Being that M$ tied their browser to their OS to avoid a court judgment of having an illegal monopoly the main reason they're in this pickle in the first place? You can't nimbly fix bugs or create features if what you do on that level ends up crashing your OS on another level.
Seems to me they've screwed themselves in the long run. They avoided having to removed Internet Explorer from Windows, but now their browser sucks on ice, is bloated, slow and filled with bugs that affect the OS. All of this could have been avoided (not to mention the continued $ hemorrhage of having to pay programmers to work on this) had they just concentrated on a decent OS and let others create the browsers. Instead they have (and still) pig-headedly insist on taking over or competing with every bit of software that touches their computers.
(1) Panama was part of the U.S. at the time, so McCain *is* natural born on U.S. soil.
I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I DON'T think that it was because he was born in Panama or any rights the US had on it. After all other people born in Panama didn't automatically become US citizens.
It was because he was born at a US military base and both parents were US citizens.
Though the teacher grossly over-reacted, why don't some people understand that, especially at the lower grade levels, teachers have to teach to the standards? Sure, in a perfect world kids would have exposure to a variety of platforms in school but teachers have to see to it that their students stay on topic using the class materials, otherwise too many disctactions will arise and that'll make things harder for the teacher to do their job.
But sometimes distractions can HELP them do their job. Learning shouldn't be just a one-way road from teacher to student. If something positive like this has captured the attention of several of her students, a clever teacher could use this to get the attention of other students. How about if she set aside 5 minutes one morning and let him show the class what he was doing and explain what Linux is. It doesn't mean she has to start teaching Linux, but encouraging students to explore or research OUTSIDE the classroom isn't a bad thing.
I think all of us can remember at least one teacher who had a positive impact on our lives, maybe even on our future career. Chances are, that teacher both thought outside the box and encouraged our interests.
And call me old-fashioned(and I'm mid-20's), but what the hell is a middle-schooler doing with a laptop at school and why would it have been okay for the student to break out a laptop in class if it were running windows? When I was in high school things like cell phones, cameras, pagers, and especially laptops were considered contraband!
I like to perhaps be the first to welcome you to adulthood. You'll find yourself saying, "In MY day...." a lot more often. Of course cameras, pagers and phones are hardly learning tools compared to a computer. But believe me, a lot of people were saying, "How come they get to use calculators? When I was in school...." a few years after I graduated. I am concerned that there is too MUCH emphasis placed on computers. I'm concerned whether these students are running before they walk. If the cash register breaks down, checkers no longer know how to add or give correct change. Students need to learn the principles of math and work problems without a calculator and to write without a spelling or grammar checker.
Is anyone else reminded of the religous teacher confiscating a biology book from a student, and writing a letter to their pro-evolution parents?
Or equally, a secular teacher confiscating a student's Bible and telling them it's against the law for them to bring that to school. (Frankly, I've never heard of a teacher in this day and time confiscating a biology text, but I've read plenty of stories of the latter.)
But I think this has less to do with a religious zealot for Microsoft, but someone who has been brainwashed by the BSA, the RIAA and all those stories of pirated software. The fact that she doesn't believe ANY software is free, shows a gross ignorance of computers and software in general. She probably has only basic knowledge skills in Microsoft Office, but has no doubt had it drummed into her at teacher seminars regarding the evil of downloaded software, legal ramifications, viruses and other fear mongering.
I doubt this teacher has touched Linux with a 10-foot pole--at college or any other place or she wouldn't question the legality issue. (Funny: Substitute the word "pot" for "Linux [discs]" in the article for a laugh.)
While there are many good teachers out there, there are also a lot who are dumb as a box of rocks and twice as ignorant. These are the ones who don't want children to learn how to think or analyze things on their own, but just parrot back what they're told. (The teacher herself show little analytical ability.)
Yes, that's the only one I was able to use to help get rid of the pesky Recycled\boot.com virus a couple of weeks back. (It adds a folder called resycled and an autorun.inf, which you can delete, but will recreate itself until you totally clean it out.) That and Crap Cleaner finally got rid of it before it went crazy on my network.
The malware uses JavaScript to identify more than 100 financial and money transfer Web sites, including Barclays, Wachovia, Bank of America, and PayPal along with two dozen or so Italian and Spanish banks. When it recognizes a Web site, it will collect logins and passwords, forwarding that information to a server in Russia.
If you have a "master password" set in FireFox to protect your passwords, would THAT foil it's collection method? I'm guessing that it simply moves through the bookmark and then open password file vs. having to wait until you enter the password into a form.
I really don't agree with this all being just a hallucination. I have had a close connection to several pets. Some that lived with me and some that no longer did. The first time I experienced this phenomenon, I was on vacation with the furry family kenneled and I had a dream that had a lot of dogs in it. It was a pleasant dream, not bad at all, but when I awoke, I had this overwhelming need to call the kennel and check on my pack. It turns out my elder dog had passed away that morning and they had just gotten off the phone with my parents.
Okay, so let's say that's a fluke and that she was old, so it wasn't unexpected that she passed. A few years later, I had a dream about a cat I'd had, but had to give away. It was the only dream I'd ever had of her before or since. We were back at our old home, but I was inside and looking out the window I saw her outside and said, "What are you doing out there?" before I woke up. I later found that she had passed away that same month.
