> Notes can run on Windows/Linux/AIX/iSeries

This is precisely correct. You are deliberately prevented from complex layouts and sophisticated formatting. This compels document writers to use formats that are likely to be legible in 10 years, and that favor actual written content over sophisticated layout. I've found the change to be enormously helpful in revealing who can actually write documentation, instead of merely format it cleverly.

> Notes can run on Windows/Linux/AIX/iSeries

Notes runs on those platforms like Microsoft Office runs on MacOs. The release for non-Windows operating systems is always effectively 2 years behind the release on Windows. Being able to run on AIX or iSeries hardware is not relevant for laptop or desktop clients, where most email and docuemnt processing actually occurs today, so that's not a good salespoint.

I'm afraid there is no single powerful selling point for Lotus Notes, and hasn't been for years. LibreOffice and OpenOffice are cheaper for Linux, and have better MS Office compatibility, except for email. And we've seen many companies throwing out expensive internal mail server suites in favor of the consistent, world accessible, and robust Google services very effectively.

If the control is too fine grained, people give up and just turn off the controls altogether. I see this constantly with SELinux and complex firewalls and filesytem permissions, and two-part authentication.

by making Facebook "3-4 times more usable", it reduces the time people spend stuck with burdensome Facebook advertising and workflow to access desired material. In other words, it reduces Facebook's revenue for advertising from those links and burdensome clickthroughs. _Of course_ they object, and _of course_ they feel he's in violation of his terms of service or even more severe contract violations for interfering with what they try to sel to the advertisers and customer tracking companies, who actually pay Facebook's bills.

Why is there surprise that Facebook's legal staff and management would threaten the tool author over this?

I do this sort of thing as a matter of course, normally in much smaller environments. Healthcare organizations are problematic: they often have proprietary software wedged into their workflow in fascinating ways, such as laboratory data reporting tools and legacy accounting applications. Whether to maintain a minimal Windows architecture, or any other displaced architecture, for access to this old data is an important technical and buisiness decision. It has become easy to virtualize and isolate such hosts, so the underlying hardware is Linux based or VMware based, and the guest operating systems can be isolated and locked down for security and support reasons. Also, getting people off of Outlook and documenting everything with Word documents is often a nightmare. Documentation policies and a good mail system with good scheduling tools are invaluable for the migration.

A team of Windows admins in a large organization, such as 3 for Exchange, 3 for AD, 3 for the accounting system, 2 interns for swapping and transporting backup tapes, and 3 for desktop support, can often be retrained and shrunk. Or their roles expanded to cover tasks they couldn't manage before, such as security. If they're not already interested in the idea, the project will fail: That large of a bureaucratic group can poison a technology switch, even if they're reasonable as individuals, In some cases, they can often take over work previously passed off to external consultants and keep their head count. But if the migration is a planned from the vice president as an arbitrary "big picture" switch, without details considered, and it's a recipe for disaster.

Retraining is possible. Good engineers who handle such large migrations are worth their weight in gold, and even if the IT headcount shrinks, some can be convinced to take up a consulting role to support legacy apps and critical environments for long-term data access. (This is often critical for old medical or fiscal records.)

And there is one critical piece that I've repeatedly encountered. There is usually one absolutely critical software server, running on obsolete and unmaintainable hardware, that is neither allowed to be shut down for maintenance nor migrated to a newer version because "there is no budget for that", and yet is a critical 24x7 application. Whether it is a license server, print server, spam filter, or accounting software does not matter. This server has inevitably not gotten system updates in years, is unmonitored, has no password for its admin account, and is only discovered when attempting to clear an office of equipment and the entire environment shuts down when it is unplugged. The migrators are _always_ blamed for the problems with these unmaintained systems. It's vital to get such critical legacy systems into the migration plan, _in writing_, to avoid confusion about who gets to fix it when they inevitably fail.

The Swiss banking industry has been the haven of choice for private banking since the Middle Ages. With a proper warrant from the proper government, _and the account information_,, they will cooperate with recovering assets. But they don't allow governments free access to find that information. This has also been how Jews in WWII hid their assets from seizure by Nazis, and funds flowed from the US to guerrilla fighters throughout Europe. The banking privacy works both ways.

The concept that bankers are automatically sinful and should have their goods seized goes right back to the concept of charging interest as being a sin of "usury", and it's why some Jewish families became bankers for non-Jews: the laws did not apply to non-Jews. So, historically, a lot of the rage against bankers for stealing money they didn't earn has also been religious prejudice. And they do know that a lot of the money they manage, and hide the transactions for, has been purely personal or business discretion, and a lot of it has been with the full knowledge and support of the governments who've gotten critical loans or hidden payments to other countries through the Swiss banks.

Like free speech, discrete banking has many misuses, but its difficult to forbid without interfering with critical uses.

It matters. A stream of strangers sleeping in the same house, never knowing who's going to be next, is disruptive and unsafe. Those strangers often have direct physical access to the kids, and it should be considered from those grounds, much as running a bed&breakfast in the house should be considered for the child's safety. And if the male, or female lovers have mom over visiting them constantly, what are the arrangements for overnight child care?

The same standards can, and do, apply to single dads who try to date.

Glucagon shots rely on converting glycogen to glucose: how much is available in a normal human? And I assume they wouldn't work at all for someone who's been doing extended physical exercise, such as a marathon, and has depleted their glycogen?

