Glass

______________________________________________________

Timothy Jordan, and others:

"By bringing technology closer, we can get it more out of the way".

 ______________________________________________________

 Video:  Timothy Jordan on Glass

-Are you familiar with the "Cloud"

• Google Docs in Plain English
• Getting Started Guide – Google Docs Help 

What Is Cloud Computing?

                                                Reference

 Bowles, M. D. (2010). Introduction to computer literacy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. 

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

The information cloud is a way to store your data and information outside of your own computer.

You already have some experience with cloud computing. In an earlier chapter, we discussed Google's Gmail. We can use that example here to illustrate some of the key concepts of the cloud. First of all, the cloud is a metaphor for the space on the Internet that can be used to store your data, as well as applications to manipulate it. The Gmail application exists online, and to use it, all you need is a connection to the Internet and a browser. Likewise, all of your email is stored in the Google databases as well, rather than on your own personal computer. If you recall, this is a significant departure from the way in which Microsoft Outlook's email program works. With Outlook, the software application and your email reside on your computer and nowhere else. Therefore, Outlook operates on your computer, while Gmail operates in a cloud because that is where all of your email exists, as well as the application to view, send, and receive it.

Google's Cloud

Google not only uses its cloud for its Gmail, but also its Web–based applications ranging from Internet searching to Google Books. It is hard to know how large the Google cloud really is, but by some estimates it consists of hundreds of thousands of inexpensive servers (some suggest this number is a million) that store all of Google's data (and yours, too). For example, it has entire copies of the Web. Unlike the large mainframe computers of the past, the cloud has an impressive feature because it never grows old. A team of engineers and technicians monitor it, and when one of the servers dies (every few years), it is simply removed and replaced by a new one. The entire cloud seems to grow and regenerate more like a living being than an aging machine. Although Google and others have used this type of data system since the 1990s, it was not until 2008 that the term cloud computing was used to define it. Soon people began to realize that this might be the wave (or the cloud) of the future that would define how a majority of computers operate (Malone, 2009, p. 112). 

The Advantages of the Cloud

Hemera/Thinkstock

With cloud computing, you can access your data wherever there is an Internet connection.

Google is now exploring whether it might be possible for an operating system itself to exist online rather than on your computer. This would make your computer very quick to turn on because there would be no complex operating system to boot up. When you pressed the power button, the only thing the computer would need to do would be to connect to the Internet. Therefore, startup time would be measured in seconds rather than minutes.

Another advantage of cloud computing is that it would make computer viruses and malware almost nonexistent. The virus protection would take place at the cloud level, and would not be the responsibility of the individual user. As long as the cloud was protected—and the cloud engineers could have teams devoted just to this function—all of the data residing within it would be immune to attack.

A third advantage is that your programs and data would be available no matter where you were, and on any computer in front of you (as long as there was an Internet connection). If you went to your work computer, all of your data would be accessible there. It would also be at your computer at home, at the computer terminals at the library, or at any hotel that you visited while on vacation. This would also give you a measure of protection, because if your computer at home died while you were writing a paper for school, your work would not be lost. It would still be safely resting on a cloud. You could just go over to your neighbor's house and finish your work there.

Fourth, you would never have to install or update software again. You would simply pay for it once and access it online. Whoever wrote the application would be responsible for updating it, and the next time you logged on, it would be there for you to use. Finally, one of the most important advantages of cloud computing is collaboration and sharing. If you shared your access code with people whom you allowed to have access to your data (such as other students working on a project, family members planning a reunion, or coworkers on a project), then all of you could access, share, and edit the documents in the cloud.

The Disadvantages of a Cloud

Some suggest that while the cloud is good for limited applications such as email, it could never represent the future of personal computing for several reasons. First, many programs are simply too complex and powerful to be operated effectively online. For example, graphics programs or games with computation–heavy 3D rendered worlds need to be run on a personal computer in order for them to be effective. The second disadvantage is privacy. With all of your data on someone else's computers, how certain can you be that no one else is spying on what you are doing? The third disadvantage is that if you do not have Internet access, your computer is worthless, and you are unable to access your data. Although the Web follows us almost everywhere we go these days, it is not everywhere that we want it to be, and sometimes access is a problem. It would be very inconvenient if we could not use our computers in such cases. Finally, Internet outages would bring productivity in a cloud to a standstill (Velte, Velte, & Elsenpeter, 2010).

