#Currently unlisted but I might publish it | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

grahamstoney · 16 years ago

Text

I Lied to the Guy from the Phone Company Today

New Post has been published on https://grahamstoney.com/communication/i-lied-to-the-guy-from-the-phone-company-today

I Lied to the Guy from the Phone Company Today

OK, I admit it. I lied today. I don’t normally do that; I’m a terrible liar in fact. I’m sure it goes back to when I was a kid and how my mother could always tell when I was lying. She wasn’t the sort of person you wanted to get on the wrong side of. So I’m badly out of practice. But I’m working on it.

Or rather, I’ve actually been working on becoming a more persuasive and powerful communicator. I’ve joined Toastmasters. I’m doing workshops on public speaking, sales and marketing. I’m reading The 48 Laws of Power. This last one is all a bit Machiavellian for me, and if taken literally the laws involve a lot more deception than I’m really comfortable with. But I’m learning. And today it came in handy.

I decided that time to get ADSL2+ broadband is long overdue, but there’s a problem: my phone number isn’t “portable”. A couple of Internet and phone companies with better deals than my current provider told me I can’t switch to them unless I get a new number. I wasn’t all that keen on having to change phone numbers, tell everyone I know and reprint 2000 business cards. So I thought I’d just stick with my current phone company despite the extra cost. I gave them a call, and talked to a helpful sales consultant. Let’s call him Jesse, because that’s what his name was. Jesse was very friendly, and about as helpful as someone could be while explaining that they couldn’t possibly do what I really wanted. Even though I’m an existing customer, they couldn’t transfer the number to their new ADSL2+ equipment in the telephone exchange. So no matter what I did, I needed a new phone number in order to get ADSL2+. My only reason for sticking with them in the first place was the vain hope that I wouldn’t have to change phone numbers, and with this hope dashed I decided I might as well switch carriers as well and get the better deal.

After about 45 minutes of going through the scenarios with Jesse, I concluded that the simplest solution was to get my current phone company to change my phone number, and then switch to the new cheaper guys once that was done. Now Jesse couldn’t do this directly because he was from the sales department. But he could put me through to the service department that could help me. Jesse suggested that to avoid having to go through the whole rigmarole again, I just tell the guy in the service department that I want to change phone numbers because I’m getting nuisance calls. In other words, he suggested I lie.

Jesse put my call straight through to a guy in the phone company’s customer service department, who I’ll call Manesh, because once again that was his name. I liked Manesh, because he engaged in a little small-talk to build rapport with me, and he didn’t pretend that he wasn’t in a call center in India. “How’s the weather over there today?” he asked.

“Good, good, thanks.”, I replied honestly while planning my deception.

“Great, because it was 44 degrees here in India yesterday!”. He seemed a friendly straight-shooter, and I liked him immediately.

“So what can I do for you today?”, he asked cheerfully.

“Well, you see, I’m getting all these harassing phone calls and I’m really over it. So I want to change my phone number please”, I lied. Straight into it. Felt pretty good too, I must say. Confident, and strong.

Manesh took pity on me, and was more than happy to relieve me of these bogus nuisance calls by changing my number. “I’ll even waive the number-change fee, given that it is a case of harassment”, he said. He went on to outline the procedure for police involvement if it continued after the change:

“Oh, I really hope that won’t be necessary, but thanks so much for letting me know just in case.”

Manesh also suggested a silent/unlisted number, at extra charge. Given that I’m not running from any underworld figures and have a fairly mundane life that doesn’t generally make me the target of hatred from strangers, I’d rather not be unlisted. I kind of like the idea that friends, even ones I haven’t met yet, can find me just by looking me up in the phone book. But what about my harassing caller? “Actually, I think it’s some sort of fax machine or modem that keeps ringing me every 10 minutes. So I don’t really need an unlisted number.”, the lie grew.

He was pretty cool with that, and initiated the number change. Then he suggested I could get my old number redirected to the new one. “You can do that? Yeah, that would be great!” I enthused. That way friends who don’t know I’ve changed my number can still get in touch.

Oh, but what about that nuisance caller? “Sorry… you won’t want to redirect your old number because then the nuisance caller will still come straight through to you.”, Manesh pointed out helpfully. No, of course not. Well, actually…

A little more deliberation and Manesh mentioned that I could have a recorded message on my old number, redirection, or both. “A recorded message would be great, because I think it’s just a fax machine hassling me. A machine won’t get the message, but other people will be able to find my new number. Yeah, let’s go with a recorded message. Can I change it to redirect the calls later, if the nuisance caller stops?”

“Of course.”

“Great!”

“OK, I’ve put your request into the system as an emergency request because of your nuisance caller. It should be changed within 24 hours. I will ring you back tomorrow to organize the redirection message.”

“You’ll ring me?”

“Yes Sir”, Manesh replied in perfect Indian English.

Wow. I couldn’t believe it. None of this waiting-on-hold-for-hours crap. They were going to ring me. My previous major interaction with this same company 4 years ago didn’t go anywhere near this well: I was moving house and wanted to keep my existing Internet address and phone number; apparently an “unusual” request according to their complaints department to whom I eventually had to go in order to get what I wanted.

This time, I got what I wanted much more easily just by lying. I only had to lie a little though; it’s not that bad, is it? And it saved us both a whole heap of time. But it bothers me that I live in a world where some things just go more smoothly when you lie. It shouldn’t be like that. People should be honest. Other people should respect that. I should get what I want be being straight with people up-front. This should always work in every relationship I have.

Oh-oh; I’m should-ing all over myself again. Life is easier and ultimately less frustrating and/or stressful when I can accept that things are the way they are, not the way I think they should be. Odd that I should learn this lesson once again by, of all things, lying to the phone company though.

#honesty #lying #truth #white lies #Communication

0 notes

pinksilvace · 3 years ago

Note

5, 7 and 21!

5. How many words do you write per day?

I try to write a consistent 500-850 words per day! I typically track them using the nanowrimo website, so it fluctuates, but I'll set a month for 20k-25k words or so. It's nice that the end of the month has a smaller daily number when I do that.

7. Favourite writing advice?

To Just Do It. It's really hard, and it might stink, but who cares? You can always edit the bad parts out later. Some of my biggest writing sessions have come on days that I thought I wouldn't want to write on at all. You never know until you get started. You never improve until you go.

21. Do you ever want to write a novel/original work?

I actually self-published a work in my junior year of high school! It's unlisted now because it wasn't that great and there are a lot of tweaks I need to make, but getting the work out there was a good experience regardless. There's a second story I've written that I'm currently working on the first edit of.

#ask #my fics #kind of

2 notes · View notes

borismann · 2 years ago

Text

One feed to rule them all - now cross posting to this blog

Time for another blogging about blogging and Mastodon’ing.

It turns out you can import posts made to Mastodon into your own Micro.blog.

So I did! Both @[email protected] and @[email protected] RSS feeds are being imported here.

I also turned off cross posting to Social Coop, because that would cause a time loop ;)

This means that with current settings, you can subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed and get all of my posts across local Micro.blog posts (like this one) and those two Mastodon accounts.

There is a “blog only” feed that I’ll need to figure out around these long posts — but they’ve been in short supply over the past several years!

Blog to Mastodon and Back Again

You can search for and follow the blog directly on ActivityPub systems at @[email protected] 1.

Screenshot of how the blog profile looks in MetaText on iOS

Erratta

It’s not at all perfect yet.

There is something strange where Markdown is inconsistently parsed.

For this post on the blog, italics were applied, but the asterisks weren’t transformed into an unordered list.

And the URLs were not correctly linked.

And only the first photo was included, not all four.

See [original on social.coop](https://

social.coop/@bmann/109496328943570699).

For Twitter cross-posting (which goes Mastodon -> Micro.blog import -> Micro.blog Twitter cross-posting), this may cause all sorts of things to happen. Sorry Twitter readers!

Feature Requests: Only import public posts

This post is an unlisted reply but got imported.

Ideally only public posts would be imported. This isn’t a cross posting tool, so I wouldn’t get much more complex than that.2

Mastodon RSS

This is a side effect of taking whatever comes out of a Mastodon RSS feed. I’ll have to dig into all of the errata and other items to understand what’s in the feed, how it’s represented, how the content might be escaped or marked up as structured data.

Micro.blog would need to run a whole bunch of parsing tools to handle these cases. At the same time, there’s likely a good case for a shared library here.

And of course — it’s a bit of a hack. ActivityStreams are a different, arguably richer vocabulary which natively contains all this information. Squeezing it into RSS isn’t necessarily the right thing to do.

Up Next

I’ve still got 3 conversions of my bmannconsulting.com site underway. It will likely end up being on LogSeq with GitHub Actions publishing.

And finally, my FoodWiki. It’s now statically published TiddlyWiki, also with GitHub Actions.

It doesn’t yet have an RSS feed, but it will, and will likely also get folded into this main feed.

But Why????

Im experimenting, as I often do when these social network and posting systems evolve.

For me, I can have rich posting interfaces on my phone for short microbloggy posts across a number of topics, as well as long form blog posts, and I get one archive. The one archive may be the least interesting - especially if it lightly mangles posts and misses images.

If anyone out there in RSS land hates it, let me know!

The direct link on the web to follow the blog is managed by micro.blog. You can’t really go to a profile page directly. [return]

I help maintain Moa.Party which is a cross posting tool. People would like many different options and toggles, making the interface very confusing. [return]

0 notes

dailytechnologynews · 7 years ago

Photo

PCPer's Response to the Recent Ethical Concerns and Accusations

Hi hardware fans. It's been an eventful couple of days in the offices and home for me (and Allyn). A video from YouTube channel AdoredTV was posted late Thursday night (US eastern time) that directly attacked our credibility, which has been taken down, reposted, and taken down again. In all honesty, we tend to have a policy of not responding to verbal accusations online, because if we did, that's all anyone that writes reviews would ever do.

This one was more impactful though. We were called out directly by name (me and Allyn) and some very specific statements were made against our reviews on pcper.com and our new company at shroutreseach.com.

Most importantly from my point of view was that I woke up on Friday morning to find that I had been sent pictures of my home (and my office) from Google Maps along with my address from random viewers of this video. Obviously when you start to get into areas of personal and family safety, things get ratcheted up quite dramatically. With recent events showing that sometimes crazies on the internet can in fact do crazy things when incited, I was legitimately worried about my wife and daughter.

Jim at AdoredTV initially agreed to take the video down in an email exchange after I expressed those safety concerns. But after he didn't think I addressed all the points his video accusations covered in the response that I sent him (that will be included below), he re-posted it. After some more emails back and forth, he took the video back down as of Saturday morning.

At this point, I wanted to make sure that the response to his video that I sent him was public, so that the readers and viewers of both of our content can make their own decision.

In the end, I agreed to make edits to the FreeSync story/video that he brought up. These are reasonable points from him that would have simply required an email or phone call to address at the outset. We also added a disclosure statement to the end of our Intel 900P review in regards to Shrout Research. My statement of honesty in our review remains, but in order to be more transparent, the disclosure was added.

It's worth noting that not 48 hours before the original posting of AdoredTVs video, our team had been debating not about putting disclosures on the stories, but what the exact wording of them would be. This was prompted by a question sent in to our mailbag series our desire to be honest about things. This is still going to happen, but we are finalizing what that global statement will be.

I do think its important to note that despite the intent to paint it as such, there really are no black and white answers to this. Some will say that I should release financial statements. Some will say this is more than enough. I anticipate that he will still have some issues with our process, as will others. I accept that. We will continue to do what we think is best.

You'll find below a complete copy of an email exchange between Jim at AdoredTV and myself. It's a long read, one that I think is important in its entirety for those concerned about these allegations, but I've also prepared this more succinct list of our responses to the major issues.

Unfairness to FreeSync: We have made the edits/updates that the AdoredTV video called out. We believed at the time that our new article on the topic was adequate due diligence. While it is impossible for any outlet to update all published articles or videos every time something changes, we recognize that this was an important issue and we will try to do better about updating published content when appropriate. As for the FreeSync panel debate, the text of our review stated that the panels shared the same “specifications,” not that they were the same panels. However, in comments related to the article, we did state that the panels were the same. That was our error and we apologize.

