A friend of mine owns and operates a number of websites – all of which run on ASP/.NET/MS-SQL servers. He knows what he’s talking about, but he’s fairly dismissive of WordPress, PHP, and MySQL.
All this time I’ve been raving about WordPress, telling him that you can basically do anything with it. I’ve mentioned how easy it is to use, how easy it is to maintain, its open source, how many global corporations use WordPress to build their websites, how its the tool of choice for so many designers, and how huge the WordPress community is.
In the meantime, he’s referring to his millions of rows in his “real-SQL, MicroSoft SQL” database. I believe he’s been stuck thinking of PHP and MySQL as “kiddie” stuff, just not ready for big time.
That is, he’s been dismissive of WordPress until about two months ago. In the last two months other people (SEO consultants, professional designers) have been raving about WordPress to him too.
So, here’s the deal: I want to build the absolute most comprehensive suite of calculators and tools for workers’ compensation professionals. ((Why? Some people have wacky hobbies. Maybe you build hockey arenas out of toothpicks. I build workers’ compensation calculators and give them away for free. If it will put you at ease, I hope to make money from advertising in the future.)) I also want your help to making them better.
Is it possible to get an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment above 100%?
I believe it mightbe theoretically possible to achieve an adjusted whole person impairment above 100% using the Ogilvie DFEC formula. I could easily include a small variation on the calculation that would prevent it from exceeding 100, but I have not done so because I wanted to replicate the the formulas set forth in Ogilvie as exactly as possible.
Why can’t I use post-injury earnings of $0.00? What if they have no earnings at all?
That’s an extremely valid point. If you try to use a post-injury earnings of “zero”, it will cause division by “zero” which is not a mathematically legal operation. Try post-injury earnings of $1.00 or $0.01. Doing so will give you an answer VERY close to what you need. ((I know it has a less than friendly error message about this. I’ll see what I can do about fixing that.))
The WCAB en banc in Ogilvie rounds to three decimal places at one step and to four decimal places at a second step. The only way we know what they actually did is by extrapolating from the examples in the decision – they never actually state “round to four significant digits here, round to three significant digits there.” I have rounded exactly as they did in their examples.
At the end of the day, there are two ways to perform the Ogilvie DFEC calculation: the exact way the WCAB did it (sometimes four, sometimes three decimal places) and the way they probably intended to do it (four decimal places until the end). I made the judgment call to use the formula as they performed it, warts and all.
Why did I choose to round as the WCAB did? I think it is more defensible to calculate exactly as the Board did, rather than as I think the Board should have calculated.
How do you put the Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impairment into the rating calculator?
At this point, you can’t use a different FEC Rank or an Ogilvie DFEC adjustment factor in the 2005 PDRS rating calculator on this site. In order to accomodate this, I would need to either rewrite the entire calculator or write a new calculator. One other possibility is that I could modify the Ogilvie DFEC calculation to provide one extra line of information – where it “runs the FEC numbers backwards.”
Let’s take this example: Suppose the body part FEC rank is 1 and whole person impairment is 10. The normal FEC adjusted whole person impairment would be 11. Let’s suppose after applying the Ogilvie DFEC formula it turns out you should have an FEC rank of 8 instead. This would give you an Ogilvie DFEC adjusted whole person impariment of 14%. I could write a modification of the current Ogilvie DFEC calculator to put 14% into the FEC Rank chart and look up what whole person impairment you would need with an FEC rank of 1 to arrive at 14%. Would you find this a helpful interim fix? Please let me know by sending me an e-mail.
Jay, why in the world did the Ogilvie DFEC calculator reference “standard disability”? Shouldn’t it say “whole person impairment”?
You’re totally correct. I’ve fixed this. Mea culpa.
Here’s my request for your help. In order to make an Ogilvie calculation valid, you need to put in valid post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees. The WCAB in Ogilvie suggests several possible sources: ((I’ve copied the links directly from Ray Frost‘s Ogilvie spreadsheet/calculator. Ray has been kind enough to allow me the use of his extensive work restrictions lists. So, thanks Ray!))
What do you use for post-injury earnings of similarly situated employees? If I had a better idea where people were looking it is possible that I might be able to automate the inclusion of this informaiton as well. Please drop me a line and let me know. If there is a general consensus, I’ll look into the possiblity of having this informaiton automatically imported from an external website.
The reason I’m considering the 4GB version where I was dismissing the 8GB version before is the incredible price and the purposes to which such a laptop would be put. In order to do about 98% of what I need with a laptop, I could easily use a netbook. On any given day I use:
Firefox for web browsing
Thunderbird for e-mail
Pidgin for instant messaging
FileZilla for FTP transfers
Notepad++ for programming/text editing
OpenOffice for word processing, spreadsheets
TightVNC for remote access
All of these programs are open source software and available for Ubuntu ((An easy-to-use Liniux installation.)) and Windows. So, in shopping for a laptop, I really don’t care about which operating system I use. The 4GB Dell Mini 9 with Ubuntu could do all of these things – and for a $199 price tag. Plus, with the Mini’s SD card slot, I could pop in an extra 16GB of memory for only $26.
