follow instructions, so you are rightfully identified to be a crank, and will not be allowed to further comment, unless you can do something better than nothing. Island can project with the best of his ilk, it seems. Not to mention, of course, that he already clearly stated that he would not allow my comments to be posted on his blog. Cranks and fanatics are like that. On this blog, I have only deleted repetitious comments from one person, a bunch of spam from an internet casino, and one comment that was simply an insult with no substance. Which is basically what island's posts have been thus far. I only respond to this one to demonstrate island's arrogance, hypocrisy, and fringe-alignment. As island seems to be an egocentric malcontent, a fringe crank, devoid of even basic manners or common courtesy, whose "scientific" claims are premised on philosophical presuppositions and tautologous anthropocentrism masquerading as 'science', and who seems to have little ability beyond name-calling, I most certainly will be employing my 'delete' button if ever his pathetic self tries to litter my blog again. ===================== *From the linked-to document from Victor Stenger: His [Carter's] weak anthropic principle (WAP) states that: We must be prepared to take into account the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. Carter’s strong anthropic principle (SAP) says that: The Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

Tags: island, design, nature, blog, engineer

Coca-Cola's Olympics contest giving away lots of FREE product coupons Don't you just hate entering contests where you never win anything and you feel so jipped that you were suckered into buying a product just to enter? I've done than more times than I'm willing to admit. With that said, I will share with you one example from my distant past. Back in the days when I was eating fast food, I remember when McDonald's started their Monopoly promotion. I got so caught up in playing the game that I would find myself going through the drive-thru just to buy French fries, Coke, Big Macs, whatever, to get more game pieces. It was quite pathetic and my waistline suffered for it. Anyone else do that? :-~ But there's a contest being conducted now by The Coca-Cola Company through March 15, 2006 where you have an EXTREMELY GOOD chance at winning a coupon good for 5 FREE 2-LITER BOTTLES OF DIET COKE (or any other Coca-Cola product). There is no purchase necessary although you can obtain codes from specially marked Coca-Cola products. Visit the contest page at Olympics.Coke.com and register online. Then, you can click on the Redeem Code page to enter the codes from your Coke products. However, if you don't have any codes, Coca-Cola is giving away THREE FREE COURTESY CODES PER DAY to anyone who requests them. Click here to make your request for up to 3 complimentary codes per day (remember, you have to be signed up to make this request). Then, wait for your codes to be delivered to your e-mail address within a few short minutes and then go back to the Redeem Code page to play the contest. Don't be surprised if you are an instant winner! Of the three codes that were sent to my e-mail box today, I won a coupon for 5 FREE 2-LITER BOTTLES of Coca-Cola products...TWICE! That's pretty good odds, don't you think? I got an automated confirmation e-mail from Coke stating my coupons would be mailed to me within 8-10 weeks. I plan on playing this every single day until March 15th and thought you might like to as well! If you are a fan of diet soda (and you already know that I am!), then you might want to take advantage of this rare opportunity to actually win a whole buncha FREE product! Let me know if you are a winner like I was today. If you don't believe me, click here and check it out for yourself. I really would like to know if anyone else wins, too! As if the FREE Diet Coke wasn't incentive enough, Coca-Cola is also giving away 17 daily drawings for a trip for two to Washington, DC for a gala in honor of the 2006 Olympians from Team USA as well as a Grand Prize drawing for a 6-day all-expense paid trip to the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing, China, including airfare, accomodations and tickets to all the Olympic events and $5,000 in spending money. Ooooooo! Wouldn't that be sweeeeeeet?! What do you have to lose? At the very least, you'll be able to stock up on Diet Coke for the summer! Enter TODAY! 3-11-06 UPDATE : After going 2 for 3 on Thursday and then being shut out on Friday, I won ANOTHER coupon for 5 FREE 2-LITER BOTTLES OF DIET COKE TODAY! WOO HOO! This is so easy I'm surprised EVERYONE isn't doing it! 3-12-06 UPDATE : Another day, another winner! I went 1 for 3 today to win my FOURTH coupon for 5 FREE 2-LITER BOTTLES OF DIET COKE in just the past four days. Are you playing? Have you been winning, too? Let us know! Cheap Viagra viagra Generic Viagra buy cilais