General bias against AMD: We have worked with AMD for many years and have spoken with them both on and off the record countless times. The claims in the video that we did not convey pre-launch product concerns to AMD are false. PCPer was also not the first or only outlet to draw attention to the RX 480 power draw and Ryzen latency issues, and we worked extensively with AMD for months in advance of the release of our Frame Rating/FCAT testing. As for perceived bias, we treat all companies and products with respect and fairness, and it has never been suggested by the companies we cover that the reality is otherwise.

Radeon Affiliate Link: The first we heard about our Amazon affiliate tag being present in a link at the Radeon website was when Ryan Smith of AnandTech tweeted about it, as shown in the AdoredTV video. We have absolutely no idea how that link got there, and we received zero commissions or sales data on the Vega Frontier Edition as a result of it. Due to the fact that the affiliate tag present on the Radeon page is incorrect (it has an extra %20 at the end), we’re not even sure if it would have worked had someone inadvertently used it. But we reiterate that there is absolutely no arrangement, official or unofficial, that called for our affiliate link to be placed on AMD’s website.

Shrout Research & The Intel 900P Review: Intel hired Shrout Research to conduct testing of the 900P and produce a white paper for public release if the results were positive. We have conducted similar testing for many other companies, including AMD, and in most cases the information we provide is kept private for internal use at those companies. We also wrote a review of the 900P at pcper.com, with the timing of the release of both pieces dictated by the 900P embargo date. Contrary to the claims in the video, the review and the white paper were not the same. Separate testing was performed on different platforms, although one of the drives (the 480GB model), which was provided by Intel for the white paper, was also used in the review. In short, the tests performed were different, the results were different (in most cases lower in the pcper.com review), and Intel was not given pre-release access or control over the content of the review.

Disclosure: While we did not try to “hide” anything as was suggested in the video (Shrout Research, named after me, has a public website, twitter account, and has been mentioned and published often on our podcasts, weekly mailbag videos, on my Twitter account, and in my freelance writing bio), we failed to disclose the nature and extent of Shrout Research’s relationship with Intel on the 900P review at PCPer. That was our error. We will rectify this by adopting a complete disclosure policy for all reviews going forward, which will clearly state not just relationships related to Shrout Research, but also the terms of our review, any related advertisers, and any other potential conflicts that may appear. It was never our intent to deceive, and we still stand fully by the content of the 900P review, but we will attempt to do better about proper disclosure going forward.

(Times in the email reference a "current time" of about 10pm ET. Copy and paste is funny in Gmail.)

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 9:46 AM (12 hours ago)

to jim Do you have time to chat quickly today? Saw the video, I have lots of questions, many concerns, but most importantly a request. I can call you direct or on Skype, etc.

Jim P <*********> 12:38 PM (9 hours ago)

to me Hi Ryan.

Sorry I'm out all weekend and I'm actually not in my own place right now (I'm in Scotland but live in Sweden) and getting peace and quiet isn't very easy anyway. I might be available to talk a bit on Monday but if you have a request that needs dealing with sooner, feel free to shoot it to me and obviously I'll listen.

Regards,

Jim

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 1:18 PM (8 hours ago)

to Jim Jim,

I'm a little disappointed that you would be willing to post a video with those kinds of accusations without contacting me for input but unwilling to spend 15 minutes on the phone or Skype with me to address it. Although not your intent, we are at the point now of viewers of your content reaching out to me with pictures of my house on Google Maps with my address, as well as my office. Obviously with the recent occurrences in the world, and as the father of a two year old, this is something we take exceedingly seriously. I'm worried that your video and comments, though I disagree with almost all of them, are going to be used to cause more harm than you had intended.

I have a list of corrections and inaccuracies, as well as comments surround some of your concerns, that I am preparing. But I would greatly appreciate some assistance in controlling this situation.

AdoredTV 1:29 PM (8 hours ago)

to me Hi Ryan,

I just got back from the dentist and I'm currently at my sister's house in Scotland. It's dinner time here also. Tomorrow we celebrate my sisters birthday at another venue. What do you want me to do to help? Should I unlist the video? I'm willing to do that for now though it'll blow over in a couple of days anyway. Be aware that if I don't like your response to my points in the video, I wasn't joking when I said I left out more than I put in. I will not be manipulated, consider my offer to unlist the video the final chance of avoiding a real escalation. Regards,

Jim

Jim P 1:32 PM (8 hours ago)

to me Not sure if my previous response got through, resending...

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 1:42 PM (8 hours ago)

to Jim Jim,

I appreciate the offer to make the video unlisted. However, because the video will still be viewable from any number of sources with the URL, I think making it private would be more appropriate.

I plan to send you my responses and comments in private, or on a call, in order to address your questions and concerns in a way that does not endanger anyone's family. I understand that you may choose to take these emails public, and that is fine as I am not trying to hide anything. This can be an "on the record conversation" but the goal is to discuss in private, to understand each others points, without putting anyone else at risk.

Jim P 1:51 PM (8 hours ago)

to me I will make the video private, for now. And I will also write a tweet.

We'll talk later.

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 1:51 PM (8 hours ago)

to Jim Thank you for that. I will follow up with my comments today.

AdoredTV 5:12 PM (4 hours ago)

to me It's rapidly approaching end of day in Kentucky, Ryan. One more hour then the video goes public again. Cheers,

Jim

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 5:37 PM (4 hours ago)

to AdoredTV Hi Jim,

I saw your video posted on Jan 25th about me, Allyn Malventano, PC Perspective, and Shrout Research. While I think your intentions are earnest, I have some serious concerns about the accusations that are made and the facts of your story.

First, I think it is worth noting again that creating this kind of content without requesting input from the accused seems incredibly inflammatory and unfair. As you point out the code of ethics of journalism many times in your video, there are multiple references to “right to reply” that should exist during or at the same time. This opportunity was not given to us.

Second, the impact of your commentary, true or not, has the potential to cause harm to me, my team, and my family. Having already received pictures of my home and my address from viewers of your video, and with the recent events that have occurred around the world, I am now genuinely concerned about the safety of my family. Also in that code of ethics is a section on humanity: “Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others.”

The beginning of your accusations of bias on PC Perspective starts with our article on the first FreeSync monitors from 2015. The crux of your argument is that our team, including Allyn and myself, determined that FreeSync was the cause of the ghosting we saw on the display, though others indicated it was not a result of FreeSync, but rather the panel or integration itself. Our assertion at the time would have been that because FreeSync was the “certification brand” of this display, that in the end, regardless of the root technical cause, AMD and the FreeSync team were ultimately responsible. Our original story even details our inability to nail down the root cause of the problem.

*The question now is: why is this happening and does it have anything to do with G-Sync or FreeSync? NVIDIA has stated on a few occasions that there is more that goes into a VRR monitor than simply integrated vBlank extensions and have pointed to instances like this as an example as to why. Modern monitors are often tuned to a specific refresh rate – 144 Hz, 120 Hz, 60 Hz, etc. – and the power delivery to pixels is built to reduce ghosting and image defects. But in a situation where the refresh rate can literally be ANY rate, as we get with VRR displays, the LCD will very often be in these non-tuned refresh rates. NVIDIA claims its G-Sync module is tuned for each display to prevent ghosting by change the amount of voltage going to pixels at different refresh rates, allowing pixels to untwist and retwist at different rates.

It’s impossible now to know if that is the cause for the difference seen above. But with the ROG Swift and BenQ XL2730Z sharing the same 144 Hz TN panel specifications, there is obviously something different about the integration. It could be panel technology, it could be VRR technology or it could be settings in the monitor itself. We will be diving more into the issue as we spend more time with different FreeSync models.

For its part, AMD says that ghosting is an issue it is hoping to lessen on FreeSync monitors by helping partners pick the right components (Tcon, scalars, etc.) and to drive a ��fast evolution” in this area.

Source: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync-*

You then bring up the fact that after we did discover that a firmware fix occurred (after our review), we posted a completely new article four months after our review recognizing the changes and improvements. There is a fair point to be made that we should have gone back to the original story and updated it with links to the new story. However, by doing a follow-up story and posting it in the same channels as the original (main site, video, Twitter, etc.) we believe we did due diligence here.

*In an industry that constantly changing with new hardware reviews, firmware updates, and even software and driver changes, keeping up with it is difficult. Extremely difficult. We will continue to find ways to do it better.

Any claims we made in comments or forums that panels in the competing G-Sync and FreeSync monitors were identical are false, and our error. But in our originally story, where articles are edited and curated, we state clearly that they shared the same “specifications”:

Source: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync-*

Should comments and forum posts have been more accurate? Yes.

You also mention our frequent streams with NVIDIA’s Tom Petersen as a source bias in our content. While we definitely have hosted Tom in our offices many times, the invite has always been open for any vendor we work with to co-host a live stream to talk to our audience. AMD has taken us up on these offers on seven specific instances:

· [https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Live-Review-Recap-AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-]Edition(https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Live-Review-Recap-AMD-Radeon-HD-7970-GHz-Edition)

· https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/PCPer-Live-Interview-AMDs-Richard-Huddy-June-17th-4pm-ET-1pm-PT

· https://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/PCPer-Live-AMD-Radeon-Crimson-Live-Stream-and-Giveaway

· https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/PCPer-Live-Radeon-RX-480-Live-Stream-Raja-Koduri

· https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/PCPer-Live-AMD-Radeon-Crimson-ReLive-Discussion-and-RX-480-Giveaway

· https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/PCPer-Live-AMD-Radeon-Crimson-ReLive-Discussion-and-RX-580-Giveaway

· https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/AMD-Radeon-Software-Adrenalin-adds-game-overlay-mobile-app-wider-API-support

We probably have done more interviews with Tom than with AMD or any other vendor, but this is not indicative of anything other than NVIDIA’s desire to communicate with our audience slightly more frequently.

Next, you discuss the RX 480 power issue and indicate that PC Perspective’s stories were inflammatory and without merit. I would point out that not only did AMD acknowledge and fix the issue, but we were not the first media outlet to show the problem. Tom’s Hardware actually reported the problem first, and we linked to them in our first story on the topic. We worked with AMD to supply them with our data as we got it, to solicit input before, after, and during the story writing.

Another point brought up in your video is that PC Perspective appears to be willing to work behind the scenes with some companies to help fix problems and potential issues, but not with AMD. That is factually incorrect. We have worked with AMD in many instances, providing information before product releases, to help them fix problems.

Examples include our Frame Rating / FCAT testing, where we shared data, opinions, and insights with AMD months before the release of the first public story. On the Ryzen latency “ping test” we also sent information to AMD before publication to ask for input and feedback. When Ryzen motherboards were having significant issues at launch we worked with them and partners on updates and BIOS improvements in the background before reviewing those products. The facts are that we work with every company on the same level.

On the issue of AMD using an Amazon.com link that included our affiliate code, the first time I was aware of that was when the link and screenshot Anandtech’s Ryan Smith tweet was sent out. I never had any conversation with anyone at AMD about including it, or why it was there even after the fact. It was not something we asked for, expected, or benefitted from. A search of our Amazon.com affiliate data from July through today shows exactly zero Vega Frontier Edition cards sold on our account, from links on our articles or from AMD’s website.

Now let’s address the Shrout Research side of your story. Shrout Research was started in October of 2016 to allow us to offer services that we were being asked for from companies already, but separated from the PC Perspective website. It is probably fair to say that we have not been as open as we could or should have been about how this works.

But it is crucial to recognize that were not hiding this company or its relationship to me. The company and my position there is listed on my Twitter profile. We often link to ShroutResearch.com in stories posted on pcper.com. We have discussed Shrout Research on the podcast. I have answered questions about the company in mailbags from user-submitted questions. It is listed in my pcper.com profile page. Most (probably all) stories posted on MarketWatch or similar sites list my relationship to both companies. We link to the Shrout Research white papers (including the 900P paper) in some PC Perspective stories.

To address specific problems you have noted, I’ll start with the 900P paper and review. You claim that our test suite for the 900P review on PC Perspective was created for the Intel work done with Shrout Research. This is not true. The first review to use Allyn’s Latency Percentile performance testing methodology was with the launch of the Samsung 960 EVO in November of 2016 and research of this new testing process was first shown with the 950 PRO review in October of 2015. The 900P review was using this same testing method.

