Comparing Detail Information at the Summary Level

Had a tricky one come up today.  We are looking at a report that shows a breakdown of the summary level of information for items in inventory.  It’s a custom SRS report that pulls information on inventory counts from Maximum Data.  We have it pulling the summary level information, and a details report that shows the breakdown by bin.  We want to be able to show which ones need a second count, and there’s a field we’ve determined we can mark on a per bin basis.  This is perfect for the detail report, but how do we determine if we need to do a second count at the summary level?

At first, I was thinking I could do some sort of “IF ANY” exists statement, but I soon abandoned this idea.  Instead, being that the field was a binary field, I decided to convert it to an integer field to give me a specific 1 or 0 if the item was marked or not.  Once I had that, I could do a summation of the field to get a total.  I then decided to add a count of the field as well to tell me how many I should have.  Now, all I needed to do was compare the summation vs. the count, and anything that differed between the two (ie, 15 total, 18 counted), would tell me that I have a false item that I need to mark in my conditional formatting.

Long workaround, but something that is working pretty well now!

Custom Weather Webpart for SharePoint 2010

Recently, I had a request to add a custom weather web part to our company intranet site.  We wanted something quick and easy, and, of course, free.  So after scouring the internet, I found these great posts on Denis Stadler’s blog.  He’s developed a Twitter integration using an XML web part, and he just modified it to use the Yahoo! weather feed.  Links to the blogs:

Step-by-Step: Twitter Integration in SharePoint 2010

Step-by-Step: Yahoo Weather Integration in SharePoint 2010

Hope you enjoy your new weather widget!

Measure 3: What’s at Stake?

Lately, there has seemed to be quite a bit of talk surrounding Measure 3 in North Dakota.  This measure has elicited a number of heated discussions both for and against the measure.  While both sides have valid arguments, a lot of it is just based in rhetoric and scare tactics.  However, because of a lack of precedence, that’s about as far as you can get with arguing for or against it.  So, I am going to offer my completely unbiased opinion on the measure ;).

First, the text of the bill:

“Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

After reading and re-reading this measure, the one conclusion I can come to is that this measure is far too vague.  Let me preface the rest of this by saying that I am all for religious freedom.  Growing up Lutheran and still going to church, I love having the freedom of religion that the US Constitution affords to me.  But this measure opens up the door for a lot of people to do things in the name of religion.  What if a man’s religion affords him protection from beating his wife because she wasn’t subservient enough to him?  What about another man’s religion who says he can have 4 wives?  The compelling government interest may help contain some of this, but not until AFTER a lengthy court process for the Supreme Court to interpret the wording.

On the other side of the argument, this may be a good measure for other individuals who remain somewhat “prosecuted” by religion.  Gay marriage is one thing that I can think of.  Personally, it should not be the states’ right to define marriage, a religious institution.  This is an example of too much government oversight.  Domestic partnerships can be formed for tax and benefit purposes, but let churches define religion.  OK, on to the point.  What if a person had a deeply religious belief that gay marriage should be legal?  According to the wording, the state of North Dakota would be “burdening” that couple by not allowing them access to benefits, such as healthcare and a marriage license.  Therefore, gay marriage is now legal in North Dakota with a deeply held religious belief.  Bet the Catholic church didn’t think about that when they introduced this measure.  Also, another person may have a deeply held religious belief that they need to be allowed to smoke marijuana.  Again, North Dakota cannot burden such a religious belief.

The proponents say that it is needed because our religious freedoms are at stake!  Oh my goodness!  Christians are being persecuted DAILY in North Dakota!  Somehow, that just doesn’t seem right to me.  In asking a few people who are for the measure, not one of them has been able to help me by providing a specific example of how the US Constitution and existing ND laws are not protecting religious rights in the state of conservatives.  They’re being proactive.  What does this tell me?  Well, let’s look at the facts.  The Catholic church introduced this bill, very closely to the same time the federal healthcare mandate came out requiring that organizations provide contraceptives should a woman so choose to use them (or, in the words of some people, “THEY’RE MAKING US TAKE BIRTH CONTROL!  ARGHHH!!!”).  This tells me that it was written very vaguely for the sole intent of covering up the true purpose of the measure, not being forced to cover birth control.

There are a number of examples both for and against this measure.  And there are a ton of hypotheticals that could happen if it passes.  We won’t know for sure until something happens, but personally, there is just too much vagueness in the bill to make me feel comfortable voting for it.  We’re opening up a whole big can of worms that we might not want to open, to “protect” something that is already protected in the US Constitution and ND laws.  Something so potentially dangerous with no real tangible results, should not be voted “yes” on, and that’s why I’m voting “no” on Measure 3.