Examples of the Cloud

Although the debate continues regarding how widespread cloud computing will become in the future, it is already here in the form of several popular applications. Carbonite.com is a way to back up all of the current data on your computer in real time to the cloud. Once you sign up and pay a yearly subscription fee for this service, it operates in the background, saving a copy of each of your files to its own cloud. When a file is backed up, a small green dot appears in the bottom left–hand corner of the icon that represents the file to indicate that it is safe. This is an excellent way to protect yourself against computer crashes.

Google has a number of cloud applications that you can use in addition to Gmail. Its Docs and Spreadsheets applications emulate Word and Excel, although the application itself is nowhere to be found on your computer. The software itself is located on Google's servers, and so whenever there is an update, the users do not have to reinstall or upgrade their software. The other benefit of Docs and Spreadsheets is that they are collaborative tools that can be shared with anyone who has an Internet connection, and the creator can access them from any computer. This also has a nice backup safety feature in that your data are not tied to one hard drive that might fail.

One final example is Amazon Web Services (http://aws.amazon.com). Founded in 2006, it provides a service for all companies that require computing power, services, and storage. The benefit is that it is infinitely scalable. If a company grows from 2 people to 100 people overnight, all you need to do is write a check to Amazon and you will instantly have 50 times more storage or computing power than you had the day before. What are some examples of how this service could be used? If you were a media company that wanted customers to see videos, you could rent storage space in the Amazon cloud. Or if you were a pharmaceutical company, you could rent Amazon's processing power to perform an intensive simulation experiment. The examples are numerous, demonstrating that the cloud is not just for individuals but for businesses as well. In fact, there are four different types of clouds that you might see in the future.

Four Information Clouds

Thomas Vander Wal suggested that there will be a hierarchy of four types of clouds. The first will be the Global Information Cloud, which is essentially the Internet. It will remain accessible to everyone who has a computing device with connectivity features. The second cloud in the hierarchy is the External Information Cloud. This is represented by the closed and private data of an organization. Examples are an extranet that you might have at work. The third cloud is the Local Information Cloud. The owner maintains control here, and those who have access must have membership privileges. An example would be a LAN set up at a friend's home where everyone brought their own computers to play a shared game. The final cloud is the Personal Information Cloud. This represents all the digital data that you have created yourself. It could be as simple as a phone number or as extensive as every photo you have ever taken with a digital camera. Each of us would maintain complete access and control over our personal cloud (Malone, 2009, p. 115). 

                                                                   Reference

 Bowles, M. D. (2010). Introduction to computer literacy. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. 
__________________________________________________________________________________________

I suppose the Glass eyepiece will be a minor inconvenience until one day it is embedded in the retina.  

My mini Ipad is in the mail. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

We wait it out.

      After a Winter of above normal temperatures these past two weeks here in N.WI. have been about 10 degrees below normal. We will be patient.

      These flowers went in the second week of February. They are on a big leak proof pad that is meant for underneath a washing machine. They should be ready to bake in the greenhouse by April.  They should be ready to provide a feast of color by end of May.  Although, the sun has got a lot of snow removal to do soon.

      Last year at this time (third week in March) was a freakishly hot couple of days.  The reason I remember so well is that at the Bell Tower in Merrill, where I worked, they had to turn the air-conditioning on for two consecutive days.  It was just over 90 degrees (50 degrees above normal).  And Winter did not come back.  It was the beginning of the warmest year on record.  The trees all just stood there for a few weeks not knowing what to do with springlike weather coming that soon.  Spring was interrupted eventually by a killing frost which wiped out a large part of the apple season, among other things, but the leaves went on later that Autumn, after all of that, to turn color right on schedule during the last week of September.  Well, so they do go by hours of daylight.  Sure enough.