Furthermore, the testing that was showcased in the Shrout Research 900P white paper and the review differ greatly. You assert that the review on PC Perspective is simply a copy of the testing and work done on the research side, however looking at the paper and the review shows that isn’t the case. Benchmarks and analysis of applications like AS-SSD, CrystalDiskMark, Anvil, Photo Mechanic, and Houdini are in the paper, but were not used in the review. The data presented in the review is based on Allyn’s custom testing capabilities, of which only two small results are part of the white paper.

The testing for Shrout Research and PC Perspective testing of the 900P was done on different systems as well. The review data was gathered on our standard PCPer storage testing platform and the Shrout Research data was gathered on a platform that Intel specifically requested we configure. The review on PCPer used retail drives, the testing for Shrout Research was using engineering samples. Even more, the performance of the data results that do overlap are actually LOWER in the review on PC Perspective as they were tested on a different platform than the one used on the white paper. The results on PC Perspective and Shrout Research are not copies.

The concern over using hardware and devices received through Shrout Research arrangements for the review on PC Perspective is valid. Honestly, we didn’t see the harm (at the time) to include the second capacity of the 900P in our review as it presented more information to the reader. Was this unfair to others in the media? Probably. Have we seen numerous other exclusives come to websites (including us) over the years that weren’t fair to the media? Yes. Are samples often sent out differently from site to site? Absolutely. See the RX Vega launch most recently and many storage reviews that send different capacities and sets to reviewers.

If you follow PC Perspective at all, you know that we were going to publish a review on PC Perspective of the 900P regardless of the existence of the white paper or our arrangements with Intel. And our opinion of the product would not be have been swayed. Our agreement with Intel was to vet and evaluate the 900P so it could get an idea of how the device stood in the market and how it might be received in the public. The white paper was only to be written if Intel thought the results from our testing were positive in their eyes, however the fee Shrout Research was paid was the same regardless of whether or not the paper was produced.

Shrout Research currently works the biggest, and most competitive, companies in the high-tech world, including Intel, AMD, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and Arm. We have done similar work for others on this list, in particular AMD. We have done evaluation of hardware prior to media and public device availability, to advise and showcase the performance as our team sees it. In those cases with AMD, which began in March of 2017, AMD used the reports internally and decided to not request a public paper from Shrout Research.

If any of these companies saw me, or Shrout Research, or anyone on our team as unreliable or capable of bias, they would have no reason to work with me, especially on the Shrout Research side. Instead, the 18+ years of work that I have under me and the positive results I have produced in terms of relevant, honest, and useful content leads them to partner with us to help make their products, messaging, and companies better.

As I said at the beginning, nothing about Shrout Research is hidden or was attempted to be secretive. Should we have been more explicit in some disclosures? Yes, clearly. Should we have been stricter in how product was shared between the two entities? Probably. It’s something we had honestly discussed just this past week, and this story further necessitates the need for it.

At the end of the day, the trust of the reader and the companies that work with us is paramount and the only thing that keeps us going. There will always be some individuals that don’t like us or have insurmountable distrust of us for some reason; it’s been that way for literally the last 18 years of my life. But I know that we attempt to treat every company equally, treat every product equally, and every situation equally.

Many people feel a sense of distrust around paid advertising on hardware sites. I obviously disagree that running ads for a company inherently means you are going to be biased towards them, and I have built and sustained PC Perspective on that very point, a similar application of trust must be applied here. If readers and viewers were able to trust our reviews for ASUS motherboards, despite running ASUS advertising on our site, or our videos on EVGA graphics cards despite running EVGA advertising on our site, then I feel that readers should continue to trust us as Shrout Research moves forward.

Here is a list of the companies that we have worked with on the advertising side in the last 10 years:

· AMD

· Antec

· ASUS

· BFG

· Cooler Master

· Corsair

· Crucial

· Diamond

· Drobo

· ECS

· Enermax

· EVGA

· FSP

· Galaxy

· Gigabyte

· Intel

· Logitech

· MSI

· Newegg

· NCIX

· NVIDIA

· OCZ / Toshiba

· Samsung

· Seasonic

· Silverstone

· Thermaltake

· Tiger Direct

· Western Digital

· XFX

· Zalman

There have been years where AMD is our biggest sponsor; several in fact. There are years where Logitech has been. ASUS is generally one of our biggest sponsors. The point I want to make here is that if you didn’t trust us before, there is little I can do to change that. But if you did trust us before, I think we have proven ourselves over the course of many years that the trust is warranted.

And for clarity, the companies we have worked with through Shrout Research:

· AMD

· Arm

· Intel

· NVIDIA

· Qualcomm

I believe that work that you do, despite our differences, is incredibly important to keeping people on their toes and maintaining sanity. I don’t believe that you have correctly portrayed the work we do or how we operate.We aren't perfect, I am not perfect. I don't believe any of us have ever made that claim. But I do know that you have taken our work and intent out of context.

If you still have to have a video calling us out for our practices, I obviously can’t stop you. But I would request that you fix the factual errors in your video. That includes the FreeSync story, the assertion that we don’t work with AMD prior to posting stories (including the ping testing and the RX 480 power), the affiliate link on AMD’s website, the lack of differences between the 900P white paper and the review, and that we have not been forthcoming (at all) about the existence and relationship of Shrout Research and PC Perspective.

I don’t consider this list of points exhaustive, by any means. I didn’t have time to re-watch or transcribe your video in order to dive into details on each and every point. Should something specific come to mind you want me to answer, let me know. If you have other question or problems with how we do things, or how we appear to be doing things from an external view, I’ll gladly answer them.

AdoredTV 7:14 PM (2 hours ago)

to me Thanks Ryan.

I feel you have raised some valid points however it's not nearly enough for me to keep the video private. Specifically, you failed to address the major points regarding conflict of interest and the "FreeSync vs G-Sync Ghosting Comparison" video, both of which have still not been rectified.

Can I again point to the EJN's article where it clearly states...

Accountability A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.

I will have a closer look on Monday to see if you have remedied these faults before continuing with the rest of your response. Regards,

Jim

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 7:20 PM (2 hours ago)

to AdoredTV Okay. Can you expand for me the points about the comparison story and video that you believe are still concerning? Is it that we have not updated the video and text of the write up to reference the later story?

AdoredTV 8:02 PM (2 hours ago)

to me Hi Ryan.

Sure I'll expand on these points. 1) I see no reason why you would not have rectified your error with the "FreeSync vs G-Sync ghosting" video, given what you have had pointed out to you today. That is literally a 5 second edit to the title which you chose to ignore.

2) The Optane review still looks the same - that is there is still nothing advising the reader of any potential conflict of interest. I'm sure you're aware of all the FTC regulations regarding this subject - but please...neither of us has any desire to go down that route I'm sure. - Jim On a personal level - When your changes are complete, it would likely be beneficial to point them out on social media. You will gain far more from these two small actions than your current course ever will - and by that I mean you will regain respect from your viewers. My bet would be you'd also find it all very liberating, because pride is a terrible thing. It's very late here and this has taken up much of my day so forgive me as I have to retire to bed.

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 8:16 PM (1 hour ago)

to AdoredTV Honestly, I was planning to include links and updates, but, I didn't want it to look like I was doing something manipulative before we had some to some kind of resolution. I agree these are 5-second edits, and I say in my rather long feedback note that I thought it was a reasonable request. You instead immediately posted the video back up, which I didn't think would occur without the dialogue.

The same applies to the Optane review - not wanting to change ANYTHING on the site as it would look like we were trying to change things out from under you, or the community. I assure you that my lawyer and I have gone over the regulations in this country for disclosure before starting the company, we are know what the bounds of "legal" and "moral" are. Also, do you not think AMD/Intel/NVIDIA/Qualcomm/Arm have lawyers that vet every relationship like this? If I was breaking the law, they would never have me working with them.

Are you going to keep the video up, even if these edits occur? What about your claims of correcting content that is known to be incorrect, incomplete, inaccurate? That seems to violate the rule, does it not, with all of the information you have had sent your way?

AdoredTV 8:39 PM (1 hour ago)

to me If you had simply rectified or even given the indication that you were open to rectifying both issues then sure I would have taken that under consideration. There was nothing to suggest that either move would be made. As it was, you basically just regurgitated a bunch of text from your reviews which I've already read. This stuff doesn't translate very well across the Atlantic. I made the video private on good faith Ryan. I was the one who offered to unlist it, then I agreed to make it private on your suggestion. I did what I could reasonably be expected to do to help you but you didn't take the chance. These past hours have been filled with me fighting my own viewers over claims of weakness, selling out or other nonsense like legal threats forcing me to take it down. I spent the last 6 hours fighting my own viewers because of this.

I didn't have to deal with any of that but I did...because I gave you the chance. I was hoping for a real show of accountability and this is what your readers want to see too. Please just apologise Ryan - make a statement, show that you've removed/changed the title of the FreeSync Video and updated your Optane review. I promise you that I will not gloat - in fact I'd be far more likely to applaud you for it. If that is done by the time I wake tomorrow, I'll put the video private again. I need to sleep, it's 1:30 here.

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 9:21 PM (43 minutes ago)

to AdoredTV It is done. The point of the initial email was to have a discussion and clarify things. I'm disappointed that you would repost the video even after the concerns I brought up about some of the rash notes and emails I received.

Here is the video with updated title and link to the updated story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ylLnT2yKyA Here is the FS story with link at top of first page: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Displays/AMD-FreeSync-First-Impressions-and-Technical-Discussion/Gaming-Experience-FreeSync- The bottom of this page discloses the specifics of the Intel 900P paper and review: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Optane-SSD-900P-480GB-and-280GB-NVMe-HHHL-SSD-Review-Lots-3D-XPoint/Conclusion

I will likely post a thread on reddit to bring up the points that I brought up to you in the long email, since that information is already out there and in the public. No mal-intent intended to you there, just making sure the points I sent you are public.

Jim P 4:43 AM Saturday

to me Thanks Ryan.

I've decided to skip the party today and get a video out on this topic and to clarify what happens next, so that this can be avoided in future. I will put the video private at the same time. Regards,

Jim

Ryan Shrout [email protected] 10:39 AM Saturday

to Jim While I am sorry for you to miss your family event, I appreciate the removal of the video and whatever update you might have.

I will be posting our comments and thread here to reddit sometime this morning.

Congratulations, you reached the end!

Again, thanks for reading and for giving us a chance to state our position.

#hardware #Computer #Technology #Tech #News

1 note · View note

finnapnl713 · 5 years ago

Text

A Reliable Therapy to Help Clients Cope With the Neurological Disorder Dystonia

"I would not be an excellent attorney unless I prefaced this short article by disclaimers:

1) Marijuana is still a controlled schedule I substance and is also illegal in the eyes in the Federal Government in the United States;

2) This article is never to be construed as legal advice, nor is intended to take the place in the advice of an attorney, and you will talk to a legal professional before taking any actions in furtherance in the subject theme of this informative article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition wendover weed store 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside State of Arizona. However, it's going to still take a moment before medical marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline to the drafting in the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important routines that needs to be paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft with the medical marijuana rules must be released making it readily available for touch upon this date.

January 7, 2011: This will likely be the deadline for public comment on the first draft of rules stated previously.

January 31, 2011: The second draft with the rules will be released on this date. Once again, it is going to be intended for informal comment as in the draft referred to above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings is going to be held in regards to the proposed rules currently, after which it a final rules is going to be published to the Secretary of State making it public about the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules should go into effect and be published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is very important that always during the entire consultation process, your customers submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests unlike that regarding medical cannabis advocates can also be making presentations, and could convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those that may qualify gain access to it if you have no voice to advocate in support of patients' rights.

Some key points about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medical marijuana for patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in ways limited to normal health professionals. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted recommend marijuana because of their patients.

-In order to be prescribed medical cannabis, an individual has to be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient means an agent who has been diagnosed by a ""physician"" (as defined above) as developing a ""debilitating problem.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or the treatments for these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical problem or its treatment who makes one or more with the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those sign of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those manifestation of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical problem or its treatment added from the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined because it is vitally important in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for your public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to incorporate conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously rare to find to alter any law. The initial discretionary rules for further treatments might be exercised through the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore crucial that, inside the event that incorporating health concerns is recognized as through the consultations, any stakeholder who wishes for the medical problem unlisted inside the initial two bulleted items above to lobby through the public consultation periods for that Department to provide the excess medical problem towards the report on debilitating medical conditions. In order to boost the prestige from a presentations created to justify adding medical conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it may be beneficial to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical doctors who is able to testify in writing possibly at people hearings about why the proposed condition ought to be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both inside the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana being a treatment for the proposed condition could be helpful, as would medical journals on the subject.

