User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz

Howard C. Berkowitz

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Chiropractic Guidelines

I found one of the links that we were talking about,LBP guidelines. This is the newest version that basically is the evolution of the Mercy Guidelines. There are more - a couple for nonmusculoskeletal conditions that you might be interested in as well. Especially notice the last three or four pages where it talks about treatment frequencies and red flags. Depending on the doctor, he/she can run the tests to help rule in or out those conditions, or can refer them to someone else to do it. When you talk about Integrative medicine from our perspective, it basically means that there is less need for us to do it ourselves. D. Matt Innis 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current review of the literature for non-NMS conditions for chiropractic care (not just spinal manipulation) which might include other CAM techniques like massage, etc.. I doubt that acupuncture or homeopathy is considered in these though. D. Matt Innis 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New User:Joel M. Kauffman

Howard, Happy New Year! You might take a look at this new user's bio. I think you might be very interested in getting to know him. Milton Beychok 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

copyedit on Boiling point

I made two minor style copyedits and removed the "content is from Wikipedia" notice because of Milt's notice on the talk page. You might want to check to make sure my changes are appropriate and then maybe change the version to be approved before Matt gets to it. --Joe Quick 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Too late! :-) D. Matt Innis 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attention to a minor detail

Take a look here. D. Matt Innis 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

defunct workgroups

Your said: "several defunct food- and agriculture-related workgroups". Which do you have in mind? Chris Day 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, at various times I've seen Agriculture, Food Sciences, and vaguely remember something like Culinary Arts. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The first two are still there. The latter i do not remember. Chris Day 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One of yours?

[1] D. Matt Innis 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, mine. From the SABR baseball group that I chatted up. Hayford Peirce 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

HaHa! Of course! and an MD, too! Good job Hayford! D. Matt Innis 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sig

Hey, Howard, how come you don't put your sig in that edit? Hayford Peirce 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DC boundary oddities

I'm not sure about that "boundary-goes-down-the-middle-of-the-Potomac" thing. DC government's own GIS server, as well as Google Maps and MyTopo, show the boundary as the right bank of the river; i.e., all the water belongs to DC, and Virginia ends at the water's edge. I also seem to recall seeing signs on the highway bridges that announce "Welcome to Va or DC" at the bank, not in the middle.

Also, all those maps show the Pentagon as being entirely inside Virginia.

I seem to recall that somebody made practical use of this anomaly. There is or was a restaurant in Arlington or Alexandria that built a pier out into the river so they could serve liquor during days/hours when it was illegal to do so in Virginia but legal in DC.

Sorry to be so picky. But I believe there's a place for us nit-pickin' fact checkers in CZ -- just a surely as there's a special circle of Hell reserved for us! Bruce M.Tindall 00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, then the map is wrong. Yes, the signs are at the ends of the bridges, but the boundary is mostly down the river. I lived around there for about 40 years, did news coverage in the Pentagon and found the anomaly (part of Washington National Airport is also technically in DC, but no one lives there.

There aren't any riverfront restaurant/bars in Arlington. Yes, there are some at the end of King Street in Alexandria, but, since that end of Old Town floods easily, the restaurants, in general, moved back somewhat; too much water damage too often. There are marinas on either side of the river, and they are Virginia jurisdiction on one side and DC on the other. Both sides have separate water police. It gets confusing, because some of the water is under Federal police jurisdiction, where it abuts on National Park Service land. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a 1931 Supreme Court case and a 1945 federal statute that say the boundary is the Virginia shore of the river. Has there been any further legislation or litigation to change that to the middle of the river?

According to Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Washington Airport, Inc., 283 U.S. 348, the boundary is the "high-water mark" on the Virginia side of the river.

Then in 1945 Congress enacted PL 79-208, which can be found online where it is quoted in a Virgina legislative bill, at https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp524.exe?021+ful+HB54 . It essentially sets the high-water mark as it existed in 1945 as the boundary, and cedes any land between the 1791 high water mark and the 1945 one back to Virginia.

So, yes, as you say, stuff built out into the river after 1945 would apparently be in DC; but according to this statute the boundary would seem to be the shore, not the middle of the river. Bruce M.Tindall 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only say that the local police and emergency organizations treat the border as generally in the center, except where there is reclaimed land, as in the areas of the Pentagon and National Airport. D.C. has more water police than does Virginia, but the point is that both feel the need to have it. Go ahead and edit those in if you want, but I am going to go with direct experience, including with emergency services. I can't begin to count the current number, but at one point, there were nearly 30 law enforcement organizations with authority in D.C., and some interstate as well; it became necessary to have an undercover operations coordination center after a gunfight between undercover DC cops and the FBI. The Metrorail facilities under and over the Potomac are under the jurisdiction of the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority police, which is joint DC-Maryland-Virginia. WMATA is a little different than the Council of Governments, another three-jurisdiction activity. Theodore Roosevelt Island is under National Park Service police jurisdiction; it's closer to DC than Virginia and has a bridge across it, but neither DC nor Virginia police act there without invitation. It's an unusual area, and a great deal of activity is controlled by regional and Federal agreements, and the state-level formalities simply don't apply in practice. After some bad experiences, there are now hot pursuit arrangements for the police on both sides of the bridge; they have agreed not to have high-speed pursuit across commuter bridges unless killers are involved -- and it has happened.