But the most surreal was a couple of years back shortly after my cat, Boca, passed away. I was napping in the lounger. The TV was on but it was like it was far away. Boca jumped up on me--she was small and liked to sit high up near my shoulder or neck. She was purring away. I reached up to pet her and I could feel her fur and even her ribs! She felt a little skinny, but was happy. Then she jumped down and I never had the dream again. Later, when I told my spouse I found he had also had a dream about Boca recently. The next words out of his mouth were, "She seemed a little skinny."
There's just a lot of things we can't explain and some we never will. Who knows if there is a residual energy left behind when a person or pet dies. Maybe the afterlife has nothing to do with sky and clouds, but simply a different dimension. And maybe...just maybe, our loved ones just want to visit with us one more time and make sure we're okay and let us know they are too.
Most companies (and I work contract) will have you sign something that, in effect, does the same thing, no matter if the intellectual property is software programming, technical writing or whatever. They may also, as a permanent employee, have you sign a non-compete clause to keep you from jumping over to a rival and transfer your current knowledge of the competitor for x number of years. You can either sign and get the job, try to negotiate and then choose or don't sign and walk. If you're really torn, it would not a bad idea to actually sit down with a contract lawyer and make sure you know exactly which rights you're about to sign away.
It's got to be a lot harder on software engineers. Because it's natural that you'd want to use you knowledge to create a similar program, either for another client or an improved version to sell commercially. And if you're in a particular industry, it would be hard not to come up with a similar program. The web pages and content I create, for example, are not going to be directly related--if I were to decide to write a novel. (The web material I create is not an issue as I'm normally using their template(s)/content server.) It's not like I'm freelancing a wholly-created web site only to have them decide to cut me out and take over maintenance. This can be done, but you want to make sure it's clear in the contract what the package includes, such as maintenance, copyright and that you're properly compensated.
No, it's not successful AFAIK. For one thing many of these bogus numbers belong to other people. I don't think all dems support this--some do--some Latino groups, certainly. But until they granted some sort of amnesty, they wouldn't be able straighten out the SS numbers and future payments. Anyone now found using another's SS# could be charged with identity theft.
Most illegals that I can see are not interested in becoming US citizens or counting on US retirement pay. Many leave their family back in Mexico and collect income-tax free money (they fill in enough exemptions so tax is not taken out). Then they cash their paycheck and send most of the money home with the idea they'll eventually make enough to retire back in Mexico comfortably since the cost of living is less. (Unfortunately for them, it may not always be that cheap. There are a lot of Americans who are retiring or living in Mexico because it's fairly inexpensive. If that trend continues, it will cause their prices to rise.)
Oh good grief, someone mod this guy back out of trolldom. His statement is totally accurate: you haven't lost money, except on paper, unless you pick up your marbles and go home. I'm not sure that I totally agree with the statement about day traders. But it's a valid opinion and if you look at how the oil traders jacked up the price of oil in previous months, it's not far-fetched considering how volatile the market has been. But disagreeing with someone's statement doesn't make them a Troll.
Now sell out may or may not be prudent. But if you're in retirement and you have a financial advisor that hasn't worked with you to start moving funds to safer investments, you need another financial advisor. But it has been too easy (and I've been guilty of this too) that while the market was going up, to just "let it roll." We should have been paying attention to our investments and our goals. (My *small* 401k rollover is down by 1/3, but I have time to let it grow back.) However, unlike after 9-11 where I knew we'd bounce back, I do NOT plan to keep throwing money down that hole. If I have anything left to invest, it will be in accounts that have a guaranteed interest such as CDs or bonds. JMPO
So we've heard talk, day after day, night after night, an incessant drilling into our heads that we're in a deep and severe recession -- one that may even now rival the Great Depression! -- creating panic and fear, causing people to pull investments and hold onto their wallets, change purchasing plans, in turn creating bleak forecasts for manufacturers and other business, which causes job loss, and then -- voilà!
While I don't totally fault the blathering idiot of the media for creating a self-fulfilling proffecy, I'm beginning to think that "2 quarter" rule was invented by those in the market so they could claim there wasn't a recession while quietly moving the money elsewhere.
But I agree this, "worst economy since Hoover," tirade parroted by the TV bubbleheads and politicos is a bunch of crap. Looking at the GDP, which was adjusted from -0.3% to -0.5% for the 3rd quarter 2008, a depression (explained here as actually two separate periods) is defined as "any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent."
And as for the Great Depression and "worst economy since Hoover": "By this yardstick, the last depression in the United States was from May 1937 to June 1938, where real GDP declined by 18.2 percent. If we use this method then the Great Depression of the 1930s can be seen as two separate events: an incredibly severe depression lasting from August 1929 to March 1933 where real GDP declined by almost 33 percent, a period of recovery, then another less severe depression of 1937-38."
I can't figure out if the idiots in the media can't be bothered to look something up, if they love making people think things are more dire than they really are, are on a political witch hunt or combination of the three!
But, SS was NOT instituted as a 'retirement' program'. It doesn't pay enough..it is an aid, but, not something to be depended upon for complete support. If it is....well, with inflation, etc (not to mention SS going bankrupt soon)...it isn't going to serve even the minimal purpose it was originally set up for.
What will you do then? Let people save on their own? Gouge workers for more and more and more of their money to fund it? That will get nasty pretty quick at some point. US citizens aren't real fond of super high taxation.
First a disclaimer...I'm NOT trolling...I'm dead serious....
Why do you think BOTH parties essentially support the influx of illegal aliens with fake SS #s coming across?
It's a way to collect SS dollars that will NEVER have to be paid out to the worker. Think about it. If they just wanted more workers, they could easily let more legal workers in.
Now if we could only get governments to have some kind of taxes on the bad stuff, and subsidize the good stuff. I'd eat better if I could afford it, quite frankly.
No, it's not the government's job to be your nanny. You know you should eat healthier, go forth and do so. It's not all that expensive; it's just usually more convenient to buy a McFatburger than make a healthy salad. Buy foods that are unprocessed. Yes, there is bagged salad, but it would be cheaper and healthier to buy a head of lettuce and a couple of carrots without the preservatives. Top with olive oil and vinegar and maybe some dried herbs instead of bottled dressing.
Buying food in it's most unprocessed state is usually best. I would except frozen vegetables (check for salt and other preservatives) which are usually flash frozen and so retain their vitamins potency longer and raw, unpasteurized milk. And this doesn't mean you have to become a vegetarian. But buying leaner meats, such as ground round instead of just ground beef, while they're more expensive, they have less waste as well as less fat. And you don't have to have red meat everyday. Chicken and some fish (baked, not fried) provide protein for less. Or combine non-meat products that form complete proteins. Like, peanut butter and whole wheat bread, beans and cornbread or corn tortilla, red beans and rice.
They raised taxes on cigarettes for years, yet change in people's habits did not come until there was massive peer pressure not to be around second hand smoke or to subject you child to it. Once it became both inconvenient and *uncool* to smoke, more people stopped smoking.
But junk food is not smoking and having a fast food burger or dining out isn't bad in moderation. The problem with these studies is it's all or nothing. They fed these mice nothing but fast food equivalent for NINE MONTHS. (Don't forget that research mice are not common mice but are bred to be more susceptible to disease.) Well of COURSE they're going to get sick. Who eats like this? But had they fed them healthy meals and then once or twice a week they got junk food, they probably wouldn't have the dramatic results to report.
Now if we could only get governments to have some kind of taxes on the bad stuff, and subsidize the good stuff. I'd eat better if I could afford it, quite frankly.
No, it's not the government's job to be your nanny. You know you should eat healthier, go forth and do so. It's not all that expensive; it's just usually more convenient to buy a McFatburger than make a healthy salad. Buy foods that are unprocessed. Yes, there is bagged salad, but it would be cheaper and healthier to buy a head of lettuce and a couple of carrots without the preservatives. Top with olive oil and vinegar and maybe some dried herbs instead of bottled dressing.
Buying food in it's most unprocessed state is usually best. I would except frozen vegetables (check for salt and other preservatives) which are usually flash frozen and so retain their vitamins potency longer and raw, unpasteurized milk. And this doesn't mean you have to become a vegetarian. But buying leaner meats, such as ground round instead of just ground beef, while they're more expensive, they have less waste as well as less fat. And you don't have to have red meat everyday. Chicken and some fish (baked, not fried) provide protein for less. Or combine non-meat products that form complete proteins. Like, peanut butter and whole wheat bread, beans and cornbread or corn tortilla, red beans and rice.
They raised taxes on cigarettes for years, yet change in people's habits did not come until there was massive peer pressure not to be around second hand smoke or to subject you child to it. Once it became both inconvenient and *uncool* to smoke, more people stopped smoking.
But junk food is not smoking and having a fast food burger or dining out isn't bad in moderation. The problem with these studies is it's all or nothing. They fed these mice nothing but fast food equivalent for NINE MONTHS. (Don't forget that research mice are not common mice but are bred to be more susceptible to disease.) Well of COURSE they're going to get sick. Who eats like this? But had they fed them healthy meals and then once or twice a week they got junk food, they probably wouldn't have the dramatic results to report.
I agree. I don't believe this is going to cause some draconian crackdown on MySpace or any other page over this. Had this been a another minor doing this, I would have felt differently, but this was an adult who knew the girl had problems and should have known better. I look on scum like her the same way I look on adults who prey on children over the internet for sex. You're using the internet to harm a child and that should be wrong.
Yes, I do think the parents should be smacked with a "what were you thinking" for obviously letting her roam the internet unsupervised. But you don't convict the parents if a sex offender stalks a child, you convict the stalker.
Well, you're right--we disagree about the cloning issue, not to mention your predatory view on life! I look at cloning humans from a moral point of view. I'm more about the famous line in Jurassic Park, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
And why do you think a cloned Neanderthal will receive, "finest education, free healthcare, the finest meals, and pretty much any electronics toys he likes"? For one thing, he'd never get out of the lab unless he broke out or someone broke him out (and don't think that wouldn't happen.) We don't know how far he could go in any education or if he could communicate with speech. And he would be massively stronger than a human, as an adult he could crush your hand, by shaking it. He be stuck in a lab, poked and prodded, you'd have massive protests (especially as he would be a child). All the makings of a Michael Crichton (RIP) novel.
And we'd better take care what we are cooking up in the name of science--lest we become the rabbit.
Actually there's another argument. First off, Neanderthals had larger brains than us...just because they died out didn't mean they were stupid. There's even proof that they could have used a form of spoken language. There could be a lot of things, weather, disease, famine, etc. They were also stronger. Neanderthals generally hunted in enclosed, wooded areas where they would attack prey in close proximity. The lack of spears or other tools may be explained by the area they hunted. You can't throw a spear in a heavy woods. Or their build may not be suited to throw something like a spear accurately.
Then there's the theory that they didn't totally die off, but interbred with early modern man. And there's been no evidence I've seen that says their DNA was incompatible with ours or they would have produced a "mule."
And where did you get the idea that their body was "designed for the ice age." They had no better protection from the cold that we do. Here's one theory that where it's believed they couldn't adapt their clothing to something that would help them survive the cold.
I think it will come down to a multiple of problems, no one thing wiped out the Neanderthal and I'm one who does believe there are some who are carrying a few of their genes. And although I'd really love to see theories laid to rest, IMO, he shouldn't be cloned like some animal. I believe he is at least a cousin and doesn't deserve to be turned into a lab rat or exhibit.
Umm, wasn't he a naturalized American citizen? Or do you mean to suggest that it's a risk to employ anyone who wasn't a natural-born citizen on secure projects?
Well, I know that if you went into the military, there are certain fields you cannot get into if you are naturalized vs. American-born. I knew a guy, born in Germany and later his mother remarried an American, who also adopted him. Lived most of his life in the US. Yet he couldn't get into an electronics-based field in the military because he was naturalized vs. American-born. Things may have changed, but it wasn't that long ago. However, maybe it's time some of these high-security risk positions do the same, fair or not. Yes, obviously, some natural-born Americans would sell their own mother. But you are running a higher risk that a naturalized citizen could be subject to coercion, threats or blackmail from his native country--especially if he/she has relatives back there.
Yeah, I figured that out later (with the help of my stepson who has a degree in economics!) Let's just say math was not my forté! Too many zeroes for my calculator.:-)
I'm going to disagree that she is mentally ill. She valued her pride above her common sense. She was too prideful to admit that she made a terrible mistake, and that turned into an obsession. But that doesn't equate to insanity, any more than the compulsion of people who buy lottery tickets in the face of 1 to 54,000,000 odds of winning The Big Prize. Sure, it's foolish, but it doesn't rank up there with schizophrenia.
You don't have to be schizophrenic to be mentally ill. Depression, for example, is a mental illness. There are plenty of people living (and driving!) among us that have some form of mental disorder. So you can be mentally ill and still be "functional." This case, I think, went beyond greed or just pride. She was obsessed. As I said to the other person, it was like she couldn't leave the gambling table until she either won her losses back or ran out of money. Sure there's nothing wrong with playing a slot machine or buying a lotto ticket, but if you're spending ALL your money on the slot machine or lotto tickets, that's another thing altogether.
There were several people who could have stopped her, but didn't. I just wondered why no one, especially the husband (although maybe he's incapacitated and she handles the day-to-day affairs) didn't do as you said and lock the money away from her. They said he was deaf (which doesn't mean he's incapacitated)...but maybe he is isolated and didn't know that she was running through the money or what she was spending it on.
Well addiction CAN be a disease or a sign of it. I worked several years for a non-profit drug rehabilitation so I've seen how addition can affect a person--not the physical addition...the mental one, which is a lot harder to fix. The reason some people can put in a couple of dollars in the slots and then walk away and some stand there until they're out of money, is beyond just greed. It's an obsession. Now some obsessions can be harmless. Obsessive compulsives may have to do little rituals before leaving a house. But if they become so bad that it starts to ruin their life, then yes, they need some help. I think the gamblers in your example are like alcoholics. Like alcohol, something stimulates the pleasure center in their brains when the gamble. I don't know if it's the thrill or suspense that the next dollar may be the big winner. But they can't stop once they start and usually need help to stay in recovery.
Most people get burned once in these scams and may be ashamed of getting taken, but don't continue to throw money down a black hole. This woman kept sending money, despite not getting the return as promised and despite everyone in her family and the bank telling her she was being scammed. This is, in essence just like someone trying to win back their losing at the slot machine until they use up the family's savings. That tells me that while she may be functional, she's clearly not well. You don't have to be schizophrenic or ready for a strait-jacket to have a mental disorder.
Had I been a family member I would have done everything possible to keep money out of this woman's hands and tried to get her some help.
However, given the spending spree the government is on, I find NASA far less objectionable than writing checks to citizens, bailouts, or WPAish "dig a ditch. now fill it in." economic "stimulus" plans.
Well instead of giving 700 BILLION (now likely more) to Wall Street so they can have more parties, bonuses and pay the people who got us into this mess obscene salaries, why don't they just give every US citizen (man, woman, child) $1 million apiece? It would be a fraction of the cost and would start people spending again. (And they's STILL have money for NASA.)
Of course the hitch would be getting people to come back to work...(but still!)
Slashdot Mirror
Being that M$ tied their browser to their OS to avoid a court judgment of having an illegal monopoly the main reason they're in this pickle in the first place? You can't nimbly fix bugs or create features if what you do on that level ends up crashing your OS on another level.
Seems to me they've screwed themselves in the long run. They avoided having to removed Internet Explorer from Windows, but now their browser sucks on ice, is bloated, slow and filled with bugs that affect the OS. All of this could have been avoided (not to mention the continued $ hemorrhage of having to pay programmers to work on this) had they just concentrated on a decent OS and let others create the browsers. Instead they have (and still) pig-headedly insist on taking over or competing with every bit of software that touches their computers.
(1) Panama was part of the U.S. at the time, so McCain *is* natural born on U.S. soil.
I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I DON'T think that it was because he was born in Panama or any rights the US had on it. After all other people born in Panama didn't automatically become US citizens.
It was because he was born at a US military base and both parents were US citizens.
Though the teacher grossly over-reacted, why don't some people understand that, especially at the lower grade levels, teachers have to teach to the standards? Sure, in a perfect world kids would have exposure to a variety of platforms in school but teachers have to see to it that their students stay on topic using the class materials, otherwise too many disctactions will arise and that'll make things harder for the teacher to do their job.
But sometimes distractions can HELP them do their job. Learning shouldn't be just a one-way road from teacher to student. If something positive like this has captured the attention of several of her students, a clever teacher could use this to get the attention of other students. How about if she set aside 5 minutes one morning and let him show the class what he was doing and explain what Linux is. It doesn't mean she has to start teaching Linux, but encouraging students to explore or research OUTSIDE the classroom isn't a bad thing.
I think all of us can remember at least one teacher who had a positive impact on our lives, maybe even on our future career. Chances are, that teacher both thought outside the box and encouraged our interests.
And call me old-fashioned(and I'm mid-20's), but what the hell is a middle-schooler doing with a laptop at school and why would it have been okay for the student to break out a laptop in class if it were running windows? When I was in high school things like cell phones, cameras, pagers, and especially laptops were considered contraband!
I like to perhaps be the first to welcome you to adulthood. You'll find yourself saying, "In MY day...." a lot more often. Of course cameras, pagers and phones are hardly learning tools compared to a computer. But believe me, a lot of people were saying, "How come they get to use calculators? When I was in school...." a few years after I graduated. I am concerned that there is too MUCH emphasis placed on computers. I'm concerned whether these students are running before they walk. If the cash register breaks down, checkers no longer know how to add or give correct change. Students need to learn the principles of math and work problems without a calculator and to write without a spelling or grammar checker.
Is anyone else reminded of the religous teacher confiscating a biology book from a student, and writing a letter to their pro-evolution parents?
Or equally, a secular teacher confiscating a student's Bible and telling them it's against the law for them to bring that to school. (Frankly, I've never heard of a teacher in this day and time confiscating a biology text, but I've read plenty of stories of the latter.)
But I think this has less to do with a religious zealot for Microsoft, but someone who has been brainwashed by the BSA, the RIAA and all those stories of pirated software. The fact that she doesn't believe ANY software is free, shows a gross ignorance of computers and software in general. She probably has only basic knowledge skills in Microsoft Office, but has no doubt had it drummed into her at teacher seminars regarding the evil of downloaded software, legal ramifications, viruses and other fear mongering.
I doubt this teacher has touched Linux with a 10-foot pole--at college or any other place or she wouldn't question the legality issue. (Funny: Substitute the word "pot" for "Linux [discs]" in the article for a laugh.)
While there are many good teachers out there, there are also a lot who are dumb as a box of rocks and twice as ignorant. These are the ones who don't want children to learn how to think or analyze things on their own, but just parrot back what they're told. (The teacher herself show little analytical ability.)
Yes, that's the only one I was able to use to help get rid of the pesky Recycled\boot.com virus a couple of weeks back. (It adds a folder called resycled and an autorun.inf, which you can delete, but will recreate itself until you totally clean it out.) That and Crap Cleaner finally got rid of it before it went crazy on my network.
The malware uses JavaScript to identify more than 100 financial and money transfer Web sites, including Barclays, Wachovia, Bank of America, and PayPal along with two dozen or so Italian and Spanish banks. When it recognizes a Web site, it will collect logins and passwords, forwarding that information to a server in Russia.
If you have a "master password" set in FireFox to protect your passwords, would THAT foil it's collection method? I'm guessing that it simply moves through the bookmark and then open password file vs. having to wait until you enter the password into a form.
I really don't agree with this all being just a hallucination. I have had a close connection to several pets. Some that lived with me and some that no longer did. The first time I experienced this phenomenon, I was on vacation with the furry family kenneled and I had a dream that had a lot of dogs in it. It was a pleasant dream, not bad at all, but when I awoke, I had this overwhelming need to call the kennel and check on my pack. It turns out my elder dog had passed away that morning and they had just gotten off the phone with my parents.
Okay, so let's say that's a fluke and that she was old, so it wasn't unexpected that she passed. A few years later, I had a dream about a cat I'd had, but had to give away. It was the only dream I'd ever had of her before or since. We were back at our old home, but I was inside and looking out the window I saw her outside and said, "What are you doing out there?" before I woke up. I later found that she had passed away that same month.
But the most surreal was a couple of years back shortly after my cat, Boca, passed away. I was napping in the lounger. The TV was on but it was like it was far away. Boca jumped up on me--she was small and liked to sit high up near my shoulder or neck. She was purring away. I reached up to pet her and I could feel her fur and even her ribs! She felt a little skinny, but was happy. Then she jumped down and I never had the dream again. Later, when I told my spouse I found he had also had a dream about Boca recently. The next words out of his mouth were, "She seemed a little skinny."
There's just a lot of things we can't explain and some we never will. Who knows if there is a residual energy left behind when a person or pet dies. Maybe the afterlife has nothing to do with sky and clouds, but simply a different dimension. And maybe...just maybe, our loved ones just want to visit with us one more time and make sure we're okay and let us know they are too.
Most companies (and I work contract) will have you sign something that, in effect, does the same thing, no matter if the intellectual property is software programming, technical writing or whatever. They may also, as a permanent employee, have you sign a non-compete clause to keep you from jumping over to a rival and transfer your current knowledge of the competitor for x number of years. You can either sign and get the job, try to negotiate and then choose or don't sign and walk. If you're really torn, it would not a bad idea to actually sit down with a contract lawyer and make sure you know exactly which rights you're about to sign away.
It's got to be a lot harder on software engineers. Because it's natural that you'd want to use you knowledge to create a similar program, either for another client or an improved version to sell commercially. And if you're in a particular industry, it would be hard not to come up with a similar program. The web pages and content I create, for example, are not going to be directly related--if I were to decide to write a novel. (The web material I create is not an issue as I'm normally using their template(s)/content server.) It's not like I'm freelancing a wholly-created web site only to have them decide to cut me out and take over maintenance. This can be done, but you want to make sure it's clear in the contract what the package includes, such as maintenance, copyright and that you're properly compensated.
No, it's not successful AFAIK. For one thing many of these bogus numbers belong to other people. I don't think all dems support this--some do--some Latino groups, certainly. But until they granted some sort of amnesty, they wouldn't be able straighten out the SS numbers and future payments. Anyone now found using another's SS# could be charged with identity theft.
Most illegals that I can see are not interested in becoming US citizens or counting on US retirement pay. Many leave their family back in Mexico and collect income-tax free money (they fill in enough exemptions so tax is not taken out). Then they cash their paycheck and send most of the money home with the idea they'll eventually make enough to retire back in Mexico comfortably since the cost of living is less. (Unfortunately for them, it may not always be that cheap. There are a lot of Americans who are retiring or living in Mexico because it's fairly inexpensive. If that trend continues, it will cause their prices to rise.)
Oh good grief, someone mod this guy back out of trolldom. His statement is totally accurate: you haven't lost money, except on paper, unless you pick up your marbles and go home. I'm not sure that I totally agree with the statement about day traders. But it's a valid opinion and if you look at how the oil traders jacked up the price of oil in previous months, it's not far-fetched considering how volatile the market has been. But disagreeing with someone's statement doesn't make them a Troll.
Now sell out may or may not be prudent. But if you're in retirement and you have a financial advisor that hasn't worked with you to start moving funds to safer investments, you need another financial advisor. But it has been too easy (and I've been guilty of this too) that while the market was going up, to just "let it roll." We should have been paying attention to our investments and our goals. (My *small* 401k rollover is down by 1/3, but I have time to let it grow back.) However, unlike after 9-11 where I knew we'd bounce back, I do NOT plan to keep throwing money down that hole. If I have anything left to invest, it will be in accounts that have a guaranteed interest such as CDs or bonds. JMPO
So we've heard talk, day after day, night after night, an incessant drilling into our heads that we're in a deep and severe recession -- one that may even now rival the Great Depression! -- creating panic and fear, causing people to pull investments and hold onto their wallets, change purchasing plans, in turn creating bleak forecasts for manufacturers and other business, which causes job loss, and then -- voilà!
While I don't totally fault the blathering idiot of the media for creating a self-fulfilling proffecy, I'm beginning to think that "2 quarter" rule was invented by those in the market so they could claim there wasn't a recession while quietly moving the money elsewhere.
But I agree this, "worst economy since Hoover," tirade parroted by the TV bubbleheads and politicos is a bunch of crap. Looking at the GDP, which was adjusted from -0.3% to -0.5% for the 3rd quarter 2008, a depression (explained here as actually two separate periods) is defined as "any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent."
And as for the Great Depression and "worst economy since Hoover":
"By this yardstick, the last depression in the United States was from May 1937 to June 1938, where real GDP declined by 18.2 percent. If we use this method then the Great Depression of the 1930s can be seen as two separate events: an incredibly severe depression lasting from August 1929 to March 1933 where real GDP declined by almost 33 percent, a period of recovery, then another less severe depression of 1937-38."
I can't figure out if the idiots in the media can't be bothered to look something up, if they love making people think things are more dire than they really are, are on a political witch hunt or combination of the three!
But, SS was NOT instituted as a 'retirement' program'. It doesn't pay enough..it is an aid, but, not something to be depended upon for complete support. If it is....well, with inflation, etc (not to mention SS going bankrupt soon)...it isn't going to serve even the minimal purpose it was originally set up for.
What will you do then? Let people save on their own? Gouge workers for more and more and more of their money to fund it? That will get nasty pretty quick at some point. US citizens aren't real fond of super high taxation.
First a disclaimer...I'm NOT trolling...I'm dead serious....
Why do you think BOTH parties essentially support the influx of illegal aliens with fake SS #s coming across?
It's a way to collect SS dollars that will NEVER have to be paid out to the worker. Think about it. If they just wanted more workers, they could easily let more legal workers in.
Now if we could only get governments to have some kind of taxes on the bad stuff, and subsidize the good stuff. I'd eat better if I could afford it, quite frankly.
No, it's not the government's job to be your nanny. You know you should eat healthier, go forth and do so. It's not all that expensive; it's just usually more convenient to buy a McFatburger than make a healthy salad. Buy foods that are unprocessed. Yes, there is bagged salad, but it would be cheaper and healthier to buy a head of lettuce and a couple of carrots without the preservatives. Top with olive oil and vinegar and maybe some dried herbs instead of bottled dressing.
Buying food in it's most unprocessed state is usually best. I would except frozen vegetables (check for salt and other preservatives) which are usually flash frozen and so retain their vitamins potency longer and raw, unpasteurized milk. And this doesn't mean you have to become a vegetarian. But buying leaner meats, such as ground round instead of just ground beef, while they're more expensive, they have less waste as well as less fat. And you don't have to have red meat everyday. Chicken and some fish (baked, not fried) provide protein for less. Or combine non-meat products that form complete proteins. Like, peanut butter and whole wheat bread, beans and cornbread or corn tortilla, red beans and rice.
They raised taxes on cigarettes for years, yet change in people's habits did not come until there was massive peer pressure not to be around second hand smoke or to subject you child to it. Once it became both inconvenient and *uncool* to smoke, more people stopped smoking.
But junk food is not smoking and having a fast food burger or dining out isn't bad in moderation. The problem with these studies is it's all or nothing. They fed these mice nothing but fast food equivalent for NINE MONTHS. (Don't forget that research mice are not common mice but are bred to be more susceptible to disease.) Well of COURSE they're going to get sick. Who eats like this? But had they fed them healthy meals and then once or twice a week they got junk food, they probably wouldn't have the dramatic results to report.
Now if we could only get governments to have some kind of taxes on the bad stuff, and subsidize the good stuff. I'd eat better if I could afford it, quite frankly.
No, it's not the government's job to be your nanny. You know you should eat healthier, go forth and do so. It's not all that expensive; it's just usually more convenient to buy a McFatburger than make a healthy salad. Buy foods that are unprocessed. Yes, there is bagged salad, but it would be cheaper and healthier to buy a head of lettuce and a couple of carrots without the preservatives. Top with olive oil and vinegar and maybe some dried herbs instead of bottled dressing.
Buying food in it's most unprocessed state is usually best. I would except frozen vegetables (check for salt and other preservatives) which are usually flash frozen and so retain their vitamins potency longer and raw, unpasteurized milk. And this doesn't mean you have to become a vegetarian. But buying leaner meats, such as ground round instead of just ground beef, while they're more expensive, they have less waste as well as less fat. And you don't have to have red meat everyday. Chicken and some fish (baked, not fried) provide protein for less. Or combine non-meat products that form complete proteins. Like, peanut butter and whole wheat bread, beans and cornbread or corn tortilla, red beans and rice.
They raised taxes on cigarettes for years, yet change in people's habits did not come until there was massive peer pressure not to be around second hand smoke or to subject you child to it. Once it became both inconvenient and *uncool* to smoke, more people stopped smoking.
But junk food is not smoking and having a fast food burger or dining out isn't bad in moderation. The problem with these studies is it's all or nothing. They fed these mice nothing but fast food equivalent for NINE MONTHS. (Don't forget that research mice are not common mice but are bred to be more susceptible to disease.) Well of COURSE they're going to get sick. Who eats like this? But had they fed them healthy meals and then once or twice a week they got junk food, they probably wouldn't have the dramatic results to report.
I agree. I don't believe this is going to cause some draconian crackdown on MySpace or any other page over this. Had this been a another minor doing this, I would have felt differently, but this was an adult who knew the girl had problems and should have known better. I look on scum like her the same way I look on adults who prey on children over the internet for sex. You're using the internet to harm a child and that should be wrong.
Yes, I do think the parents should be smacked with a "what were you thinking" for obviously letting her roam the internet unsupervised. But you don't convict the parents if a sex offender stalks a child, you convict the stalker.
Well, you're right--we disagree about the cloning issue, not to mention your predatory view on life! I look at cloning humans from a moral point of view. I'm more about the famous line in Jurassic Park, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
And why do you think a cloned Neanderthal will receive, "finest education, free healthcare, the finest meals, and pretty much any electronics toys he likes"? For one thing, he'd never get out of the lab unless he broke out or someone broke him out (and don't think that wouldn't happen.) We don't know how far he could go in any education or if he could communicate with speech. And he would be massively stronger than a human, as an adult he could crush your hand, by shaking it. He be stuck in a lab, poked and prodded, you'd have massive protests (especially as he would be a child). All the makings of a Michael Crichton (RIP) novel.
And we'd better take care what we are cooking up in the name of science--lest we become the rabbit.
Actually there's another argument. First off, Neanderthals had larger brains than us...just because they died out didn't mean they were stupid. There's even proof that they could have used a form of spoken language. There could be a lot of things, weather, disease, famine, etc. They were also stronger. Neanderthals generally hunted in enclosed, wooded areas where they would attack prey in close proximity. The lack of spears or other tools may be explained by the area they hunted. You can't throw a spear in a heavy woods. Or their build may not be suited to throw something like a spear accurately.
Then there's the theory that they didn't totally die off, but interbred with early modern man. And there's been no evidence I've seen that says their DNA was incompatible with ours or they would have produced a "mule."
And where did you get the idea that their body was "designed for the ice age." They had no better protection from the cold that we do. Here's one theory that where it's believed they couldn't adapt their clothing to something that would help them survive the cold.
I think it will come down to a multiple of problems, no one thing wiped out the Neanderthal and I'm one who does believe there are some who are carrying a few of their genes. And although I'd really love to see theories laid to rest, IMO, he shouldn't be cloned like some animal. I believe he is at least a cousin and doesn't deserve to be turned into a lab rat or exhibit.
Except then, they might start dating them instead! :-)
Umm, wasn't he a naturalized American citizen? Or do you mean to suggest that it's a risk to employ anyone who wasn't a natural-born citizen on secure projects?
Well, I know that if you went into the military, there are certain fields you cannot get into if you are naturalized vs. American-born. I knew a guy, born in Germany and later his mother remarried an American, who also adopted him. Lived most of his life in the US. Yet he couldn't get into an electronics-based field in the military because he was naturalized vs. American-born. Things may have changed, but it wasn't that long ago. However, maybe it's time some of these high-security risk positions do the same, fair or not. Yes, obviously, some natural-born Americans would sell their own mother. But you are running a higher risk that a naturalized citizen could be subject to coercion, threats or blackmail from his native country--especially if he/she has relatives back there.
My idea of American 'culture' is fast food, celebrities, gas guzzling cars, and guns. Have I missed anything?
Obviously not the sitcoms and broadcast news....
Yeah, I figured that out later (with the help of my stepson who has a degree in economics!) Let's just say math was not my forté! Too many zeroes for my calculator. :-)
He read the World's Funniest Joke of course!
I'm going to disagree that she is mentally ill. She valued her pride above her common sense. She was too prideful to admit that she made a terrible mistake, and that turned into an obsession. But that doesn't equate to insanity, any more than the compulsion of people who buy lottery tickets in the face of 1 to 54,000,000 odds of winning The Big Prize. Sure, it's foolish, but it doesn't rank up there with schizophrenia.
You don't have to be schizophrenic to be mentally ill. Depression, for example, is a mental illness. There are plenty of people living (and driving!) among us that have some form of mental disorder. So you can be mentally ill and still be "functional." This case, I think, went beyond greed or just pride. She was obsessed. As I said to the other person, it was like she couldn't leave the gambling table until she either won her losses back or ran out of money. Sure there's nothing wrong with playing a slot machine or buying a lotto ticket, but if you're spending ALL your money on the slot machine or lotto tickets, that's another thing altogether.
There were several people who could have stopped her, but didn't. I just wondered why no one, especially the husband (although maybe he's incapacitated and she handles the day-to-day affairs) didn't do as you said and lock the money away from her. They said he was deaf (which doesn't mean he's incapacitated)...but maybe he is isolated and didn't know that she was running through the money or what she was spending it on.
Well addiction CAN be a disease or a sign of it. I worked several years for a non-profit drug rehabilitation so I've seen how addition can affect a person--not the physical addition...the mental one, which is a lot harder to fix. The reason some people can put in a couple of dollars in the slots and then walk away and some stand there until they're out of money, is beyond just greed. It's an obsession. Now some obsessions can be harmless. Obsessive compulsives may have to do little rituals before leaving a house. But if they become so bad that it starts to ruin their life, then yes, they need some help. I think the gamblers in your example are like alcoholics. Like alcohol, something stimulates the pleasure center in their brains when the gamble. I don't know if it's the thrill or suspense that the next dollar may be the big winner. But they can't stop once they start and usually need help to stay in recovery.
Most people get burned once in these scams and may be ashamed of getting taken, but don't continue to throw money down a black hole. This woman kept sending money, despite not getting the return as promised and despite everyone in her family and the bank telling her she was being scammed. This is, in essence just like someone trying to win back their losing at the slot machine until they use up the family's savings. That tells me that while she may be functional, she's clearly not well. You don't have to be schizophrenic or ready for a strait-jacket to have a mental disorder.
Had I been a family member I would have done everything possible to keep money out of this woman's hands and tried to get her some help.
However, given the spending spree the government is on, I find NASA far less objectionable than writing checks to citizens, bailouts, or WPAish "dig a ditch. now fill it in." economic "stimulus" plans.
Well instead of giving 700 BILLION (now likely more) to Wall Street so they can have more parties, bonuses and pay the people who got us into this mess obscene salaries, why don't they just give every US citizen (man, woman, child) $1 million apiece? It would be a fraction of the cost and would start people spending again. (And they's STILL have money for NASA.)
Of course the hitch would be getting people to come back to work...(but still!)