It ought to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos concerning the medical cannabis rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition on the passing of Proposition 203. He accomplished it around the grounds how the FDA doesn't test the drug, and even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should stop relied on being an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to imagine that Director Humble will likely be any less inclined to obstruct the usage of medicinal marijuana in the rulemaking stage, and proponents of medical cannabis needs to be likely to make their voices heard on the consultations to stop the obstruction from the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There are also provisions in Proposition 203 which is going to be discussed in the initial rulemaking process, and they'll oftimes be the main focus from the consultations. The consultations will create rules:

* Governing the way in which the Department of Health Services will accept the petitions from the population earlier mentioned, regarding digging in health conditions to the list with the already enshrined debilitating health concerns.

* Establishing the design and content of registration and renewal applications submitted within the medical marijuana law.

* Governing the way the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical cannabis ID cards.

* Governing various aspects round the newly legalized nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical cannabis dispensary applications.

The vital part from the consultation period will likely be concerning the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to make the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the effects of reducing the use of medical cannabis to patients and driving up the cost of medical cannabis due on the not enough supply. It could simply become too costly to conform to all from the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medical cannabis dispensaries from out-of-state, and perhaps pharmacists which has a little economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules may have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition really should help. The proposed rules have not turn out yet, however, if they are doing, they should be closely scrutinized for your possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries might have on patients.

The other major factor inside rulemaking will need to do using the fees. The Department will likely be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries through the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides the fees may well not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with a few lobbying in the public consultation, it is possible that the actual fees will be significantly less website traffic are simply the maximum how the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical cannabis users will likely be prohibited in certain situations. Based on our analysis, a person might not exactly:

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone or else penalize them solely for his or her status like a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not doing this would result inside lack of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions to them because they're a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result within the loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can always terminate employees if the employee is possession of or impaired by marijuana on the premises with the office or throughout the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana has to be treated just like any other medication prescribed with a physician.

* Be prevented, like a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time having a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger for the safety from the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are particular prohibitions on discrimination, there's also provisions that allow discrimination against medicinal marijuana cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers aren't required to reimburse somebody for their medical cannabis use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business people, is needed to allow medicinal marijuana on their own premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on the being a cardholder, are permitted in order to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana to the landlord's property).

* Employers are certainly not forced to allow cardholders to become underneath the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, the presence of marijuana within the body which isn't of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment will not establish being underneath the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the ultimate rules around security, recordkeeping, and also other requirements for medicinal marijuana dispensaries will not be established until April 2011, a number of requirements which can be enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and can be known ahead from the time that the final rules appear. These minimal requirements may well not be as restrictive as the ultimate requirements which are published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries have to be nonprofit. They will need to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they desire not considered tax-exempt with the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents in the dispensaries must include provisions to the oversight of the dispensary and then for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary must have just one secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter which will help prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized access to areas containing marijuana.

youtube

* A dispensary must not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose other than providing it straight away to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana need to take place only at a locked, enclosed facility at a home address provided to the Department of Health Services throughout the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered with all the Department.

* A dispensary can acquire marijuana from the patient of these caregiver, but only in the event the patient or caregiver receives no compensation because of it.

* No use of marijuana is permitted around the property from the dispensary.

* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection through the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice with the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is simply by no means the same because law in California. There are certainly some differences involving the two, though in most respects these are comparable. This is a comparative analysis with the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as a practical matter, permit broad discretion for the part of the physician to prescribe marijuana to patients that suffer from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" may be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits the life of the patient to conduct one or more major life activities as defined with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, can cause serious harm on the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have numerous illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses for the prescription of medicinal marijuana. These include, but aren't restricted to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws need the use of the identification card by those who have been prescribed medicinal marijuana, following your cardholders already went through a an initial application process when the use of the drug has been recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states do not factor in the unusable portion from the marijuana plant in determining the absolute maximum weight of marijuana that is permissible for possession by the cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have never been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it is going to be regulated for the state level and for that reason uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly about the municipal level, and so the rules around dispensaries can vary greatly from municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law offers a broader spectrum of people that are viewed a ""physician"" for that purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only physicians and osteopaths are considered being physicians. In Arizona, in addition to medical doctors and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will also be permitted prescribe medical marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants instead of utilizing a medicinal marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may only grow marijuana or designate another individual to take action in place of traversing to a dispensary around the condition that there is no dispensary operating within 25 miles with the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

#CBD #cannabis #cannabidiol

0 notes

tysonerpt644 · 5 years ago

Text

Legitimately Get Your Medical Cannabis Card in Colorado

"I wouldn't be a good attorney unless I prefaced this short article by incorporating disclaimers:

1) Marijuana is still a controlled schedule I substance and is also illegal in the eyes with the Federal Government of the United States;

2) This article is to not be construed as legal counsel, nor is supposed to take the place of the advice of your attorney, and you ought to seek advice from a legal professional when considering any actions in furtherance with the subject theme of this information. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which may exempt certain people from controlled substances laws within the State of Arizona. However, it's going to still take time before medical cannabis is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for that drafting in the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important periods of time that ought to be paid close attention to:

December 17, 2010: The first draft with the medical marijuana rules must be released and made available for discuss this date.

January 7, 2011: This will probably be the deadline for public touch upon the 1st draft of rules stated previously.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules will likely be released about this date. Once again, it's going to be readily available for informal comment as inside the draft known as above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings is going to be held concerning the proposed rules at the moment, and the ultimate rules will likely be published to the Secretary of State generating public for the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical marijuana rules will go into effect and be published in the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is very important that constantly during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests unlike the ones from medicinal marijuana advocates can be making presentations, and might convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or people who may qualify to access it when there is no voice to advocate in favor of patients' rights.

Some blueprint about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medical marijuana for patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" isn't defined in ways limited to normal physicians. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted recommend marijuana for their patients.

-In order to be prescribed medical marijuana, an individual should be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is understood to be someone who has been diagnosed by way of a ""physician"" (as defined above) as using a ""debilitating medical condition.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or even the treating these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or medical problem or its treatment that creates one or more of the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those manifestation of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical condition or its treatment added by the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined because it's important throughout the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to include conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously rare to find to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for further treatments could possibly be exercised during the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this is just not certain.

It is therefore essential that, within the event that incorporating medical ailments is known as during the consultations, any stakeholder who wishes for any medical condition unlisted within the first 2 bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for that Department to add the excess condition to the listing of debilitating medical conditions. In order to boost the prestige of the presentations designed to justify adding medical conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it can be helpful to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed health professionals who can testify in some recoverable format and also at the population hearings about why the proposed condition needs to be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both in the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana being a treatment for the proposed condition could possibly be helpful, as would medical journals on the subject.

It needs to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos concerning the medical cannabis rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition on the passing of Proposition 203. He managed it on the grounds that the FDA will not test the drug, although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be relied on as an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to think that Director Humble will be any less inclined to obstruct the use of medical marijuana throughout the rulemaking stage, and proponents of medical marijuana ought to be guaranteed to make their voices heard on the consultations to prevent the obstruction of the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also provisions in Proposition 203 which will probably be discussed through the initial rulemaking process, and they'll likely to end up the main objective of the consultations. The consultations can create rules:

* Governing the way the location where the Department of Health Services encourage the petitions from people earlier mentioned, regarding incorporating health conditions to the list from the already enshrined debilitating health conditions.

* Establishing the design and content of registration and renewal applications submitted within the medical cannabis law.

* Governing the way in which the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medicinal marijuana ID cards.

* Governing the different aspects around the newly legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, along with other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical cannabis dispensary applications.

The vital part of the consultation period will likely be about the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical cannabis dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to make the recordkeeping, security, oversight, along with other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it's going to have the effect of decreasing the availability of medical cannabis to patients and driving inside the cost of medicinal marijuana due towards the not enough supply. It could simply become very expensive to conform to all from the regulations.

During this stage, it is vital that stakeholders-particularly medical cannabis dispensaries from out-of-state, and perhaps pharmacists which has a little bit of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules may have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition should certainly help. The proposed rules have never emerge yet, however, if they do, they must be closely scrutinized for your possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries probably have on patients.

The other major factor inside rulemaking should do while using fees. The Department will probably be setting fees for medicinal marijuana dispensaries during the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides how the fees might not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with a few lobbying through the public consultation, it is possible that the actual fees is going to be a smaller amount since these are simply just the utmost the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical cannabis users will likely be prohibited in specific situations. Based on our analysis, somebody may not:

* As a school or landlord, won't enroll someone or otherwise not penalize them solely for his or her status being a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not the process would result in the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions on them because they are a medicinal marijuana cardholder, unless not this would result inside the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers might still terminate employees when the employee is within having or impaired by marijuana around the premises with the place of employment or during the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana has to be treated every other medication prescribed by the physician.

* Be prevented, being a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time having a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger on the safety of the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are particular prohibitions on discrimination, in addition there are provisions which permit discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers are not needed to reimburse somebody for medical marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including businesses, is required to allow medical cannabis on his or her premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on their own like a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana on top of the landlord's property).

* Employers usually are not necessary to allow cardholders being under the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, though the presence of marijuana in the body which is just not of an sufficient concentration to cause impairment does not establish being within the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although a final rules around security, recordkeeping, and other requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries will never be established until April 2011, there are particular requirements which can be enshrined in Proposition 203 itself which enable it to be known ahead from the time that a final rules emerge. These minimal requirements may well not be as restrictive as the ultimate requirements which can be published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries should be nonprofit. They should have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they need stop considered tax-exempt from the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

youtube

* The operating documents from the dispensaries must include provisions for the oversight in the dispensary as well as accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary have to have an individual secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized use of areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary should not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for almost any purpose other than providing it directly to a cardholder in order to a registered caregiver for that cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana must take place only with a locked, enclosed facility in a home address provided to the Department of Health Services throughout the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered using the Department.

* A dispensary can acquire marijuana coming from a patient of the caregiver, but only when the patient or caregiver receives no compensation because of it.

* No utilization of marijuana is permitted on the property in the dispensary.

* A dispensary is be subject to reasonable inspection from the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice of the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is by no means the same because law in California. There are certainly some differences relating to the two, though in certain respects these are comparable. This is a comparative analysis from the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, like a practical matter, permit broad discretion on the part of your physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who suffer from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" is the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits lifespan of the patient to conduct a number of major life activities as defined through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or that if not alleviated, will cause serious harm for the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have a number of illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses for that prescription of medical marijuana. These include, but are not restricted to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require use of the identification card by those that have been prescribed medical marijuana, wendover dispensary weed following your cardholders already went through a an initial application process in which the use from the drug continues to be recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states do not factor in the unusable portion from the marijuana plant in determining the utmost weight of marijuana which is permissible for possession by a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have not been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it's going to be regulated for the state level and therefore uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly about the municipal level, and so the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly from municipality for the next.

* The Arizona law gives a broader spectrum of people who are considered a ""physician"" for that purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only medical professionals and osteopaths are believed to get physicians. In Arizona, along with medical doctors and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths is likewise permitted to prescribe medicinal marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in place of by using a medical marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may grow marijuana or designate another individual for this in lieu of traversing to a dispensary about the condition that there's no dispensary operating within 25 miles from the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

#CBD #cannabis #cannabidiol

0 notes

ricardoiazu757-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Use Medical Marijuana

"I couldn't survive a great attorney unless I prefaced this information by disclaimers:

1) Marijuana remains a controlled schedule I substance and is illegal in the eyes in the Federal Government in the United States;

2) This article is to not be construed as legal services, nor is supposed to take the place of the advice associated with an attorney, and you ought to consult with a lawyer when considering any actions in furtherance of the subject theme of this article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside the State of Arizona. However, it is going to still take the time before medical cannabis is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline to the drafting of the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important cycles that ought to be paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft of the medical marijuana rules should be released and made intended for reply to this date.