SPOILER warning: This post discusses every big reveal from series finale
Battlestar Galactica: The Finale
If you’re a fan of Battlestar Galactica like myself, you may have watched the finale on Friday night and thought, “What the hell?” This show has introduced so much character development, conflict, and drama over four years that it is honestly difficult to tell whether I’m disappointed the series is ending or disappointed with the series’ ending. ((Photo by way of “diverse distinctive dave’s” blog)) They wrapped up most of the big questions and left a lot unanswered. Without further ado, I present you with the answers to all the outstanding questions gleaned from the post-finale press conference:
What’s the deal with the Battlestar Galactica “Final Supper” picture? Red Herringe?
Its an unintentional red herring. ((Photo courtesy of stridli. Editing, all me!)) basically has nothing to do with the show’s plot. It was a photo op someone thought would be cool. ((And, they were right.)) The writers had nothing to do with the photo setup, so don’t read anything into it.
What’s the deal with the “Cylon god”?
We don’t know. The “Cylon god” is not necessarily the same “god” referred to by the imaginary Baltar and Six. We probably won’t know for sure about the “Cylon god” until “Battlestar Galactica: The Plan” comes out in Fall 2009.
What’s the deal with imaginary Baltar and Six and the real Baltar and Caprica Six?
The imaginary Baltar and Six are agents of “god” that apparently only manifest to the real Baltar and Caprica Six. They are neither good nor bad, neither angels nor demons. The “god” the imaginary Baltar and Caprica Six serve is something akin to the collective unconscious underlying the universe. Their sole mission was to ensure the real Baltar and Caprica Six survive to deliver Hera to the CIC on the Galactica. The real Baltar and Caprica Six come to believe in the god described by their imaginary counterparts. This belief enables Baltar (a true cynic) to deliver his speach to Cavil and almost broker peace between the Cylons and humans and break the cycle of violence.
What’s the deal with the opera house dreams?
Four people (9Sharon “Athena” Agathon – a Cylon 8 model, President Laura Roslin, Dr. Gaius Baltar, and Caprica Six)) shared the opera house dream. This dream was meant to guide each of these people to the CIC on the Galactica at the end of the confrontation between the humans and Cylons.
What’s the deal with Kara Thrace/Starbuck?
Who the frak knows. While we don’t know how she was brought back to life, we do know why she was brought back. We also have no idea where she went or how she just disappeared. She was brought back from the dead for the purpose of entering the numeric equivalent of “All Along the Watchtower” into the FTL drive. Starbuck, her father, and Hera all tapped into something eternal and fundamental underlying the entire universe in order to hear/play this song.
What’s the deal with Daniel? Was Daniel the father of Kara Thrace/Starbuck?
Red Herring
He was an unintentional red herring. He was meant to be a “Cain and Abel” back story for Cavil to show he was a right bastard – nothing more. While there are certain pieces which support this theory, he was never meant to be Starbuck’s dad. The “Daniel” model Cylon would have been permanently destroyed long before Starbuck was ever born.
What happened to the Cylons in the base near the black hole?
After Racetrack’s Viper was knocked around, it accidentally nuked the Cylon baseship. After the battle and after the Galactica jumped away, it lost its stable orbit at the edge of the black hole and was pulled in.
What’s the deal with the various prophecies, the mandala/nebula/nova in Starbuck’s drawings, and “All Along the Watchtower”?
“Everything has happened before and will happen again.” The cycle of humans, humans building Cylons, Cylons evolving, human-Cylon violence, has occurred for thousands of years and will occur again. During these cycles certain people (Starbuck, Starbuck’s father, prophets, those who see the opera house dreams, etc) all tap into the collective unconscious underlying the universe. This allows Starbuck’s father to compose “All Along the Watchtower,” Hera to paint the musical notes for it, the song to be the key to unlock the final five, and the song to be the numerical equivalent of the way to our Earth. 150,000 years after everything in this series, humankind has again evolved to the point of embracing technology. This would allow the new BSG series to serve as a background and origin story for the original BSG series.
Tuesday I tried to submit settlement documents for a walk-through in Oakland. ((Photo courtesy of racatumba.)) I had prepared the document cover sheet, minutes of hearing, and had everything ready to go. As per procedure, I left the packet with the court clerk and came back about half an hour later.
When I returned the settlement documents were still on the counter, but without any indication of which judge I would be seeking approval from. I was told that the documents had already been signed by the day’s walk-through judge.
That’s when the fun started.
The computer told the clerk that the original documents in front of us had the judge’s signature and that the judge had the file. The documents clearly did not have the judge’s signature. However, since EAMS believed the documents were already approved, it felt (?) I shouldn’t be given the opportunity to walk the documents through. Even more interestingly, the EAMS was telling us that the documents had been approved that very afternoon.
Since I had stamped the documents in, the clerk did not want to return them to me so that I could ask the judge if he had signed the settlement. Mind you, the judge would have had to sign the documents (in invisible ink) in the half hour between the time I dropped off the documents and came back to pick them up. Eventually I was allowed to take the documents with me to ask the judge if he had signed them.
Once before the walk-through judge, I explained that I had no board file because EAMS believed he already had the file and had approved the documents I was handing him. Puzzled, the judge went to investigate whether he had approved the documents that did not have his signature. He returned a few minutes later saying that he did not have the file, he did not recall signing the documents, and that he did not recall signing any documents for myself or the Applicant’s attorney involved. EAMS was adamant that he had signed those documents.
Thankfully everyone in the hearing room was good-natured about the entire thing. The funniest part about the entire situation is that the court clerk, myself, and the judge were made to doubt our own recollection, the documentary evidence in front of us, and sanity because EAMS said so.