A (would be) Letter to the Editor (-too long to publish) re: Robert Russell, Circuit Court Candidate, Lincoln Co. Wisconsin.

- This link has been posted in a few comment sections of several local online newspapers.  A little thick with detail, but a nice piece of history no less.  Once the local election is over, then this will be covered (probably in much less detail) in the local newspaper.

Introduction:

On this past February 5th, 2013,  Rob Russell, while conducting Lincoln County Family Court, modified an existing circuit court order in violation of provisions applicable to Wis. Stat. 767.451.  Based apparently on, for lack of anything else offered into the hearing, his personal favoritism towards one other representing attorney.  He did not merely demonstrate a lack of understanding in basic jurisprudence, but opened up a long-term can-of-worms for the county with regards to the mother.  One quick example follows, and then the account of what prompted it.

Ex.  Since the original writing of this piece the mother's lawyer, attorney Hersil, has asked circuit court to grant him to be relieved of representing Ms. Kikkert after she fraudulently represented a restraining order as being filed by him against one of her daughter's friends.


Letter:


Re:  Lincoln County Circuit Court Candidate, Attorney Robert Russell:

      This is a “warning flag” going up for Circuit Court candidate, Attorney Robert Russell.  Perhaps it is a shame this happened during election season.  And, it is unfortunate that it has to end up here.

      On June 19, 2012, Court Commissioner Bonnie Wachsmuth was petitioned to hold a hearing in the Lincoln County Family Court regarding a Motion by Donna Kikkert for a Temporary Order to Change of Legal Custody and Placement of her minor child, based on, a “present, perpetual harmful and injurious situation to the child”.  Ms. Kikkert has been in the editorial page lately of all of the regional newspapers characterizing the family court system as:  being unfair, and unequal in dispensing rulings to women who are “seeking deliverance from the cruelty of men who abused them. . ”;  being a system that “does not acknowledge the reality of abuse, devastation and demoralizing effect on parental alienation syndrome…”; and, which punishes protective mothers who rescue their children from abusive fathers (Foto News 12/26/2012).  She has also, for the last 12 years, been accusing myself and others of abusing her. So this hearing in front of Commissioner Wachsworth proceeded predictably and something as follows. 

      Commissioner Wachsworth referred to the law governing the hearing, [Wisconsin Statute 767.451(1)(b)], which states that a court ‘may’ modify a placement order, ‘If’ it is in the best interest of the child, and, there has been a substantial “change of circumstance” since the entry of the last order. The hearing proceeded. Ms. Wachsmuth, after asking both for evidence and for testimony, finally ruled that she could find no “change of circumstance”, the motion was denied, and everyone left.

      Back to Ms. Kikkert.  In her editorial of 6/19/2012 she brings up issues that are of grave importance.  Many (most?) of the children in this society are survivors of their parents new found freedom to divorce and remarry (since the 1960’s).  The parents make a complete separation, the children do not.  The children very naturally stay attached to each parent.  This poses an unexpected problem for both parents in many cases.  Many times they would rather be done with the marriage and have what’s left of the family for themselves.  There are many actual scenarios.  In some cases one or both parents become upset that they cannot have things their way, so they use the children as weapons of retaliation against each other -- one parent trying to destroy the child’s relationship with the other parent.  Or maybe both.  We call it Parental Alienation.  There is no more serious problem for a child. Ms. Kikkert has in recent years embarked on a mission to present herself as a victim of parental alienation; along the way alienating herself from the child, intentionally, to make her point.     