This is all fascinating material: systems failure analysis, and detecting where assumptions about failure modes are not based on measurement or based on pure extrapolation, is one of the tasks I get paid for professionally, so I hope you don't mind that I'm questioning your claims. It's genuine curiosity.

> Even then, there's no way she could digest it fast enough without having her blood sugar drop precipitously low, leading to seizure etc, so emergency services would need to be called and told that she needs a dextrose IV drip.

This is the interesting claim that I don't see any experimental evidence for. This is a catastrophic event: is there anything else that would provide bottlenecks for the body's ability to consume glucose, such as limits of the other components of the ATP cycle in the cells themselves? Would those limits, themselves, be biologically catastrophic? If the short term danger of hypoglycemia is starving the brain of glucose, can guzzling or continuously sipping from a bottle of syrup keep such a diabetic alive until then, even if they are groggy or confused? (I business partner I met with regularly hated long meetings, because they could slip from a perfect blood sugar to 40 mg/dL, half human normal if lunch was late and they were focused strongly, and nabbing snacks or grabbing sweetened drinks caused social issues in the meetings. And they wouldn't realize until they tried to talk just how low their blood sugar was!)

It's not something I'd want to test on humans, but it would be fascinating animal experiments to get some idea of how to treat a diabetic who's had a pump overdose. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if such overdoses haven't happened by accident in hospitals with staff unfamiliar with diabetic doses: I've certainly received the wrong dose of medication from hospital staff.

I'm afraid that you're doing a flat linear extrapolation, which is understandable. If 5 grams of carbohydrate = 1 "unit", and the maximum reservoir size of the "Paradigm Series 7" is 3 millileters or 300 units, that's about 1500 grams of sucrose. That's about 3 pounds of carbohydrate: it's *possible* to eat that much in a few hours, but sounds awful.

I'm wondering, though, if there are other limiting biological factors that prevent the body's cells from being able to deplete the glucose that fast. For example, 1500 grams of carbohydrate is approximately If one gram of carbohydrate is approxaimatley 4 kCal (commonly referred to as "calories when discussing food), 1500 grams of carbohydrate is _6000_ caloiries worth of food. I'd like to suggest that you can't possibly metabolize a well supplied stream of glucose to your blood stream that fast. so Also, thinking about this, an insulin pump is normally connected to subcutaneous tissue, not to a large blood vessel. So I'd expect some delay as the large dose of insulin has to diffuse through existing tissue: I'd expect extraordinarily low blood sugar around the injection site, but can one take in enough glucose or sucrose orally to keep the blood glucose from bottoming out?

It's a fascinating question for just such possible risks of a mechanical insulin pump failure. I'm finding a few studies mentioning LD50 tests for human insulin, but they're all behind paywalls. I also found this article about insulin overdose suicide attempts (http://ccforum.com/content/11/5/r115) Many of them seem to have taken 300 units or more of insulin, and were universally treated in the ER with various I/V's of 30% dextrose, mostly successfully. It shows that prompt treatment is successful, but it's not clear if it would work to simply guzzle juice.

I know a number of children of divorce, and others whose parents are traveling overseas for work. I know one colleague who schedules a voice or video call with their child every day. The child's parents have agreed should have a phone in their school bag to "call mom or dad" in case they anything happens. It's a very limited, very cheap, used phone, so there are no complex games on it: the child is 8. The child also has a lot of allergies and a very strict diet, so the parents have had several heated arguments with the school about whether the child should have the phone at school, to call about school lunch changes or allergy concerns.

How much sugar? And for how long will she have to keep ingesting that much every, say, 15 minutes? Does opening up the body's ability to metabolize glucose this way have another limiting factor that will limit how much oral glucose is needed? I'm quite curious: there was a report a few months ago of an implanted insulin pump that could be remotely tricked into delivering its 30 day supply of insulin all at once, and I'm wondering if this could be reasonably survived with oral glucose or sucrose and frequent glucose testing to manage it.

What are the failure modes? If the insulin pump fails to deliver insulin, won't the diabetic notice with their next glucose test? Don't most travel with spare insulin and a few syringes, in case of pump failure, at least for long distance travel? How damaging is complete pump failure?

Conversely, what happens if the insulin is all delivered at once? An insulin pump holds what, typically, a few days of insulin? Can a diabetic keep ingesting enough sugar with juice or soda or candy to keep their blood sugar up for brain function, even if the insulin dose is overwhelmingly high? And the insulin, according to the last diabetic I met, only lasts a few hours: it's not a long-term effect, even with a huge amount injected, right?

He'll smoke it later, if he has to. It keeps well frozen, and it's also safer from vermin in the freezer.

I had a fascinating talk last month with a man who lives near a flood plain. Not in it, but the dikes have been overwhelmed enough times in his lifetime that he's seen failures of basic transport and utilities for the area half a dozen times. He uses "surviving a zombie apocalypse" as his guideline for preparedness. So he keeps a plentiful supply of ammo, and practices with his weapons, and loads his own ammo: he also hunts with those and with a bow, and keeps a freezer full of venison. He also keeps quite a large amount of long-term stable food stores, some water and _water testing and purification_ tools. His vehicles are well built, maintained, and he has several small generators, one in the basement (for weather reasons) and one in a vehicle (for portable use).

He's also doing backup fire and rescue duties for his county, and if there's a problem nearby, I want _him_ as one of my first responders.