The in-town Potomac bridges are being closed for the Inauguration by Federal order, even though the states maintain the bridges. The new Wilson Bridge, between Alexandria and Maryland, is mostly funded by Virginia, but there are Maryland and federal contributions. It's just not a regular area as far as enforcement. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New user User:David E. Mann

Howard, the latest new user lists himself as a military author. I just thought that you might be interested. Milton Beychok 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dimitrie Paciurea

I believe you asked me to let you know when I add articles. I have added a stub on Dimitrie Paciurea. - Joseph L. Mabel 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm on Bucharest, also brought across Casa Capşa (historic restaurant, famous literary haunt a century or so ago). - Joseph L. Mabel 05:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please do ask me questions if anything I've written in the articles is at all unclear. - Joseph L. Mabel 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given I'm a devoted cook, as a few people here are, that sounds interesting! Even if you don't have a unifying article, perhaps a series of these articles might be a starting point, for someone else, on Romanian culture. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

antivrial guilt

Geez Howard, your recent work makes me feel guilty that I never got around to finishing my antiviral drug pages! Is there a drug to alleviate my symptoms? David E. Volk 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

did you see this guy?

Maybe some collaboration! D. Matt Innis 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval nomination of AN-

Howard, you mentioned contacting Eric Gearhart who could check the article or perhaps join me in my nomination of the article ... have you had any success with that? Milton Beychok 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me email him; that's usually the best way to reach him. He's not an editor, but he has abundant and recent experience with military electronics. I'll also check with Robert White. Eric has been spending most of his CZ time working on the CZ software and servers. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll like these quotes

Got this from a book review:

Goldacre's prose always reads well and pulls together his thoughts on homoeopathy, nutritionists, Brain Gym, the Aqua Detox footbath and other "bollocks du jour", the publicity for which depends largely on gullible media publishing arrant nonsense, mostly by rehashing "garbage in" press releases into "garbage out" articles; churnalism, not journalism, as Nick Davies puts it."

And the related:

The people who run the media are humanities graduates with little understanding of science, who wear their ignorance as a badge of honour. Secretly, deep down, they perhaps resent the fact that they have denied themselves access to the most significant developments in the history of Western thought from the past 200 years."

Both in an article from the Times Higher Education website. Chris Day 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hello

Howard, I will of course take you up on your offer. After all that is what the collaborative effort is about!! Thank you.

I am going to spend a little time getting used to the system here and then.... the work begins Ivan Kelly 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Howard, just a reminder

Howard, just reminding you to get Eric's contribution into the AN- Talk page and decide what part or parts should be edited into the article ... before January 27th. Milton Beychok 10:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

IRA

Just so you know Howard, when we see an edit summary saying 'IRA' in Ireland, we tend to find cover! I answered on my talk page. Denis Cavanagh 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And in the US it's all about retirement. I have never got used to the American version. Chris Day 06:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...but we Americans seek cover when we see 'IRS'. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember..

... to refresh the talk page before adding new material, you accidentally wiped out two of my edits. Of course you may have found them intolerable or your IP has taken over your identity. It begins. Chris Day 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see you removed your own comment too? Was that your intention? Chris Day 14:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I fumblefingered and tried to explain in another note. Very insomniac night, and now I am caffeine deprived. If you can make sense of the logs and not lose the detailed information I did put in on more questionable allegations by a study author, feel free. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever sleep?

Howard, I see you active all through our European day, do you ever sleep?--Paul Wormer 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep is for the weak! Denis Cavanagh 13:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And the non-insomniac. If you see me active in what would be the U.S. early morning, either I've been up all night, or got a very good night's sleep and woke up early. I'm in the GMT-5 time zone, actually very near the easternmost part of the U.S. There were times, incidentally, where I routinely worked with colleagues in the U.K. and Sweden, so I'd often actually work on a more European schedule, given everyone was working from home.

If I have no other commitments, you'll be less likely to see good material from me between 2100-2300 European Central Time, as that tends to be the time during the workday when I feel least energized.

There are many nuances of whether this is a good or bad thing, but I sometimes find it hard to sleep when there is unanswered Wonkology. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval of AN-

Howard, Eric posted that paragraph we've been waiting for on the AN-1 Talk page. Could you please work that into the article somehow? I have extended the Approval date by one day to Jan. 28 and I will change the version to be approved just as soon as you have worked his material into the article. Thanks, Milton Beychok 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(to be repeated on both our user pages) Milt, as soon as I have ingested a bit more coffee, I shall do so. Not complaining; it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I assumed he was going to explain a bit about it as a terminology example in the specific article context. (i.e., in "TTC-56 (V)1", the first means that it's movable from fixed site to fixed site while the second T means..."). Incorrectly anticipating, I wrote a developing article pn the AN/TTC-56, and also some of the system engineering concepts that don't have AN- designations, such as the Warfighter Information Network–Tactical, into which it fits. I'm going to use his language as more of a case study in AN-, but as a different sort of case study that also explains AN- systems can be components in systems-of-systems.