       For many years the claims had simply been of ‘abuse’.  She would manufacture them in such a way as to get sympathy and empowerment.  They were disingenuous. Consequently she continued to lose privileges.  This is well documented in the Social Service Departments and Circuit Courts of Oneida Co., Ashland Co., as well as in Lincoln County (and one county in N. IL as well).  So without downplaying the seriousness of the issue of parental alienation which Ms. Kikkert brings up, she is misusing the issue to get closer to the father.  If there is any alienation in her case, it is what she has brought on herself.  She is presently on 3 hours per week, supervised visitation, with the custodial parent (myself) having the discretion, if both parents agree, to change time, place, and even relax the supervision stipulation to see how Ms. Kikkert handles it.  She has not voluntarily complied with any of many court orders in the past, and this agreement, while I have periodically relaxed the ‘supervision’ clause at times, is a very necessary ‘safety net’ for the child, when things get bad.  And they do (the former judge and former guardian ad litem thought it unwise of me to relax supervision at all).  If I had seen a Mr. Russell coming, I never would have.      

      One of Ms. Kikkert’s regular petitions to change a custody agreement so she can rescue her child from abuse, came up in front of Family Court Commissioner Robert Russell over a month ago.

      A quick history.  The agreement at issue here can only be described as having served this child very well through the years.  My daughter gets extended unsupervised time with her mother, when her mother is stable, and at the same time is afforded a “safety mechanism” for when her mother gets bad.  And she does. Nonetheless, she appreciates having a mom and I appreciate the fact that she has a mom.  Her mom has been deemed to be a danger to her, and was sent away to prison for 4 years for that reason (per Judge Mangerson, Oneida Co. – transcript available ).  Now she is back, her three additional years of extended supervision are over, and we are trying to make due.

  

     The court system has handled the whole affair excellently through the years, and no doubt, when this present mess is made right it will continue on that path.  We have been the beneficiaries of much hard work by various county entities, with massive amounts of records to show for it every step of the way, by the Social Services Dept., 3 different Guardian ad litems, a slew of judges in three counties, mediators, counselors, the Corrections Dept., parole and probation officers.  I’m sure I left someone out.  And Ms. Kikkert has been blessed by their offers of help, counseling, guidance, and particularly their patience; however, she has not cooperated with any of them, nor voluntarily complied with any court orders since the beginning.  I cannot even begin to explain her contorted reasons, or her problems.  Others have done a fine job, I will leave that to them.  All of that material will most likely find its way onto my website as time permits.

      So just about the time, I suppose, it appears that I’m starting to unfairly beat up on Ms. Kikkert, whom her Daughter and I are actually trying to help, I need to get to the main purpose for which I am writing.        

     On February 5^th, we had a hearing in front of Family court Commissioner Robert Russell. Our first experience with him, and predicted to be just one of many hearings that continue to happen year after year.  Lots of color and clutter leading up to this hearing. Letters by the mom to judges in 4 different counties with complaints about the new mediator, the outgoing Lincoln County judge, the incoming judge, the guardian ad litem’s, the former court commissioner, and others.  She simply harasses many people as well far and wide with pseudo-legal documents, interrogatories and such with numerous claims, allegations, aspersions, and distortions.  In the past months there have been ‘writs’ about this, ‘writs’ about that, from Ms. Kikkert regarding her problems to Lincoln Co., to the State Supreme Court,  the U.S. Supreme Court, the 9^th District Court of Appeals, family and friends of ours, and let’s not forget about that letter to the editor in Merrill Foto News in 12/2012 . . . all by Ms. Kikkert, who has acted as her own legal representative for about 10 years by now.  

      On February 5^th, Ms. Kikkert appears with a lawyer from down the street.  This was new.  Commissioner Russell asked them to proceed with their motion.  After citing many of Ms. Kikkert’s usual complaints, her lawyer quite heart-wrenchingly portrayed her as a victim.  The biggest crime against her being when she was unfairly tricked into entering the present agreement by another lawyer, 8 years ago (a three year old agreement . . . hmm). This had nothing to do with the Temporary Change hearing which was under discussion.  The commissioner nonetheless asked me if I was in favor that the motion be approved or denied.  This was no "change of circumstance". There had been no fact-finding on this assertion.  I was asked my opinion on the motion for temporarily changing the present agreement and I responded by saying there was no basis in reality for what the counselor said, his assertion did not correspond with the lengthy court record in this case, and I did not believe there had been any new change in circumstance, and was not in favor of changing the agreement.