January 7, 2011: This is going to be the deadline for public touch upon the first draft of rules mentioned above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft with the rules will likely be released with this date. Once again, it's going to be designed for informal comment as within the draft referred to above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will probably be held in regards to the proposed rules currently, after which it the final rules will probably be published to the Secretary of State making it public on the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules goes into effect and turn into published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is very important that at all times throughout the consultation process, your customers submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests contrary to that relating to medicinal marijuana advocates are often making presentations, and could convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or people that may qualify to get into it when there is no voice to advocate for patients' rights.

Some outline about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medical cannabis for their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is not defined in a way restricted to normal medical professionals. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana for patients.

-In order being prescribed medical marijuana, a person must be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is described as someone who has been diagnosed with a ""physician"" (as defined above) as developing a ""debilitating problem.""

-Debilitating medical conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or perhaps the treatments for these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or condition or its treatment that creates more than one in the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those sign of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical condition or its treatment added through the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined since it is important in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for the public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to add conditions under it, bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to acquire to improve any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments may be exercised in the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore crucial that, inside event that adding medical conditions is recognized as in the consultations, any stakeholder who wants for a medical problem unlisted inside initial two bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for the Department to include the additional condition towards the listing of debilitating medical conditions. In order to raise the prestige from a presentations designed to justify adding health concerns under Section 36-2801.01, it may be helpful to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical doctors that can testify on paper at the population hearings about why the proposed condition should be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both in the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment to the proposed condition could possibly be helpful, as would medical journals on the subject.

It needs to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos in regards to the medical cannabis rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition towards the passing of Proposition 203. He managed it for the grounds how the FDA won't test the drug, although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should 't be used being an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to believe that Director Humble will probably be any less inclined to obstruct using medical cannabis in the rulemaking stage, and proponents of medical marijuana needs to be likely to make their voices heard in the consultations in order to avoid the obstruction in the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also another provisions in Proposition 203 which will likely be discussed in the initial rulemaking process, and they're going to apt to be the target from the consultations. The consultations can provide rules:

* Governing the manner the location where the Department of Health Services encourage the petitions from people mentioned earlier on, regarding incorporating medical conditions for the list in the already enshrined debilitating health concerns.

* Establishing the design and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medicinal marijuana law.

* Governing the way where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical marijuana ID cards.

* Governing the many aspects round the newly legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medicinal marijuana dispensary applications.

The most important part in the consultation period will be in connection with rules governing the establishment and oversight of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to generate the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the effect of decreasing the option of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving inside the tariff of medical marijuana due on the not enough supply. It could simply become expensive to adhere to all in the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medical cannabis dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists having a amount of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules could have a negative effect about the patients this Proposition should really help. The proposed rules never have come out yet, but when they actually do, they ought to be closely scrutinized for the possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries could have on patients.

The other major factor in the rulemaking must do while using fees. The Department will probably be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries in the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides how the fees may well not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying during the public consultation, it will be possible how the actual fees will probably be much less since these are only the utmost that this Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical cannabis users will likely be prohibited in certain situations. Based on cbd products newtown our analysis, somebody might not exactly:

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone you aren't penalize them solely for his or her status as being a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing so would result inside loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions on them as they are a medical marijuana cardholder, unless not doing this would result within the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can always terminate employees in the event the employee is in possessing or impaired by marijuana around the premises of the job or during the hours of employment.

* As a health care bills provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana have to be treated every other medication prescribed by way of a physician.

* Be prevented, as a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time using a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger for the safety from the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are certain prohibitions on discrimination, there are also provisions which permit discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical help programs and health insurers aren't required to reimburse an individual for his or her medical cannabis use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business owners, is necessary to allow medical cannabis on their own premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, but they cannot refuse tenants based on his or her being a cardholder, are permitted in order to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana to the landlord's property).

* Employers are certainly not required to allow cardholders to be within the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although presence of marijuana inside body which is just not of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment doesn't establish being beneath the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the ultimate rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medicinal marijuana dispensaries are not established until April 2011, there are certain requirements which are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead in the time that a final rules come out. These minimal requirements might not exactly be as restrictive as the ultimate requirements which are published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries must be nonprofit. They must have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they want not be considered tax-exempt through the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents from the dispensaries must include provisions to the oversight in the dispensary as well as accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary should have an individual secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized entry to areas containing marijuana.

youtube

* A dispensary mustn't acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose other than providing it right to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana have to take place only in a locked, enclosed facility with a street address provided on the Department of Health Services in the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered using the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from a patient of their caregiver, but only if the patient or caregiver receives no compensation for this.

* No utilization of marijuana is permitted about the property of the dispensary.

* A dispensary is at the mercy of reasonable inspection through the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice of the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is as simple as no means the same as the law in California. There are certainly some differences relating to the two, though in some respects they're comparable. This is a comparative analysis of the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as a practical matter, accommodate broad discretion around the part of an physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits the life from the patient to conduct a number of major life activities as defined from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm towards the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have numerous illnesses that are automatically considered qualifying illnesses to the prescription of medical cannabis. These include, but usually are not tied to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws need the use associated with an identification card by those that have been prescribed medical marijuana, as soon as the cardholders have undergone a basic application process in which the use in the drug may be recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states do not factor in the unusable portion of the marijuana plant in determining the most weight of marijuana that is certainly permissible for possession by a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules have not been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it is going to be regulated for the state level and for that reason uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly for the municipal level, and therefore the rules around dispensaries may differ greatly from one municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law provides a broader spectrum of people which are considered a ""physician"" for that purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only physicians and osteopaths are considered to become physicians. In Arizona, together with medical doctors and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths may also be able to prescribe medicinal marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in lieu of utilizing a medical cannabis dispensary. In Arizona, patients may grow marijuana or designate somebody else for this instead of going to a dispensary around the condition there's no dispensary operating within 25 miles of the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is just 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

#CBD #cannabis #cannabidiol

0 notes

johnathanjcwi365 · 5 years ago

Text

Colorado Medical Cannabis Dispensaries

"I would not be a great attorney unless I prefaced this article with a few disclaimers:

1) Marijuana remains a controlled schedule I cbd products newtown substance and it is illegal inside eyes with the Federal Government with the United States;

2) This article is to never be construed as legal counsel, nor is intended to take the place in the advice of the attorney, and you need to talk to legal counsel before thinking about actions in furtherance with the subject theme of this short article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside the State of Arizona. However, it'll still take the time before medical marijuana is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for your drafting of the rules around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, these are the basic important time periods that should be paid close focus on:

December 17, 2010: The first draft of the medical marijuana rules needs to be released and made designed for comment on this date.

January 7, 2011: This will be the deadline for public comment on the first draft of rules stated earlier.

January 31, 2011: The second draft of the rules will likely be released with this date. Once again, it will be available for informal comment as inside draft described above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held about the proposed rules currently, then the final rules is going to be published to the Secretary of State making it public around the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medicinal marijuana rules should go into effect and turn into published inside the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is vital that always through the consultation process, your clients submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests as opposed to those of medical marijuana advocates may also be making presentations, and may convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those that may qualify to get into it if you have no voice to advocate in support of patients' rights.

Some tips about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana for patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is just not defined in such a way limited by normal physicians. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana for patients.

youtube

-In order to get prescribed medicinal marijuana, an individual have to be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient means an agent who has been diagnosed with a ""physician"" (as defined above) as using a ""debilitating condition.""

-Debilitating medical ailments include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or even the management of these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or problem or its treatment that produces a number of in the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those manifestation of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other condition or its treatment added from the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined because it is very important during the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to provide conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to get to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for further treatments could possibly be exercised in the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore important that, within the event that digging in medical conditions is known as during the consultations, any stakeholder wishing for any problem unlisted in the first two bulleted items above to lobby throughout the public consultation periods to the Department to incorporate the extra medical condition to the set of debilitating medical ailments. In order to raise the prestige from a presentations built to justify adding health conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it might be helpful to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed medical doctors who is able to testify in some recoverable format and at the public hearings about why the proposed condition should be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both inside the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment for that proposed condition might be helpful, as would medical journals around the subject.

It ought to be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos concerning the medical marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition for the passing of Proposition 203. He did so about the grounds the FDA doesn't test the drug, and even though the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should stop used being an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to imagine that Director Humble is going to be any less inclined to obstruct the use of medical marijuana in the rulemaking stage, and all sorts of proponents of medical cannabis ought to be guaranteed to make their voices heard in the consultations to prevent the obstruction with the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There is also provisions in Proposition 203 which will probably be discussed through the initial rulemaking process, and they're going to apt to be the main objective with the consultations. The consultations will create rules:

* Governing the way in which the location where the Department of Health Services encourage the petitions from the general public previously mentioned, regarding adding medical conditions to the list of the already enshrined debilitating health conditions.

* Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medical marijuana law.

* Governing the way in which in which the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical cannabis ID cards.

* Governing various aspects round the newly legalized nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medical cannabis dispensary applications.

The most crucial part with the consultation period will likely be regarding the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical cannabis dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to produce the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the result of lowering the option of medical marijuana to patients and driving in the tariff of medical marijuana due for the not enough supply. It could simply become too costly to adhere to all from the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medicinal marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, and maybe pharmacists having a amount of economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules could have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition should really help. The proposed rules have never appear yet, but when they do, they must be closely scrutinized for that possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries probably have on patients.

The other major factor within the rulemaking must do using the fees. The Department is going to be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries in the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides the fees may well not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying throughout the public consultation, it is possible that this actual fees will be much less since these are merely the maximum how the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medicinal marijuana users is going to be prohibited in specific situations. Based on our analysis, a person may well not:

* As a school or landlord, refuse to enroll someone or otherwise not penalize them solely for status being a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not doing this would result within the loss in a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions in it as they are a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not the process would result inside loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers might still terminate employees in the event the employee is within possession of or impaired by marijuana for the premises with the office or in the hours of employment.

* As a health care provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana have to be treated every other medication prescribed by the physician.

* Be prevented, being a cardholder, from having visitation custody or visitation or parenting time which has a minor, unless the cardholder's behavior ""creates an unreasonable danger towards the safety with the minor as established by clear and convincing evidence.""

Although there are certain prohibitions on discrimination, there's also provisions which permit discrimination against medical marijuana cardholders:

* Government medical assistance programs and personal health insurers are not necessary to reimburse an individual for their medicinal marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including businesses, is needed to allow medical marijuana on their premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, although they cannot refuse tenants based on their being a cardholder, are permitted to avoid cardholders from bringing marijuana onto the landlord's property).

* Employers are certainly not required to allow cardholders to get beneath the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although presence of marijuana within the body which is not of an sufficient concentration to cause impairment doesn't establish being under the influence of it.

Rules Related on the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although the ultimate rules around security, recordkeeping, and other requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries are not established until April 2011, there are particular requirements that happen to be enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead of the time that the final rules emerge. These minimal requirements may not be as restrictive as the last requirements which can be published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries must be nonprofit. They must have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they need 't be considered tax-exempt from the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents of the dispensaries must include provisions for your oversight from the dispensary and then for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary should have an individual secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and prevent the theft of marijuana and unauthorized use of areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary should never acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose aside from providing it right to a cardholder in order to a registered caregiver to the cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana will need to take place only in a locked, enclosed facility at a home address provided on the Department of Health Services during the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered with all the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from your patient of their caregiver, but only when the patient or caregiver receives no compensation because of it.

* No usage of marijuana is permitted around the property from the dispensary.

* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection from the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice of the inspection on the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is by no means the same as the law in California. There are certainly some differences between your two, though in certain respects these are comparable. This is a comparative analysis in the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, as a practical matter, accommodate broad discretion on the part of a physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who are suffering from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" may be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits living of the patient to conduct a number of major life activities as defined through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or when not alleviated, will cause serious harm towards the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have a number of illnesses which are automatically considered qualifying illnesses for the prescription of medicinal marijuana. These include, but are not restricted to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require use associated with an identification card by those who have been prescribed medicinal marijuana, after the cardholders have gone through a basic application process when the use in the drug has been recommended by way of a physician.