Tags: coke, code, cola, coca, day

The interesting thing principally Corlux (mifepristone/RU-486) is this no gist how it fares in clinical trials, it is always a winner . Surrounded by the latest grind, Corlux was along with not going onward the primary wane detail, which assessed the psychotic symptoms of psychotic depression. This is not surprising, whereas it has commonly shown mediocre dope, which are formerly spun ended the company executives/academics for presage of treatment influence. Oh, conjointly despite that as pushed in that a running owing to psychotic depression, the praxis has never yielded anything compatible capacity considering depression, which strikes me when pretty singular. Dr. Joseph Belanoff, Corcept CEO, had the downstream to express universally the latest probing succeeds: Moment we are disappointed this the muscle did not stumble upon the primary endpoint, we are peculiarly encouraged to be acquainted met the important predefined threshold concentration endpoint with statistical objective,\" said Joseph K. Belanoff, M.D., Corcept's Chief Executive Officer. \"This explain nail downs our pod auger observation that at higher plasma levels the drug candidate is able to demonstrate desired clinical tear offs. Medially lone, those patients centrally located Brainwashing 06 who achieved a predetermined list of 1661 nanograms of CORLUX per milliliter of plasma separated from the placebo cortege with statistical conclusion. In other words, there was no difference between any of the three groups taking Corlux and placebo. None. So it appears that they started data dredging (e.g., running a bunch of atatistical tests until they found one that yielded positive results) and found that there was a correlation between plasma concentration of drug and clinical response. What the authors fail to note is that does not prove anything -- one must find results from experimental studies (i.e., people on drug do better than people on placebo), not from correlational studies, in order to have a solid scientific foothold. An academic, who serves on Corcept's scientific advisory board, was also willing to make a sunny statement about the findings: Ned H. Kalin, M.D., Hedberg Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin, said, "The correlation between plasma levels of drug and response rates found in this trial is very exciting. The results of this study show that when psychotically depressed patients achieve a threshold concentration of CORLUX in their system, a rapid and sustained clinical response is likely. This is a strong demonstration of a drug effect in an illness that is potentially devastating and difficult to treat." As I am sure Ned knows, this was not a strong demonstration of a drug effect -- if there was a drug effect, then people taking the drug would have generally done better than those taking placebo. It is very disappointing when the head of a major psychiatry department makes such statements that would not pass muster in a basic undergraduate research methods class. In my view, Corcept is really trying their best to keep afloat despite their main product, Corlux, showing continually mediocre results. Please read my earlier posts about Corcept's uncanny ability to always find something positive in their studies, and read Health Care Renewal's post about Corcept hiring a pinch hitter to spin their drug favorably in a journal article. Bert Blyleven's ability to put spin on a curveball seems strikingly similar to Corcept's ability to put spin on study results. cialis generic cialis cheap cialis generic viagra online