As an aside here, I'm talking about the general Engineering subspecialty of Systems Engineering, of a military flavor. That raises a question to you: to what extent do modern chemical engineers work with people called systems engineers, who look especially at the control systems, but also, say, the logistical interfaces between the fixed manufacturing plant and transportation engineering? In some respects, I think of systems engineering as something common to all engineering disciplines, but, especially in military context, it is the field of ensuring compatibility among subsystems belonging to different engineering disciplines. While, for example, a mining engineer might look at an oil well, a transportation/civil/mechanical engineer at the means of getting the crude to the refiner, and a chemical engineer at refining it, a system engineer might be looking at the handoffs and interface standards. Many large military development projects are run by systems engineering centers, either government or context. I think there's an article here and may start a stub today, along with some military aspects including "transformation", the conscious movement between generations of interconnected systems.

As yet another aside, as I get more into some of the military systems engineering, I'm going to explore something that might yet be a means of getting support for nonspecialist engineering editors. I do a number of things as what might be called an engineering journalist, so while I might be talking to the "public affairs" arm of a manufacturer or integrator, those people are accustomed to inquiries from the trade press, not general news media, and can be willing to do fact-checking. In many cases, they will do an email response, or sometimes one by phone, but, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance they are manipulating the article, they don't want that published. Now, for what I'm going to suggest, something of an honor system is involved, which is also one of the reasons I'm hesitant to have instant editors that start ruling without much experience with the CZ process. Hypothetically, if I asked for approval on some military systems engineering, and forwarded either an email from the technical public affairs people, or wrote an email documenting the telephone call and giving point of contact, would that give you more confidence? Wearing my engineering journalist hat, I would consider it completely normal for my publishing-type editor to make random quality calls just to such a point of contact as I mention; I'm literally now hoping to start on a project where I will do a series of specialized computer articles for a broader yet specialized electronics trade magazine, and I'd certainly expect the editor might verify some of my interviews. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Howard, my career as a chemical engineer was mostly in the process design of are refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing and power plants. In those areas, systems engineers (by my definition) were non-existent. We had "instrument engineers" (or "instrumentation engineers") who were the experts in how to specify/design/purchase/maintain the plant control systems.

To my understanding, a "systems engineer" establishes work methods and work flow methods to improve worker productivity, especially in work involving repetitive manual operations (i.e., assembly line work, packaging work, bulk clerical filing, etc.). Such engineers just weren't needed in refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing and power plants. (Any systems engineer reading this: please excuse my definition of your work if it is incorrect or too limited.)

As for this question of yours: Hypothetically, if I asked for approval on some military systems engineering, and forwarded either an email from the technical public affairs people, or wrote an email documenting the telephone call and giving point of contact, would that give you more confidence?. Take a look at the Talk page of my Conventional coal-fired power plant article and you will note that I asked a good friend and chemical engineering colleague of mine (who had never heard of Citizendium) to review the article. He did a very thorough job and provided a good number of edits, almost all of which I accepted and implemented. I then documented his review on the article's Talk page and credited his work. Although Paul Wormer had also provided a good review, I still wanted the viewpoint of a fellow chemical engineer whose career had been in the same field as mine and that just wasn't yet to be had in Citizendium. I did not provide a point of contact on the basis that, if anyone asked for it, I would then provide it by personal email (rather than providing it publically on the Talk page).

Has this been of help? Milton Beychok 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Military systems engineering, however, is very much more than workflow; they deal with process compatibility and interfaces. The term is also widely used in communications engineering; one of my standard textbooks of communications systems engineering tends to focus on both capacity planning and compatibility. You now have me interested in checking engineering school criteria, on how they define systems engineering.

In the short term, at least in Engineering, I suspect we are going to have to use such external reviewers to help the active Editors in the approval process. Luckily, I know just enough about matters related to air pollution and chemical engineering to be dangerous helpful. (One must have context. My air pollution knowledge variously comes from chemical warfare, but also from growing up in northern New Jersey, where we would comment on the strange smell of pure air).

Increasingly, I tend to put communications systems in Engineering, especially things such as classic radio and telephony, but modern ones go into Computers as well. Aviation seems logical enough there; I know a good deal about electronics there, a bit about rocket propulsion, and very little serious aerodynamics.

I still want a train engineer. Choochoo! Howard C. Berkowitz 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you might find it useful to read Control system, Open loop control, Closed loop control and Control valve. They might give you more insight into what I meant when I wrote above about plant control and what instrument engineers did. Milton Beychok 08:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note my post at Talk:AN- about final approval tomorrow

Howard, just notifying you about my post at Talk:AN- regarding final approval tomorrow of AN-. Regards, Milton Beychok 05:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Value of Networks

Howard, I am critiquing the networks article. But before I post anything, I am going to learn more about the CZ structure on article writing. There is a feel, structure and culture within CZ and I want to get a better feel for it. Thanks for the head's up on the article. Good to get started. Oh I am lay on networks within the communications industry. I am looking to see how it feels for someone who wants to learn. Ivan Kelly 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)