* Both states tend not to factor inside unusable portion from the marijuana plant in determining the absolute maximum weight of marijuana that is certainly permissible for possession with a cardholder.

Differences:

* Though the rules haven't been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it will be regulated on the state level and thus uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly about the municipal level, and for that reason the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly from one municipality on the next.

* The Arizona law provides a broader spectrum of people who are viewed a ""physician"" for your purpose of prescribing medical marijuana. In California, only medical professionals and osteopaths are thought to get physicians. In Arizona, along with medical doctors and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths will also be permitted to prescribe medical marijuana.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in lieu of utilizing a medicinal marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients might grow marijuana or designate another individual to take action instead of going to a dispensary for the condition that there are no dispensary operating within 25 miles with the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

#CBD #cannabis #cannabidiol

0 notes

trevorgccl718 · 5 years ago

Text

The Results Of Medicines And Medicine On Sex As Well As Libido

"I wouldn't be an excellent attorney unless I prefaced this informative article by disclaimers:

1) Marijuana remains a controlled schedule I substance which is illegal within the eyes of the Federal Government with the United States;

2) This article is never to be construed as legal advice, nor is to take the place with the advice of your attorney, and you need to talk to a lawyer before taking any actions in furtherance of the subject matter of this article. Ok, let's begin.

In the month of November, the State of Arizona passed Proposition 203, which would exempt certain people from controlled substances laws inside State of Arizona. However, it's going to still take the time before medical cannabis is implemented as policy in Arizona. The Arizona Department of Health Services has released a proposed timeline for the drafting of the rules all around the implementation of Proposition 203. So far, fundamental essentials important time periods that should be paid close awareness of:

December 17, 2010: The first draft from the medical cannabis rules needs to be released and made readily available for reply to this date.

January 7, 2011: This is going to be the deadline for public reply to the very first draft of rules mentioned above.

January 31, 2011: The second draft from the rules will likely be released for this date. Once again, it is going to be readily available for informal comment as within the draft known above.

February 21 to March 18, 2011: More formal public hearings will be held regarding the proposed rules currently, and the ultimate rules will likely be published to the Secretary of State making it public on the Office of Administrative Rules website.

April 2011: The medical cannabis rules go into effect and be published within the Arizona Administrative Register.

It is important that constantly during the entire consultation process, interested parties submit briefs and/or make oral presentations when permitted. Groups with interests contrary to those of medical marijuana advocates may also be making presentations, and might convince the State to unnecessarily restrict the substance or those who may qualify to get into it when there is no voice to advocate and only patients' rights.

Some outline about Proposition 203's effects

-Physicians may prescribe medicinal marijuana because of their patients under certain conditions. ""Physician"" is just not defined in a way tied to normal health professionals. Osteopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 17; naturopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 14; and homeopaths licensed under Title 32, Chapter 29 may all be permitted to recommend marijuana for his or her patients.

-In order to be prescribed medical cannabis, a person must be a ""qualifying patient."" A qualifying patient is described as anyone who has been diagnosed with a ""physician"" (as defined above) as using a ""debilitating medical problem.""

-Debilitating health conditions include:

* Cancer, glaucoma, HIV positive status, AIDS, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, or agitation of Alzheimer's disease or perhaps the treatment of these conditions.

* A chronic or debilitating disease or problem or its treatment who makes several with the following: Cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those sign of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

* Any other medical condition or its treatment added through the Department of Health Services pursuant to Section 36-2801.01.

This last qualifying condition is underlined because it is important in the rulemaking process. Although Proposition 203 allows for that public to petition the Department of Health Services to exercise its discretion to incorporate conditions under this section, bureaucracy is notoriously nearly impossible to find to change any law. The initial discretionary rules for additional treatments could possibly be exercised during the public consultations that occur between December and March, though this isn't certain.

It is therefore important that, inside event that adding medical conditions is considered during the consultations, any stakeholder who wishes to get a problem unlisted cbd products newtown inside first couple of bulleted items above to lobby in the public consultation periods for your Department to provide the extra problem to the listing of debilitating medical ailments. In order to improve the prestige from a presentations designed to justify adding health conditions under Section 36-2801.01, it can be beneficial to solicit the testimony of sympathetic Arizona-licensed physicians who is able to testify on paper and at the public hearings about why the proposed condition needs to be added. Documents showing that other jurisdictions, both within the United States and elsewhere, currently use marijuana as a treatment for the proposed condition may be helpful, as would medical journals about the subject.

It must be remembered that despite his cheery YouTube videos in regards to the medicinal marijuana rule drafting process, Director of Health Services Will Humble wrote a submission in opposition on the passing of Proposition 203. He accomplished it around the grounds the FDA does not test the drug, although the federal government's anti-marijuana policy is well-known it should not relied on as an authority for unbiased medical cannabis research. There is no reason to think that Director Humble will be any less inclined to obstruct the use of medicinal marijuana through the rulemaking stage, and all proponents of medicinal marijuana must be certain to make their voices heard in the consultations in order to avoid the obstruction with the intent of Proposition 203.

Extent of Rulemaking during Consultations

There are other provisions in Proposition 203 which will probably be discussed throughout the initial rulemaking process, and they will oftimes be the target with the consultations. The consultations can provide rules:

* Governing the way in which in which the Department of Health Services need the petitions from the population mentioned before, regarding the addition of medical ailments on the list from the already enshrined debilitating health conditions.

* Establishing the form and content of registration and renewal applications submitted under the medicinal marijuana law.

* Governing the manner the location where the Department will consider applications for and renewals of medical marijuana ID cards.

* Governing the many aspects across the newly legalized nonprofit medicinal marijuana dispensaries, including recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements.

* Establishing the fees for patient applications and medicinal marijuana dispensary applications.

The vital part from the consultation period is going to be about the rules governing the establishment and oversight of medical marijuana dispensaries. If interest groups lobby the Department to create the recordkeeping, security, oversight, and also other requirements around dispensaries too restrictive, it is going to have the effects of lowering the availability of medicinal marijuana to patients and driving in the price of medical marijuana due for the lack of supply. It could simply become expensive to adhere to all with the regulations.

During this stage, it is very important that stakeholders-particularly medicinal marijuana dispensaries from out-of-state, as well as perhaps pharmacists with a little economic knowledge-submit briefs explaining why certain proposed rules may have a negative effect for the patients this Proposition really should help. The proposed rules haven't turn out yet, but when they certainly, they needs to be closely scrutinized for the possible negative impact that unnecessarily tough security and recordkeeping on nonprofit dispensaries might have on patients.

The other major factor inside the rulemaking will have to do using the fees. The Department is going to be setting fees for medical cannabis dispensaries through the consultation period. Proposition 203 provides that this fees might not exceed $5,000 per initial application, and $1,000 per renewal. However, with many lobbying during the public consultation, it will be possible that the actual fees will be a lot less because these are merely the absolute maximum that the Department may charge.

Discrimination against Medical Marijuana Users

Under Proposition 203, discrimination against medical marijuana users will likely be prohibited in certain circumstances. Based on our analysis, an individual might not:

* As a school or landlord, don't enroll someone or otherwise penalize them solely for his or her status as a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not doing this would result within the loss of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations.

* As an employer, discriminate against hiring someone, or terminate them or impose any conditions with them since they're a medical cannabis cardholder, unless not this would result within the decrease of a monetary or licensing related benefit under federal law or regulations. Employers can still terminate employees when the employee is possessing or impaired by marijuana for the premises of the office or during the hours of employment.

* As a medical care provider, discriminate against a cardholder, including in matters of organ transplants. Medical marijuana has to be treated as any other medication prescribed by way of a physician.

Although there are specific prohibitions on discrimination, in addition there are provisions which permit discrimination against medical cannabis cardholders:

* Government medical attention programs and private health insurers usually are not needed to reimburse a person for their medicinal marijuana use.

* Nobody who possesses property, including business owners, is forced to allow medical cannabis on the premises (this seemingly includes landlords who, although they cannot refuse tenants based on their as being a cardholder, are permitted to prevent cardholders from bringing marijuana on the landlord's property).

* Employers aren't required to allow cardholders to be under the influence of or ingest marijuana while working, although the presence of marijuana inside body which is just not of your sufficient concentration to cause impairment does not establish being under the influence of it.

Rules Related to the Establishment of Dispensaries

Although a final rules around security, recordkeeping, along with other requirements for medicinal marijuana dispensaries will not be established until April 2011, a number of requirements that are enshrined in Proposition 203 itself and will be known ahead from the time that the ultimate rules appear. These minimal requirements might not be as restrictive as the last requirements that happen to be published in April 2011.

* Medical marijuana dispensaries have to be nonprofit. They have to have bylaws which preserve their nonprofit nature, though they need 't be considered tax-exempt through the IRS, nor must they be incorporated.

* The operating documents in the dispensaries must include provisions for that oversight in the dispensary and for accurate recordkeeping.

* The dispensary have to have a single secure entrance and must implement appropriate security measures to deter and stop the theft of marijuana and unauthorized usage of areas containing marijuana.

* A dispensary should not acquire, possess, cultivate, manufacture, deliver, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense marijuana for just about any purpose besides providing it straight to a cardholder as well as to a registered caregiver for your cardholder.

* All cultivation of marijuana must take place only at the locked, enclosed facility in a home address provided for the Department of Health Services through the application process, and accessible only by dispensary agents registered using the Department.

* A dispensary can buy marijuana from your patient with their caregiver, but only if your patient or caregiver receives no compensation correctly.

* No consumption of marijuana is permitted around the property from the dispensary.

* A dispensary is susceptible to reasonable inspection through the Department of Health Services. The Department must first give reasonable notice in the inspection for the dispensary.

Comparison to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The Arizona law is as simple as no means the same as the law in California. There are certainly some differences involving the two, though in certain respects they may be comparable. This is a comparative analysis from the two laws.

Similarities:

* Both laws, like a practical matter, accommodate broad discretion on the part of your physician to prescribe marijuana to patients who suffer from pain. In the Arizona law, ""severe and chronic pain"" could be the legislated standard. In the California law, any ""chronic or persistent medical symptom"" that substantially limits lifespan of the patient to conduct several major life activities as defined from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm towards the patient's physical or mental safety, qualifies.

* Both laws have many illnesses which can be automatically considered qualifying illnesses to the prescription of medical marijuana. These include, but are certainly not tied to, AIDS, cachexia, cancer, glaucoma, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, and severe nausea.

* Both laws require the use of an identification card by people that have been prescribed medical cannabis, following the cardholders have undergone an initial application process when the use in the drug may be recommended with a physician.

* Both states usually do not factor inside the unusable portion with the marijuana plant in determining the maximum weight of marijuana that is permissible for possession by the cardholder.

Differences:

youtube

* Though the rules have not been finalized, the Arizona law appears as though it will be regulated around the state level and therefore uniform across Arizona. The California law, however, is regulated significantly for the municipal level, and so the rules around dispensaries can differ greatly derived from one of municipality towards the next.

* The Arizona law gives a broader spectrum of people who are considered a ""physician"" to the purpose of prescribing medicinal marijuana. In California, only health professionals and osteopaths are believed to become physicians. In Arizona, along with physicians and osteopaths, naturopaths and homeopaths may also be permitted prescribe medical cannabis.

* In California, patients or their caregivers may grow marijuana plants in place of using a medical marijuana dispensary. In Arizona, patients may only grow marijuana or designate somebody else to do this in place of visiting a dispensary about the condition that there is no dispensary operating within 25 miles from the patient's home.

* The maximum possession limit for marijuana in California is eight ounces per patient, whereas the limit is merely 2.5 ounces per patient in Arizona.

#CBD #cannabis #cannabidiol

0 notes

musicgoonmail · 5 years ago

Text

I Am The Good Shepherd

Know Your Own Context

October is my birthday month, so I am publishing some articles that feel a bit more personal to me. This week I wrote to encourage you to Know Your Own Context. It means to look outside of yourself and see how God has sovereignly arranged your life to make you the person that you are.