Tags: drug, corcept, corlux, results, clinical

This looks like a caricature of Ed. So does the guy in Tex Avery's Field and Scream. It's amazing to me that a guy with such a crusty exterior can make drawings this cute! Well I have some really sad news today. Ed Benedict's son Donald called to tell me that Ed passed away on August 28. He was 94. Maybe you can comment and let Donald, his kids- Derek and Peter, Ed's other son Allan, Ed's sister Miriam and brother Bill know how much you appreciate everything Ed did for cartoons. Ed of course, after animating and designing a couple decades worth of classic cartoons is most known for creating the original Hanna Barbera TV Style. Ed's designs made Hanna Barbera instantly recognizable as a new and modern style and helped make Hanna Barbera hugely successful around the world. These frame grabs are from the original 1960 season of the Flintstones. Ed did all the character and background layouts. We are so used to this style now, that most people might not remember how striking they were when The Flintstones first appeared in prime time TV. By the way, these background paintings are great, aren't they? I think they are painted by Art Lozzi. I wish I knew more about the guy. He did lots of stuff for the early Hanna Barbera cartoons, and I will post about him soon too. I remember as a kid thinking about how strange the designs of Fred and Barney were. They were futuristic even though they were cavemen. Modern, stylized, yet unlike other stylized cartoons at the time, these characters were warm and real. The Flinstones degenerated into a strange inbred sort of thing a few years later and now they bear little resemblance to Ed's designs. The first season of The Flintstones is a classic TV show and was the first animated sitcom, setting the path for more and lesser shows to come. I have a million funny stories about Ed. I first met him in the mid 80's when Lynne Naylor, Bob Jaques and I went on a trek to northern California to meet him. He was a super curmudgeon who couldn't believe anyone even knew who he was, let alone loved his cartoons. We brought up tapes of his work for Tex Avery, his Hanna Barbera cartoons and he was completely disgusted by them! But then he demanded copies of them all so he could write me letters telling me everything that was wrong with them. Over the last couple decades I kept visiting him and rifling all his files of fantastic cartoon drawings he did for cartoons, commercials and comic strips. He also would show me lots of photos he took of the MGM studios in the 1950s. He would point to an animator and tell me all about him. "See that guy with the suave mustache? That's Ken Muse, a nice guy, a real slick operator. Couldn't draw worth a crap! Hanna loved him cause he could really 'pump out the footage'! But a good guy to go bowling with, one of the guys." (By the way the animation in this clip is by Ken Muse! Ken really watered down Ed's designs and poses-I remember recognizing his style as a kid and thinking of him as the 'bland animator'.) Ed had a great collection of Golden Books and magazine illustrations and we would pour over them and he'd give me all kinds of design theories. Every time we visited we would watch old cartoons. Ed loved UPA and Disney (he pronounced it "Dissney".) He didn't think anyone else did anything else worthwhile and we had some great arguments. He would sometimes put his fists up and threaten to beat some sense into me. He had a huge pointy tuft of grey hair sticking out of his chest and it would stand erect and fill with blood when he was in scrapping mode. It's funny, 'cause he would crab all weekend about everything and then when we'd leave he'd be all choked up, which would always kill us. He was the soft-hearted curmudgeon. I showed him a bunch of Clampett cartoons and he was amazed at how wild and inventive they were. "Damn ugly though!" He could still draw really well into his eighties and I got him to do many background layouts for Boo Boo Runs Wild and Day In The Life Of Ranger Smith. After we finished the cartoons and brought them up to show him, he stared at me for about five minutes getting madder and madder. He said, "Well there was some funny stuff and really inventive things in there, but why in Hell can't you draw on model?!" Ed and his wife Alice (who passed away a few years ago) used to watch Ren and Stimpy together and actually became big fans of it to my surprise and delight. Ed is one of the true giants of animation. I think he was the greatest character designer in the whole history of the medium. He was a wonderful guy to boot and always lots of fun to hang out with. I had an awful day yesterday after I got the news. I sure am gonna miss him. Flintstones_titles Uploaded by chuckchillout8 http://johnkstuff.blogspot.com/2006/04/design-3-ed-benedict-and-fred.html I have lots of interviews I did with him on tape. I need someone to transcribe them though. Anyone out there do that? Preferably in LA. generic cialis generic viagra online buy cheap cialis viagra