       There was then conversation between the opposing counselor and the Guardian ad litem about the child’s schooling.  Also irrelevant to this Motion (which was ultimately never discussed).  

       I was also asked ‘what the visitation schedule was last week’ (bracing myself for the parental alienation charges still to come) and stated that she had several days after school and all day on Saturday, unsupervised.”  This was the proper outworking of the present agreement.  To give the mom a chance, but with the “safety mechanism" of reverting to ‘supervision’ when mom got scary and the daughter got troubled. With no fact finding he then changed the agreement.  He declared the new visitation arrangement should be three days a week, with overnight on Saturday, all unsupervised.  But the child had not been overnight with her mother in over ten years.  The Guardian ad litem was asked for her input and introduced the idea that Ms. Kikkert was a felon convicted of illegally absconding with her child on three different occasions, that Ms. Kikkert refused to meet with her, making it clear that she had been prevented from investigating the matter satisfactorily thus far.  This failed to provoke any more discussion as to the “circumstance” of the present agreement, and the commissioner began to make his “ruling”.

      I thought, “He’s ruling?  Whaa…?”.  The three people who had been subpoenaed to testify just sat there.  The commissioner had not asked for any evidence, any testimony, or anything to indicate a “change of circumstance”, or even what in the world the circumstances were as to why we were all there in the first place? I began to raise my hand.  He did not look. The other counselor, whom I presume to be a buddy of his from down the street, was chattering away as the “star witness” --  “the court expert”?  They started to hash out a brand new visitation plan.  It contained an overnight.  My daughter has not done an overnight with her mother in 10 years?  He was asking the mom what times, days, drop offs, would suit her.  I, the custodial parent who raised the child alone from 27 months, sat there with my hand raised.  The commissioner did eventually turn to me and to ask if I had anything to say.  I managed to get one short sentence out when I was told by the opposing counselor to be quiet (. . .transcript time). I asked him if I could finish what I was saying and he said no.  He wouldn’t even let me finish saying that!  I persisted to tell him that I was going to finish what I was saying, and I couldn’t even finish saying that.  So after a ridiculous little squabble, I finally spoke directly to the Commissioner, asking him if I could finish what I was saying, and he did not respond. He was ruling.

     He proceeded to rule that the daughter would spend an overnight alone with her mom – something the daughter was not ready to do. Judge Mangerson had sent Ms. Kikkert to prison for the safety of her child, and, to get Ms. Kikkert some help for what he could only describe as a severe personality disorder.  Now, Commissioner Russell was ruling with no “fact finding”, and I was not allowed to be involved.  I will get to my point.  We expect more from our courts than this.  The Guardian ad litem was in the room. The mom was refusing to meet with her.  What?  The mom has a twelve-year history of not cooperating with anyone, living in her own detached reality, and being a danger to her child.  Did the commissioner know this?  Why not? (Because I did not burst out and bring him to his senses, and then get labeled as having an anger problem - and threatened with being in contempt of court). The guardian ad litem was there, appointed to discern the child’s best interest, and ready to be allowed by Ms. Kikkert to do her investigation.  Mr. Russell denied the child that opportunity.  He rewarded his buddy from down the street by giving him control of your courtroom, and then giving him everything he asked for.  Here is a woman with a 13 year old daughter who is on 3 hours per week supervised visitation, and based on nothing -- not a thing –  which a judge would normally consider, not ‘fact finding’ with  ‘evidence’, not ‘testimony’, not things which are required by law to indicate a “change in circumstance”, anything that would even bring him the slightest bit of enlightenment as to who Ms. Kikkert was, who I was, not knowing Ms. Kikkert from a hole in a wall, but solely on the ‘unsworn’ testimony of his buddy from down the street, he ruled without ever finding out a thing about who and what he was dealing with.  Had the mom ever complied with any outstanding court orders designed to protect the child and get her some help? No.  Why did he not know this? He had a job to do.  He did not even mention the  words “change in circumstance”, and he did not allow the guardian ad litem to perform her investigation with Ms. Kikkert before blindly changing a critical well-established agreement that so many people in so many counties had worked so hard on to understand and get into the position, not only to help the child, but, “to help the mom”!  What a complete absence of jurisprudence.  Or a serious deficiency in character.  Or both – you decide.   Mr. Russell would have been jeered right out of class in law school had he done anything like that. 

      The child was not given a square deal here by allowing the one delegated to look out for her best interest even do her job.  That is a serious error.  It put the child at risk. Easily avoidable.  With simple judicial protocol.  Integrity.  It was not there. Family Court needs better than this.

      This bears mentioning two more things.  The first is Court Commissioner Bonnie Wachsmuth at the top of the page. She ran a legal court proceeding on this very issue less than a year ago -- cautious, levelheaded.  She asked for both evidence and testimony.  She made a ruling based on sound legal principles designed to move the petition from that temporary hearing towards family court in front of a Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge who would then further look at the entire “circumstance”, and include a guardian ad litem’s findings.  Is she up for election anywhere?  She ran a proper hearing.

      And lastly Judge Jenkins, April 2001, Lincoln County Circuit Court.  Ms. Kikkert had taken the 18-month-old child from its father in anger 3 months prior.  She was located 1 moth later through the Oneida Co. Sheriff where she was found to be accusing two different female police officers, on two separate occasions, one during a shoplifting arrest, for abusing her.  She refused to meet with the Sheriff’s office regarding the child.  She eventually agreed but would not bring the child in.  She was charged with interfering with the custody of a child in Oneida Co.  Not knowing where in the world she was, after one month, she was subpoenaed by me to appear in Lincoln County to explain where she had gone with our daughter?  She was in violation of our custody agreement to raise the child together under one roof.  Over a month later she showed up with a lawyer who reiterated all of her contorted explanations of abuse.  Judge Jenkins, instead of taking control of the situation and heading towards getting it into a guardian ad litems care he, took her at her very convincing words, and her lawyers exceptionally brilliant words, and ruled in her favor.  Her lawyer soon contacted newly assigned Oneida County saying she no longer knew where Ms. Kikkert was.  Nor did the Sheriff, Judge Kinney, the D.A., or the mediator, all who wanted to talk to her, until six months later when she was arrested in another state.  When her complaints of abuse were investigated she lost everything.  Since before that nine-month period and afterward until the present, we have been nothing but blessed.  But the mom has some serious problems.  I have needed the courts for protection and insulation from her, and they have been there. Until Mr. Russell.        

      I would have preferred to keep all of these issues within the confines of a courtroom.  Commissioner Rob Russell made that very difficult.  The mother, Donna Kikkert, will be back in these editorial pages for a long time.  Mr. Russell will be heralded now just like she’s been heralding Judge Jenkins for over a decade, as her heroes.  I wish I were kidding.  Rob Russell has put the mom farther out of reach of being helped – he has set people’s work way back -- placed a child in a precarious situation, and the dad in a very complicated situation.  This could easily have been avoided through simple cautious judicial procedure that I have seen carried out impressively through 12 years, even to my amazement.  I don’t know anything about the other candidate for circuit court judge except his name.  In my opinion, attorney Robert Russell does not have the skills, or the judicial prudence to be entrusted with overseeing any Circuit Court.  Nor Family Court.

      Perhaps, it would also be useful to elect someone who is not from around here.  Someone detached from all of their buddies up and down the street -- from local favoritism.  I am aware local judges have worked out many times, but it can also go terribly wrong.  We need to screen local candidates for circuit court thoroughly for tendency toward local partiality.  Our courtrooms are too important for that.   

      And for some reason, Robert Russell’s office will not fulfill my request for a transcript of this hearing.  It was sent over by the Clerk of Courts Office 3 weeks ago and all he needs to do is sign it.  What if I wanted to appeal his decision?  I would by out of luck.  What if I wanted to use it for reasons of accuracy before I publish this letter? 

       I will be back in Commissioner Russell’s courtroom on Election Day.  There will be at least two particularly important decisions being made that day.

Signed,

Todd Saunders

Gleason, WI  54435

toddsaunders.us