Be assured that I do not believe we are simply products of our environment and that people cannot change. But Christians should be aware of the graces that God has given as well as the trials and obstacles he has helped us overcome in this life. It's a perspective that I do not want to lose, and it is good to remember as we hope for the life to come.

SOLA

This week SOLA published my article on 6 Special Challenges for Asian American Worship Teams. This might be what I have been most proud to publish. It is a culmination of my experience as a music leader at FCBC Walnut throughout my life. I hope it reads to show that I am thankful and grateful for the opportunities given to me by my parents, teachers, friends, and church. I pray it encourages current and future leaders to think through issues of Asian American identity, not to divide but to unite us in singing the praise of the grace of God through Christ. Special thanks to those who read and shared! It means a lot to me to have your support.

Interestingly, I originally wrote it as a two-part feature on my blog exactly one year ago. I had no idea or ambition to join SOLA. But once I joined SOLA this year as the assistant digital marketer, editor Hannah Chao started looking through my website. She pitched it to me as a post for this month's SOLA focus on worship, creativity, and art. We went back and forth on the edits for about two weeks to produce the article. But the core of the work was already done a year ago before I even had this audience. As Christian artists, sometimes we have to follow the call to create knowing that God can use things later down the line.

SOLA provides me the opportunity to share a special version of my Thank God It’s Friday link roundups. This week I featured my friend Charlene Hao’s blog post on 5 Prayers for My Best Friend. You can find her post and more on my column for this week. If you ever have something to share, you can reach me directly by responding to this email.

Book Reviews

I am reviewing one book from Tim Challies' Cruciform Press every week in October. This week I reviewed The Joy Project by Tony Reinke. This book was released in conjunction with DesiringGod and I am happy to partner with them in this way. It's always exciting when I get to read and review for some of my favorite ministries.

The books seemed to be front-loaded this fall so I've been reading and writing this entire month. There are several that have needed more time from me. The first is a series of five books by John Stott on God's Word for Today. The second is a set of commentaries on Genesis. The third is a collection of reader's versions of The Gospels. These are all quality resources so I want to make sure I read and review them well!

Coming Soon

I will be leading music this Sunday at FCBC Walnut. I caught a cold so I would appreciate your prayers! We'll be singing Anchored, Trust In Him At All Times, Still My Soul Be Still, Psalm 23 (Surely Goodness, Surely Mercy), and Yet Not I But Through Christ In Me. Violinist Aaron Ma recently shared on his website about how he composed the arrangement for Anchored. It’s a very niche read but gives you a beautiful look behind-the-scenes.

Phillip Zachariah and Jenn Low's 3-song music project drops for free on October 31 and will be titled "My King Has Crushed The Curse Of Death." I am putting the finishing touches on the master tracks and finalizing my plan to release it. Next week I will share it on my blog, but here is the early and unlisted teaser trailer for my newsletter readers.

My feature article next will be How God Used My Time When I Was Growing Up. My book review next week will be JOY! A Bible Study on Philippians for Women. I think I have another article to be published for SOLA early next week: 10 Pieces of Advice for Christian Artists.

Weekly Review

SOLA: Why Minority Churches Matter in the Multiethnic Church Discussion, At Hong Kong Protests - Art That Imitates Life, 5 Prayers for My Best Friend, 5 Myths about Teaching Theology to Youth, and Discipling Asian American Millennials.

Thank God It's Friday: Taylor Swift Performs for NPR Tiny Desk, Won Kwak on New Christians & Their Churches, Everything Coming to Disney+ at Launch Teased in 197-Minute Video, and The Showdown Between the NBA and China: Why Are American Corporations Abandoning Conscience When It Comes to China?

SOLA: 6 Special Challenges for Asian American Worship Teams

Book Review: The Joy Project

Feature Article: Know Your Own Context

Recommended Reading: Why (More Than Ever Before) You Need to Read Deeply, Seeing By Light: Redeeming Beauty to God’s Standards, At Hong Kong Protests - Art That Imitates Life, and How Coachella ’99 Lost a Million Dollars and Started an Empire.

0 notes

garlandg0941451-blog · 7 years ago

Text

My Career: How 7 Simple Gratis Sexcam Helped Me Succeed

Go to any web browser and enter www.yahoo.com. You possibly can install Yahoo Bookmark as a toolbar in your browser however you will not be capable of access your bookmarks anyplace you want until you've gotten your portable purposes. Do you have to not want to re-install from your iTunes bank account, you will discover a strategy to keep away from that. Outside of the ship rating, there's a few different stuff you need to track it. You can not handle what you can't monitor. It's because Yahoo is not in a position to tell that you are the respectable owner. If by yourself do a Yahoo seem for net site designers youll comprehend that the greater a part of skilled services present up their companies at astonishingly substantial worth ranges. So how are you going to present them 7 exposures when most of your web site visitors will come to your site solely once? This publish offers amongst the best recommendations on Search engine optimisation and the way you should utilize it to maximize your web site and increase targeted visitors.

It provides you with good amount of security, however would not have the very best spam filtering service. Do by yourself have to have the tone conveyed in the course of your reader in the course of be official or on a regular basis, useful or extreme, experienced or playful? Consequently, in the direction of get hold of absent versus destruction’s path permits transfer all via some little or no components why oneself ought to choose Linux world huge web website hosting. As a substitute, established the safe to hold its orientation. Here are a few of the explanations that you just can't open your Yahoo Mail and ways how to address them. Did you know that Yahoo Answers is the second largest resource webpage behind Wikipedia? And it is simple to configure Outlook 2010 for Yahoo, if you already know how one can deal with a couple of particulars. You realize that email marketing is de facto taking off and is being utilized by a few of essentially the most successful advertising and marketing gurus and business homeowners round.

His articles carry on being revealed on the totally different sites. ARPANET was the 1st emailing methodology of the surroundings it was constructed for inside messaging plan of action of the armed forces workplace of US. This technique may be helpful if you can't get forwarding to work correctly. The core group might have gone through; the general public half positively has not. Google currently has. Typically the S&P 500 likes to have four public quarters of earnings earlier than a company is added. Tony: Now we have 4 different banks, you have a 100 million, and the contract restrict is 20 million. For many people, we have now multiple email accounts, which implies that we must examine them multiple times each day- particularly if most of our business is carried out online. I've been using Gmail accounts, including ones related to Outlook, for years now, with no vital points at all.

The service is supported by advertisements, but when you use the Gmail Outlook connection, you'll never even see any adverts. Additionally, once you’ve seen the video you’ll see there is more to notifications than meets the eye. I used to be stunned to see the submit and it seems very interesting. There is a difference between spam and genuinely decent product gives. It presents enough area so that you can retailer your email attachments and larger files. Don't worry. Here is a free Outlook help information for you that can assist you easily arrange your Frontier email. MSN Messenger Password Recovery is a freeware which lets you quickly shield or retrieve your Hotmail email id password. Whether or not or not inside a retail establishment or upon the mesh, the ultimate of the transaction is our backside line issue. Situations for example group ("net") neutrality, grew to become contested spots of regulation contained in the Us. The Google section consists of its predominant Web products resembling Search, Advertisements, Commerce, Maps, YouTube, Apps, Cloud, Android, Chrome, Google Play in addition to hardware products, akin to Chromecast, Chromebooks and Nexus. Just in case you or your staff are in poor health, on trip and even someone depart on the online enterprise, QuickBooks World broad net world-huge-web web internet hosting help permit your accounting help and advice to stay current.

Place the following suggestions and assistance with along with your apple ipad tablet to great use and be taught precisely how wonderful it is actually! Answers is an excellent place to start. Just about none of them had been profitable, in keeping with an individual with information of their finances, who spoke on situation of anonymity as a result of the company considers that information to be confidential. This is an internet device that can assist you to set up your list. Or putting links on some other web sites, or article directories, to get some extra exposure to your web sites? It's steered you customize your group and make it unlisted where individuals can only be a part of together with your approval. You'll be able to all the time experiment with different concepts that are associated to what you are doing together with your web site or blog. There aren't any laborious and quick rules. Case-delicate passwords are sometimes entered incorrectly on account of key stroke sensitivity. All potential get-togethers, irrespective of whether or not they really are a get together in the direction of lawsuit, are influenced.

0 notes

crookedcollectorobservation-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Some Popular Toys For Boys.

Timber reducing boards are precise heaven for kitchen area individuals. You as a HR executive will certainly form the essential web link between staff members of the business as well as a business management itself. Each gamer arises among them bingo cards, as well as the objective with the general video game is always to mark off a row, column or diagonal of squares (in specific versions, the target would be to obtain multiple lines, an additional square, along with obtain all squares marked off). The tablet computer is simply one board which can be used on hand straight; note pad has to be utilized by resting which considerably restricts the relevant occasions, and the note pad is preferable for utilizing on the desktop in the room. Computer science is a branch which handles the procedure of computers and its application in different fields. That's undoubtedly a various technique from the existing Settlers of Catan applications for Android and iphone, which are obviously booked for people using those systems. Now, with each turn you could removal any personality up one, as well as just one, flooring. I like this function currently, yet below's the important things: I have every one of two films in my Video clips application so obtaining gamers like Netflix as well as YouTube on board with picture-in-picture would certainly be a substantial win for individuals with suitable iPads. Both players track the movements and also challenges of their opponents on one copy of the map, while keeping an eye on their own movements on another. Cornhole, which happens to be growing in appeal not just in the united states, however throughout the world is rapidly becoming a have to have video game. For the objectives of this review however, I'll presume the ones checking into playing RUIN: The Parlor game are playing as a result of their rate of interest in the computer game series. As an example: Lose a Turn, you get caught offering someone a fake contact number" or Removal in reverse 2 spaces, Jerry makes you give back the $20,000 Person Fund contribution". The application has actually expanded from simply plain upc code reading of items offered on the shelves of supermarkets however also monitoring of employees in an office specified by its individuals. You have wooden dices, white for Study & Growth (R&D), black for losses, round white for promotion, round grey sale signs, 2 turn pens, as well as 2 rounded flat markers for each and every of the 5 gamers to keep track of their present player position and also if they have any lendings. Likewise, and this may be simply me, however if as a customer you do agree to examine the video game, it's most likely a smart idea to do an unlisted version of the video clip initially (or send a written copy) as well as let the publisher/designer see it. They could capture anything incorrectly laid or said out as well as it will again, go light years ahead with the partnership thing.

We likewise started demoing games that were sent out to us at our regional video game store and also we began uploading every one of our testimonials to a soundcloud page for included, expanded benefit. Visit this site to check out directions on ways to disable your advertisement blocker, as well as aid us to maintain providing you with free-thinking journalism - absolutely free. more info Their choices are based on a myriad of elements, most of which most businesses do not gauge and check. If you count a lot of your collaborate with your computer system, then it has to be functioning to its complete capability. Instead, examine the evaluations of the business online and ask for a couple of recommendations. In the business environment that is present, no service might be pleased regarding exactly how they do and also special attention to employing ideal small company procedure management technique is vital for a business. Johnson & Johnson, the mother business of the DePuy Orthopaedics, has provided word that it will certainly not succumb to the decision of the Los Angeles jury, proclaiming it aims to appeal and also stand firm that they really did not distribute a damaged ASR Hip System between 2005 and 2010.

0 notes

thenewsrabbit-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Comcast Corporation Prevails with Highest Offer Price in Auction for Sky plc

Check out the latest post http://thenewsrabbit.com/comcast-corporation-prevails-with-highest-offer-price-in-auction-for-sky-plc/

LONDON & PHILADELPHIA–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA) today published an announcement that Comcast has prevailed with the highest offer price in the auction to acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Sky plc (“Sky”) with an offer price of £17.28 per Sky share (the “UK Auction Results Announcement”). This implies a value of $40.0 billion (£30.6 billion) for the fully diluted share capital of Sky. Today’s announcement ends the competitive bidding process for Sky.

Comcast Chairman and CEO Brian L. Roberts said: “This is a great day for Comcast. Sky is a wonderful company with a great platform, tremendous brand, and accomplished management team. This acquisition will allow us to quickly, efficiently and meaningfully increase our customer base and expand internationally. We couldn’t be more excited by the opportunities in front of us. We now encourage Sky shareholders to accept our offer, which we look forward to completing before the end of October 2018.”

Sky shareholders who are institutional investors outside the United States interested in selling their Sky shares to Comcast should contact BofA Merrill Lynch Corporate Broking at +44 20 7995 2794 or [email protected].

This press release should be read in conjunction with the UK Auction Results Announcement, which is available on Comcast’s website at www.cmcsa.com/proposal-for-sky. The acquisition is being implemented by Comcast Bidco Limited, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast.

About Comcast Corporation

Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA) is a global media and technology company with two primary businesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. Comcast Cable is one of the nation’s largest video, high-speed internet, and phone providers to residential customers under the XFINITY brand, and also provides these services to businesses. It also provides wireless and security and automation services to residential customers under the XFINITY brand. NBCUniversal operates news, entertainment and sports cable networks, the NBC and Telemundo broadcast networks, television production operations, television station groups, Universal Pictures and Universal Parks and Resorts. Visit www.comcastcorporation.com for more information.

NOT FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION OR DISTRIBUTION, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN, INTO OR FROM ANY JURISDICTION WHERE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE RELEVANT LAWS OF SUCH JURISDICTION

Further information

This announcement is for information purposes only and is not intended to, and does not, constitute or form part of any offer or invitation, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase, otherwise acquire, subscribe for, sell or otherwise dispose of, any securities or the solicitation of any vote or approval in any jurisdiction pursuant to the proposed acquisition by Comcast Bidco Limited, an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Comcast (“Comcast Bidco”), of the entire issued and to be issued share capital of Sky (the “Acquisition”) or otherwise, nor shall there be any sale, issuance or transfer of securities of Sky in any jurisdiction in contravention of applicable law. The Acquisition (if implemented pursuant to a takeover offer within the meaning of Part 28 of the Companies Act 2006) will be implemented solely pursuant to the terms of the offer document and the accompanying form of acceptance (or any revision of such documents), which contain the full terms and conditions of the Acquisition, including details of how to accept the offer. Any decision in respect of, or other response to, the Acquisition should be made only on the basis of the information contained in the offer document and the form of acceptance (or any revision of such documents). Sky shareholders are advised to read the formal documentation in relation to the Acquisition carefully. Each Sky shareholder is urged to consult his or her independent professional adviser regarding the tax consequences of the Acquisition.

This announcement does not constitute a prospectus or prospectus equivalent document.

Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

This announcement contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This announcement (including information incorporated by reference in this announcement), oral statements made regarding the Acquisition, and other information published by Comcast and/or Comcast Bidco contain statements which are, or may be deemed to be, “forward-looking statements”. Forward-looking statements are prospective in nature and are not based on historical facts, but rather on current expectations and projections of the management of Comcast about future events, and are therefore subject to risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ materially from the future results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements contained in this announcement include statements relating to the expected effects or synergies of the Acquisition on Comcast, Comcast Bidco and Sky, the expected timing and scope of the Acquisition and other statements other than historical facts. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “is subject to”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate”, or “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “should”, “would”, “might” or “will” be taken, occur or be achieved. Although Comcast and Comcast Bidco believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, Comcast and Comcast Bidco can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. By their nature, forward- looking statements involve risk and uncertainty because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that will occur in the future. There are a number of factors that could cause actual results and developments to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward- looking statements. In addition to the information regarding these risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors set forth in the public filings made by Sky and the public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission made by Comcast, important risk factors that may cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, (i) the completion of the Acquisition on anticipated terms and timing, (ii) the ability of Sky and Comcast to integrate the businesses successfully and to achieve anticipated synergies or benefits, (iii) the risk that disruptions from the Acquisition will harm Sky’s or Comcast’s businesses, (iv) legislative, regulatory and economic developments and (v) unpredictability and severity of catastrophic events, including, but not limited to, acts of terrorism or outbreak of war or hostilities. While the list of factors presented here is considered representative, no such list should be considered to be a complete statement of all potential risks and uncertainties. Unlisted factors may present significant additional obstacles to the realization of forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements should therefore be construed in the light of such factors.

None of Comcast, Comcast Bidco, or any of their associates or directors, officers or advisors, provides any representation, assurance or guarantee that the occurrence of the events expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements in this announcement will actually occur. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Other than in accordance with its legal or regulatory obligations, neither Comcast nor Comcast Bidco is under any obligation, and Comcast and Comcast Bidco expressly disclaim any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

No profit forecast or estimates

No statement in this announcement is intended as a profit forecast or profit estimate for any period. No statement in this announcement should be interpreted to mean that cash flow from operations, free cash flow, earnings or earnings per share for Comcast, Comcast Bidco or Sky, as appropriate, for the current or future financial years would necessarily match or exceed the historical published cash flow from operations, free cash flow, earnings or earnings per share for Comcast, Comcast Bidco or Sky, as appropriate.

Overseas jurisdictions

The release, publication or distribution of this announcement in jurisdictions other than the United Kingdom may be restricted by law and therefore any persons who are subject to the laws of any jurisdiction other than the United Kingdom should inform themselves about, and observe, any applicable requirements. In particular, the ability of persons who are not resident in the United Kingdom to accept the offer, or to execute and deliver the form of acceptance, may be affected by the laws of the relevant jurisdictions in which they are located. Sky shareholders who are in any doubt regarding such matters should consult an appropriate independent advisor in the relevant jurisdiction without delay. Any failure to comply with such restrictions may constitute a violation of the securities laws of any such jurisdiction.

This announcement has been prepared for the purpose of complying with English law and the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the “City Code”) and the information disclosed may not be the same as that which would have been disclosed if this announcement had been prepared in accordance with the laws of jurisdictions outside of England.

Unless otherwise determined by Comcast Bidco or required by the City Code, and permitted by applicable law and regulation, the offer will not be made available, directly or indirectly, in, into or from a restricted jurisdiction where to do so would violate the laws of that jurisdiction and no person may accept the offer by any use, means, instrumentality (including, but not limited to, facsimile, e-mail or other electronic transmission, telex or telephone) of interstate or foreign commerce of, or of any facility of a national, state or other securities exchange of any restricted jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction where to do so would constitute a violation of the laws of that jurisdiction and the offer may not be capable of acceptance by any such use, means, instrumentality or facilities. Accordingly, copies of this announcement and any formal documentation relating to the Acquisition are not being, and must not be, directly or indirectly, mailed or otherwise forwarded, distributed or sent in or into or from any restricted jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction where to do so would constitute a violation of the laws of that jurisdiction and persons receiving such documents (including custodians, nominees and trustees) must not mail or otherwise forward, distribute or send them in or into or from any restricted jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction where to do so would constitute a violation of the laws of that jurisdiction.

Further details in relation to Sky shareholders in overseas jurisdictions are contained in the offer document.

Important information for U.S. shareholders and Sky ADR holders

Sky is a public limited company incorporated in England. The offer is being made to Sky shareholders in the United States in compliance with the applicable U.S. tender offer rules under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “U.S. Exchange Act”), including Regulation 14E thereunder taking into account no action relief and exemptive relief granted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and otherwise in accordance with the requirements of English law. Accordingly, the offer is subject to disclosure and other procedural requirements, including with respect to withdrawal rights, the offer timetable, settlement procedures and timing of payments that are different from those applicable under U.S. domestic tender offer law and practice. Sky’s financial information, including any included in the offer documentation, will not have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, or derived therefrom, and may therefore differ from, and not be comparable with, financial information of U.S. companies.

Comcast and/or Comcast Bidco and their affiliates or brokers (acting as agents for Comcast and/or Comcast Bidco and their affiliates, as applicable) may from time to time, and other than pursuant to the offer, directly or indirectly, purchase, or arrange to purchase outside the United States, shares in Sky or any securities that are convertible into, exchangeable for or exercisable for such shares before or during the period in which the offer remains open for acceptance, to the extent permitted by, and in compliance with, exemptive relief granted by the SEC from Rule 14e-5 under the U.S. Exchange Act and in compliance with the City Code. As noted above, Comcast or its affiliates and brokers intend to purchase Sky shares outside the offer from shareholders outside the United States. These purchases may occur either in the open market at prevailing prices or in private transactions at negotiated prices. Information about any such purchases or arrangements to purchase that is made public in accordance with English law and practice will be available to all investors (including in the United States) via the Regulatory News Service on www.londonstockexchange.com.

In relation to Comcast’s intention to buy Sky shares in the market outside the offer, Comcast and its affiliates and brokers cannot purchase Sky shares from Sky shareholders incorporated or located in the United States or where the Sky shares would be sold from the United States. Any purchases will be made to the extent permitted by, and in compliance with, the exemptive relief granted by the SEC from Rule 14e-5 under the U.S. Exchange Act and in compliance with the City Code.

The offer, if consummated, may have consequences under U.S. federal income tax and applicable U.S. state and local, as well as non-U.S., tax laws for Sky shareholders and Sky ADR holders. Each Sky shareholder and Sky ADR holder is urged to consult his or her independent professional advisor regarding the tax consequences of the offer.

It may not be possible for Sky shareholders or Sky ADR holders in the United States to effect service of process within the United States upon Sky or Comcast Bidco (each a company incorporated in England), or their respective officers or directors, some or all of which may reside outside the United States, or to enforce against any of them judgments of the United States courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of the federal securities laws of the United States or other U.S. law. It may not be possible to bring an action against Sky or Comcast Bidco, or their respective officers or directors, in a non-U.S. court for violations of U.S. law, including the U.S. securities laws. There is also substantial doubt as to enforceability in the United Kingdom in original actions, or in actions for the enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, based on civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws.

Disclosure requirements of the City Code

Under Rule 8.3(a) of the City Code, any person who is interested in one percent or more of any class of relevant securities of an offeree company or of any securities exchange offeror (being any offeror other than an offeror in respect of which it has been announced that its offer is, or is likely to be, solely in cash) must make an Opening Position Disclosure following the commencement of the offer period and, if later, following the announcement in which any securities exchange offeror is first identified.

An Opening Position Disclosure must contain details of the person’s interests and short positions in, and rights to subscribe for, any relevant securities of each of (i) the offeree company and (ii) any securities exchange offeror(s). An Opening Position Disclosure by a person to whom Rule 8.3(a) applies must be made by no later than 3.30 p.m. (London time) on the 10th business day following the commencement of the offer period and, if appropriate, by no later than 3.30 p.m. (London time) on the 10th business day following the announcement in which any securities exchange offeror is first identified. Relevant persons who deal in the relevant securities of the offeree company or of a securities exchange offeror prior to midnight on the day before the deadline for making an Opening Position Disclosure must instead make a Dealing Disclosure.

Under Rule 8.3(b) of the City Code, any person who is, or becomes, interested in one percent or more of any class of relevant securities of the offeree company or of any securities exchange offeror must make a Dealing Disclosure if the person deals in any relevant securities of the offeree company or of any securities exchange offeror. A Dealing Disclosure must contain details of the dealing concerned and of the person’s interests and short positions in, and rights to subscribe for, any relevant securities of each of (i) the offeree company and (ii) any securities exchange offeror, save to the extent that these details have previously been disclosed under Rule 8. A Dealing Disclosure by a person to whom Rule 8.3(b) applies must be made by no later than 3.30 p.m. (London time) on the business day following the date of the relevant dealing.

If two or more persons act together pursuant to an agreement or understanding, whether formal or informal, to acquire or control an interest in relevant securities of an offeree company or a securities exchange offeror, they will be deemed to be a single person for the purpose of Rule 8.3.

Opening Position Disclosures must also be made by the offeree company and by any offeror and Dealing Disclosures must also be made by the offeree company, by any offeror and by any persons acting in concert with any of them (see Rules 8.1, 8.2 and 8.4).

Details of the offeree and offeror companies in respect of whose relevant securities Opening Position Disclosures and Dealing Disclosures must be made can be found in the Disclosure Table on the Takeover Panel’s website at www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk, including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. If you are in any doubt as to whether you are required to make an Opening Position Disclosure or a Dealing Disclosure, you should contact the Takeover Panel’s Market Surveillance Unit on +44 (0) 20 7638 0129.

For the purposes of this section of this announcement, “business day” means a day on which the London Stock Exchange is open for the transaction of business.

#Business #News #Science & Technology

0 notes