Tags: cartoon, guy, hanna, design, barbera

Interview with Ron E. Shulman at businessweek.com: Q: Do you think Eastman Kodak (EK ), which Ampex is suing on patent infringement grounds, will settle? A: Kodak is going to fight fiercely. If it has a future, it is in digital photography. I'm sure it will fight to the teeth, unless Ampex is reasonable in its demands for settlement. Q: How do you determine royalties for a judgment? A: The law lists a bunch of criteria for determining royalties. It is based on a "hypothetical deal" standard. In the electronics area, it's rare that you get more than a 10% royalty. Typically, it's 1% or 2% of sales. You should assume they are going after a royalty of 1% to 5%. But it depends on what you decide is the royalty base. Is it the whole price, or part of the price? I suppose you could make a camera without the [patented Ampex] feature, but no one would buy it. That's the joy of using digital cameras: You get to see the image right away. Royalties may also include what are known as "convoid" sales. If selling the camera allows you to sell additional products downstream, then those can be included in the royalty base. That will certainly be explored by the plaintiff. Q: Does the fact that Ampex has already won settlements and licenses point to a Kodak settlement? A: Ampex will try and rely on that. [The past settlement history] is pretty persuasive stuff. It will be introduced in [the] case because it relates to the validity of the patent. It is some evidence of commercial success. And commercial success would be evidence of nonobviousness. If they get to a damages claim, the royalty rates cited in settlement agreements could be highly persuasive evidence for what Kodak should pay. [LBE note: commercial success may be used to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.] Q: In Silicon Valley, how is Ampex viewed these days? A: Ampex is basically a research shop. Ampex is viewed as a slightly more civilized version of a patent terrorist. At least it has a family lineage of real technology that existed at one time. People respected Ampex. It did real stuff. [Now] what it is doing is no different from what other patent trolls do. Q: Is so-called patent trolling on the rise? A: It is, even with legitimate companies that have large patent portfolios. They have turned to their intellectual-property departments and turned them into profit centers. Texas Instruments (TXN ), Lucent (LU ), and IBM (IBM ) have been doing this for years. Plus, the damage awards are huge. [The practice] has grown more vigorously over the past 10 years. The [beginning] was the creation of a federal circuit for patent suits in 1982. Patents are a powerful economic weapon. People sue left and right. The outgrowth of that is patent holding companies. They're like venture funds. They go around holding people up for lots of money. Q: What is the cost to society? A: Most people suing didn't do any of the invention. Money isn't going to the inventors. There's no socially useful purpose. It's a waste of resources. Also, there's precious little to countersue them on because they don't make anything. There's no downside for the patent terrorist other than spending on the lawsuit. [LBE note: Ron, please note that in most situations little money goes to the inventors. Check out the patent awards procedure in places like IBM, Kodak, Exxon. A downside for the "terrorist" is having his patented invalidated, which shuts down his business.] Q: Is there any way to curtail the lawsuits? A: Not without legislation. That would be very difficult to do. Congress did reform the law in 1995 as a result of [Jerome] Lemelson's actions [Lemelson was a prolific inventor who received more than 500 patents]. He did nothing but file patent applications. He has the largest number of issued patents. He acquired patents in key areas of technology such as bar codes. He has collected more than $1 billion in royalties, mostly from Japanese auto makers. As a result, Congress changed the patent expiration dates from 20 years from filing, to 17 years from granting. Q: Who else could Ampex sue? A: The major digital photography companies will be targeted. Computer companies could be targeted. I can't say for sure since I haven't reviewed the patent. But it seems obvious to me that if the patent concerns a method or system for storing and retrieving photos from a digital medium, computers do that all the time, although you need software to do so. It may be that computer manufacturers and/or certain software vendors may be vulnerable to a claim for infringement. [Ampex] can go after Motorola (MOT ), Nokia (NOK ), Samsung and all those guys. It's hard to sell a phone that doesn't have a camera

Tags: patent, ampex, kodak, royalty, settlement

It would be nice to say that I am a person who likes to plan. That I like to know what to expect in life. It would be not as nice to say that I am a control freak. That I like to know that circumstances won't surprise me. There is one time in my life that I can say I let go. I let the unexpected in, trusted someone else, and never looked back. It is the best decision I ever made. Two years ago, there was a man I knew I like hanging out with. A man who made me laugh. A man who was a musician on the side. A man whose real job I couldn't even explain at the time. He was a good guy. He was a better guy than the other guys I was seeing, but he had baggage. And he was older than me. By about a decade. One night, we sat in his car after a casual dinner of comparing divorce notes, lawyer fees, the prospect of dating again, and life upheaval in general, he turns to me and says, "I want to tell you something, and it will mean that you will either never want to see me again, or quite the opposite. I think we would be good together." What did you say? "I think that we would be good together, and I want to see it happen. I want to be with you." There was no real conversation. I stared out the window in complete disbelief while he went on about the life he saw us having together until he finally said, "You are scaring me with your silence. Have I made a really bad mistake here?" I don't have anything to offer you. I'm young, all I have is a house, a low paying job, and a bunch of dogs. You don't want me. And then he began to list my assets. None of which were financial. And none of which had to do with my boobs. It is a list that I hold dear to my heart and have never shared with anyone. The list feels like little secrets about me that only he saw, and that only he made me see about myself. And I knew that I loved him. And a year later I married him. And a year after that I'm even more sure than ever that it is miracle we found each other, and that he is a gift to me. He restores my faith. Happy anniversary, Schmoopinator. I love you more than Diet Coke. July 24, 2006

Tags: