funny, I just looked at it a bit closer and they call it "enhanced error results". Clever. Also at the bottom of the page is a link called "Visitor Agreement", which if you click on takes you to a terms of service for using this "service". Of course cox customers are literally forced to this page everytime they mistype a domain name.
for their part, though, after doing a bit of digging through the "about this service link" I did find that there is a way to "opt out". They way of opting is for the user to configure their IPv4 adapter to use different DNS server addresses. instructions: http://support.cox.com/sdccommon/asp/contentredirect.asp?sprt_cid=c8daf50a-61ba-442d-90b9-8d2e18ceb58d
COX has been doing this for a while. Although it is not 'ad-laden', it is sponsored by Yahoo and 'suggests' some alternatives. When you mistype a domain name, or just make something up that doesn't exist, COX Cable redirects you to the following page: http://finder.cox.net/
Ya, the "Live" of Ubuntu 9.04 was worthless for us, too. Luckily, I figured it just didn't like to work off the CD drive and gave it a fair chance and installed it. Please see the next post, "my wife is now using linux" and you'll know how happy we are that we didn't dismiss it offhand because of the lousy live performance. I'm sure it works better for some people out there, or else they would abandon the "live" idea completely if they could have seen it on her computer when it was just trying to work off the CD. It's great when it is installed on the hard drive. You can also change the theme (colors)once you have it installed if they bug you.
No, it's only been 2 days and she's happy with what is already loaded, but for the sake of curiosity I should give it a shot on her computer and see how it goes with a couple programs. I appreciate the feedback. If I knew that I could run Photoshop and Outlook without any problems, I'd be considering Linux for my own computer.
The best way to phrase it is probably to say one's email needs are general or specific. If you need to use Outlook for handling your work email, for example, then your needs are specific. Specifically, your email needs to be managed by Outlook.
If someone's email needs are just the general need to use email, then your needs are pretty basic.
But, no I don't think there are varying levels of complexity in email messages -- just varying needs for how one interacts with them.
The last time I tried to install a linux distro was back in 2000 on an old parts computer I had laying around. It was a total disaster, nothing worked and I wasted a good deal of time. That was enough for me to steer clear until 2 days ago.
My wife's computer is used mostly for email, facebook, youtube, and light word processing. It had been running windows XP until I got tired of cleaning viruses off her computer. A couple days ago, it was really the last straw and I'd heard about Ubuntu 9.04 being a pretty good distro, so we gave it a shot. I was dreading trying to get it to work with her linksys wusb54gc network adapter and worried about the prospects of getting it to work with our networked lexmark laser printer.
I remember my reaction when everything worked without a hitch. I just laughed at how brainlessly easy it all was. This is the kind of experience that is going to bring linux to the mainstream. I don't know if I just got lucky, but for anyone who does not require specific software programs such as outlook and adobe photoshop -- for people like my wife, who use a computer for internet access and basic email and light wordprocessing -- this is the type of experience that Linux needs to maintain and expand on. She loves it and hasn't had any problems -- I got flash installed without a hitch and as far as she's concerned, her computer does exactly what it did before linux, only now it is faster. From my perspective, not having to spend so much time maintaining/fixing her computer is a welcome relief.
It was called the "planned economy". If you reckoned the economy needed 100 units of steel mills and 50 units of aluminum factories, but private individuals built 150 units of steel and 25 units of aluminum, you'd take money from steel to ensure that an additional 25 units of aluminum were brought online.
The name for this kind of policy is called Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:...and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.
To me, the search for sustainable energy is an attempt to provide for the general welfare. If our government does not take the lead in developing an affordable source of energy to supply the power needs of our country then they have shirked one of their most fundamental responsibilities which is to provide for the general welfare.
This proposal is no different than the government taking the lead in developing highway infrastructure. It is a vital national interest as important to our welfare as is the military. There are two ways to become a servant to another nation: through military conquest and/or economic conquest. As long as our economy and our welfare are dependent on fossil fuels that are owned by other nations, then we are essentially at their mercy and at the mercy of the world's current and future ability to pay for these non-renewable resources. In the modern era, an affordable supply of energy is fundamental to the general welfare. I think it is oversimplification to equate this topic with planned economies. We're talking about the government taking the lead in ensuring there is energy available for the production of widgets in the future and not having a discussion over producing X number of widgets by Y number of companies each quarter.
If we want electric vehicles, then we are going to need to look to nuclear power. Electric powered vehicles sound great until the whole country is using them and then the cost of coal and natural gas soar in response to the increased demand for power on America's coal and gas fired power plants. When coal and natural gas soar, then the cost of electricity will soar, too. The only long-term solution to meeting our power needs is to stop converting fossil fuels into energy. Nuclear energy doesn't have to be the cause of the earth's destruction, it could be the cause of the earth's salvation. At some point we will have to go all nuclear and the only question is will we wait until natural gas, coal, and oil are nearly gone or will we do it sooner and save future generations of Americans the economic hardship of paying for energy that is produced from ever dwindling supplies of fossil fuels?
http://magicjack.com/ . YMMV, but apparently this little device plugs into the back of a USB port and you then plug any phone into the back of the device. As long as the software is running, for $40/year you are supposed to receive unlimited local and long-distance calling. You must have a computer running 24/7 if you plan for your phone to work 24/7. It doesn't make sense to keep a desktop with a 250W power-supply running 24/7 just to have a working phone -- in some markets, the money you save on the phone service might just be diverted to your electric bill. However, with an old laptop computer that has a tiny power supply and really isn't good for much else, this might make sense. I've read some reviews about this thing that are positive and some that are negative... don't buy it without investigating it, their customer service is nearly nonexistent, but there are other people out there who seem happy with their $40/year local and LD phone service.
I like this study because it helps highlight what an ignorant and knee-jerk reaction it is to advocate banning cellphones in cars, or forcing drivers to use hands-free kits. Cellphones are under fire because they are an easy to spot cause of distraction. Someone driving poorly can be spotted a good distance away with a cellphone to their ear, so drivers near them think, "Aha! More proof that cellphones are causing dangerous driving." The truth of the matter, as this study shows, is that having a conversation -- any conversation -- while performing any task is distracting. A hands-free kit does not remove the problem of distraction while driving since it is the act of being in engaged in a conversation that is the problem.
The problem for law enforcement, the courts, lawyers, knee-jerk politicians, and well-meaning but misguided citizens is that once we accept the fact that any conversation distracts us from driving and makes us less safe on the the road, then we have to question the wisdom of putting passenger seats in cars. We have to question the wisdom of allowing radios to be in cars. Anything that might make our minds stray from the task of driving.
Of course it is lunacy to think our society would ever accept outlawing passenger seats from cars, or radios from cars. But that's the dilemma. If the cellphone is dangerous because it distracts us with conversation, then so are passengers (perhaps even more so)... and so are radios.
But there are those who could argue that not using a hands-free kit is more dangerous because we take our eyes off the road. Those people are not arguing that the conversation is the dangerous thing, they're arguing that taking our eyes off the road, or one of our hands off the steering wheel is what's so dangerous. To be consistent, then, those people would have to oppose cupholders, radios with knobs/dials on the dash, A/C switches on the knobs -- hell, even instrument clusters since the instrument guages force us to completely remove our eyes from the road umpteen times an hour. Those people should be opposed to vanity mirrors of any kind and frankly, they shouldn't like the idea of having in-car GPS or anything that could cause us to remove our eyes from the road. And for anyone who suggests that only having one hand on the steering wheel is less safe, I would remind them that there was a time in the not so distant past that every car was a manual trasmission and we always drove with one hand on the steering wheel. I even know an amputee with an automatic transmission who has no choice but to drive with one hand on the steering wheel and he's a fantastic driver.
My point is simply that this study forces us to ask a lot of questions about what it is about cellphones that is any more dangerous than all the distractions in which we've been engaging since the invention of the automobile. I think its grossly inconsistent to moan and whine about cellphones without screaming about in-car radios, GPS, instrument clusters, cup-holders, passenger seats, vanity mirrors, map lights, manual transmissions, etc... and for a person to complain about everything distracting inside a car is to basically complain about cars themselves. Cars and everything in them... and life and everything about it... is distracting. Either accept it, or at least be consistent and blame all forms of distractions. It's just so much easier to blame cellphones since people can finally SEE one cause of distraction. It's a little harder to notice someone driving poorly because they are looking at themselves in the mirror, or because they're talking to a passenger seated next to them, or because they're glancing down at a GPS, or fiddling with their ashtrays, or adjusting a drink in their cupholders. But everyone can easily see a cellphone next to someone's ear so they say, "That's it, That's the problem!!! Ban cellphones from cars." That is very shortsighted and incredibly inconsistent.
I think Housing has to be one of the greatest differences in terms of cost. My grandparents purchased their first home for a little less than $5,000 brand new on an annual income of about $3,000 and my grandfather had only been out of school for a few years. Granted, our homes today are much better apportioned in terms of safety, insulation, amenities, appliances, utilities, and materials (especially electrical and plumbing), but for the time period in which they purchased their first house it was very modern and up-to-date. Home ownership is only a dream for most members of our generation who live in many parts of the country, whereas, it used to be taken for granted that anyone with steady employment could own their own house.
If you are suggesting that we have less to worry about financially than we did in 1958, then you are the one who is in la-la land. Productivity is more than two times what it was just going back to the 1960's. Yet, the $1.40 minimum wage of 1967 was worth $6.93 versus $5.15 in 2005. Real Wages for the median income have remained completely flat, while the top 20% of income earners are making 115% in real wages compared to 1970. Add to this the rapidly deteriorating value of the dollar, the absolute lack of any job security and disappearance of pensions (hell, even Ford and GM are getting rid of pensions these days... New York Life is the sole remaining major insurer who still offers a pension) coupled with the threat of offshoring and soaring energy costs with almost mandatory college education in most industries and the costs in time and capital associated with post-high school education -- then add to that healthcare costs that are rising twice as fast as inflation while the healthcare benefits provided by companies have decreased by 30% since 1970... and what you have is someone in denial who suggests we are more financially secure than we were at the end of the 1950s. Please visit http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig_03.html for some helpful statistics and numbers in.pdf format.
This is one hell of a different world than it was 50 years ago! America is not the place it was in 1958... Let's see, 1958: A college education was completely unnecessary for most well paying and secure jobs. This started someone in their career about 4-5 years ealier and saved them $30k-$40k in debt. In 1958 it only took 1 income earner in a family to provide enough to support the entire family. In 1958 most everyone could count on working for a big megacorp throughout their career and retire with a big fat pension to carry them through their golden years. Healthcare costs were a pittance compared to what they are today. Anyone could own their own home. Rents were also a pittance compared to what they are today. Anyone who thinks people under the age of 31 are too impatient are goddamned right because we don't have time to be patient, your generation has generously taken everything you could get for yourselves and left very little to us except your Medicare and Social Security debt. The company that wants to pretend it is 1958 without offering the same pensions, or unionization, without paying an employee enough to take care of the whole family on 1 income -- is being disingenuous to say the least. Talk about blaming the victims!
Because I can not resolve in my own mind how anyone can claim to believe in global "warming", yet have no clue as to what represents a "normal" temperature. According to the article, Antarctica was once much warmer than it is today -- so why not establish that period of time as representative of earth's "normal" temperature? That would show we are in a period of global cooling and any rise in temperature would mean we were moving back towards normal. Who the hell is to say that the last 100 or 1000 years should represent the normal temperature of earth and totally ignore a couple billion years. Simply because someone likes the idea of keeping their beach house in the family doesn't mean this is the normal temperature of the earth. It wasn't so long ago that most of North America was completely underwater -- is that "normal" ? Why not?
I completely agree and was searching for a post that mentioned using the GMAT or I would have posted the suggestion. I too just took the GMAT and all the mathematics the parent poster is interested in learning can be learned by preparing for the GMAT. I would add, however, that most free test-prep materials are inadequate except for those that come directly from mba.com (sample tests). When it comes to purchasing prep books, I have found a number of errors in the books from McGraw Hill and would advise avoiding those. The Kaplan books are fairly well done, as are the Peterson's books. Nothing will be a good substitute for hiring a tutor, though. Most university mathematics departments will have a "tutor list" and without much trouble one can locate a willing Doctoral candidate in Mathematics to teach the quantitative on the GMAT for $15/hr. They will easily identify where you are weak and teach you tricks and techniques that will be hard to locate in any single book. I more than doubled my quantitative score on the GMAT in only 2 months (the second time I took it) after I used this strategy and am now a candidate for most top-10 schools. Sadly, the GMAT doesn't cover statistics or accounting, both of which are fundamental to success in business school, so I'm auditing those next semester at the local university to make sure I don't arrive at b-school unprepared.
Sorry, the link I gave you is to their main banking page, in order to sign up for an eONE account, you need to use this link http://www.salemfivedirect.com/
I've been using SalemFive http://salemfive.com/ for four months now and have been wildly impressed. My "eONE checking account" had no setup fees, has no minimum acccount balance, they pay me 5.00% interest compounded daily and credited monthly, they REIMBURSE ATM FEES up to $20/mo. (I believe this is the figure, I've never exceeded the amount)and they even gave me my first 25 checks free. I keep thinking this is too good to be true and soon something will change, but I'll be damned if it hasn't been simply the best online banking solution. Oh, and their customer support is fantastic. Honestly, with options like this out there, I can't imagine you'll be too disappointed for long.
In my program, there's only 1 MBA student out of 120 students who uses a Mac. No professors have them. It may be popular with the kids, but in business school Mac might as well not exist.
I just don't understand all this badmouthing Vista. I haven't had a single problem, not a system freeze, no BSOD, everything "just works" perfectly fine. It's been far more reliable for me than XP was.
No child left behind has nothing to do with the article, in fact TFA, specifically points out that this fact:
Since well before the Bush Administration began using the impossibly sunny term "no child left behind," those who write education policy in the U.S. have worried most about kids at the bottom, stragglers of impoverished means or IQs. But surprisingly, gifted students drop out at the same rates as nongifted kids--about 5% of both populations leave school early.
This is "the police doing something right"?? WTF! "robberies spiked on paydays outside check cashing businesses in certain neighborhoods" was discovered in a criminology/sociology book entitled Armed Robbers in Action and beat these geniuses by several years. Rather than waste so much money "discovering" something that researchers have already known for years, maybe they could spend $8 at Amazon and read. You'd think the police would find research that interviews active armed robbers about their motivations and techniques to be relevant to their line of work. Hell, I had this as required reading in a criminology class I took as an elective. Maybe the police could just go to a local university and ask the criminology/sociology departments for their required reading lists each semester and they will leapfrog into the future without any need for data mining.
As some have pointed out, this legal attack involves students from Oklahoma State University, about 15,000-20,000 students. For the record, OSU does not have a school of law. The University of Oklahoma has a school of law, as does the University of Tulsa, and Oklahoma City Univesity. One wonders if the RIAA is focusing its efforts on big universities and the publicity they generate, but avoiding those universities that have a school of law (and the professors of law that accompany them) to avoid the scenario you mention.
This is an especially relevant topic to me because my fiance and I just had this conversation a few days ago. We marveled over the massive amount of seemingly useless data we are storing and decided to write down as much of it that had to do with numbers as we could. We wrote down all the accounts for which we could recall passwords, pin #s, the television channels we could recall, the radio stations we could recall, the addresses of our family members and extended family members, etc... the list was staggering. You don't really realize how much crap you carry around with you every day until you try to write it all down.
50 years ago...
...a friend and their whole family would share 1 phone number, the dad might have an office #. That's a total of 2. Today, a family of four might have one cellphone for each family member, a house number, and each parent may have a work number for a total of 7. 50 years ago, every person you called had an area code that matched the physical region they live in. Because of number portability, you need to remember the entire 10-digit number.
...you didn't have to remember email addresses.
...you didn't have to remember PIN #s because there weren't debit cards, ATM cards, credit cards, or touch-tone automated phone systems.
...you didn't have to remember which of the 300+ digital cable channels your favorite shows were on, nor did you have to remember which of the 150 satellite radio stations your favorite music was playing on.
...the divorce rate was tiny. A remarriage often introduces twice as many numbers into one's brain. A new anniversary, an additional birthday, each step-sibling adds a new birthday and new phone numbers, as they move out, there are more addresses to remember.
...personal computers didn't exist. For the programmers out there, think about the incredible amount of information you store that's related to programming. For everyone else, consider every URL you have memorized, every password, every command you still remember from your DOS days, every ASCII-character code, etc...
...feel free to add to the list, but it just shows that we remember a lot more than we realize. One can't be faulted for relying on a PDA to keep track of a person's 3 phone numbers, 2 email addresses, fax #, AIM screename, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
funny, I just looked at it a bit closer and they call it "enhanced error results". Clever. Also at the bottom of the page is a link called "Visitor Agreement", which if you click on takes you to a terms of service for using this "service". Of course cox customers are literally forced to this page everytime they mistype a domain name. for their part, though, after doing a bit of digging through the "about this service link" I did find that there is a way to "opt out". They way of opting is for the user to configure their IPv4 adapter to use different DNS server addresses. instructions: http://support.cox.com/sdccommon/asp/contentredirect.asp?sprt_cid=c8daf50a-61ba-442d-90b9-8d2e18ceb58d
COX has been doing this for a while. Although it is not 'ad-laden', it is sponsored by Yahoo and 'suggests' some alternatives. When you mistype a domain name, or just make something up that doesn't exist, COX Cable redirects you to the following page: http://finder.cox.net/
Ya, the "Live" of Ubuntu 9.04 was worthless for us, too. Luckily, I figured it just didn't like to work off the CD drive and gave it a fair chance and installed it. Please see the next post, "my wife is now using linux" and you'll know how happy we are that we didn't dismiss it offhand because of the lousy live performance. I'm sure it works better for some people out there, or else they would abandon the "live" idea completely if they could have seen it on her computer when it was just trying to work off the CD. It's great when it is installed on the hard drive. You can also change the theme (colors)once you have it installed if they bug you.
No, it's only been 2 days and she's happy with what is already loaded, but for the sake of curiosity I should give it a shot on her computer and see how it goes with a couple programs. I appreciate the feedback. If I knew that I could run Photoshop and Outlook without any problems, I'd be considering Linux for my own computer.
The best way to phrase it is probably to say one's email needs are general or specific. If you need to use Outlook for handling your work email, for example, then your needs are specific. Specifically, your email needs to be managed by Outlook. If someone's email needs are just the general need to use email, then your needs are pretty basic. But, no I don't think there are varying levels of complexity in email messages -- just varying needs for how one interacts with them.
The last time I tried to install a linux distro was back in 2000 on an old parts computer I had laying around. It was a total disaster, nothing worked and I wasted a good deal of time. That was enough for me to steer clear until 2 days ago. My wife's computer is used mostly for email, facebook, youtube, and light word processing. It had been running windows XP until I got tired of cleaning viruses off her computer. A couple days ago, it was really the last straw and I'd heard about Ubuntu 9.04 being a pretty good distro, so we gave it a shot. I was dreading trying to get it to work with her linksys wusb54gc network adapter and worried about the prospects of getting it to work with our networked lexmark laser printer. I remember my reaction when everything worked without a hitch. I just laughed at how brainlessly easy it all was. This is the kind of experience that is going to bring linux to the mainstream. I don't know if I just got lucky, but for anyone who does not require specific software programs such as outlook and adobe photoshop -- for people like my wife, who use a computer for internet access and basic email and light wordprocessing -- this is the type of experience that Linux needs to maintain and expand on. She loves it and hasn't had any problems -- I got flash installed without a hitch and as far as she's concerned, her computer does exactly what it did before linux, only now it is faster. From my perspective, not having to spend so much time maintaining/fixing her computer is a welcome relief.
Agreed, brother.
To me, the search for sustainable energy is an attempt to provide for the general welfare. If our government does not take the lead in developing an affordable source of energy to supply the power needs of our country then they have shirked one of their most fundamental responsibilities which is to provide for the general welfare.
This proposal is no different than the government taking the lead in developing highway infrastructure. It is a vital national interest as important to our welfare as is the military. There are two ways to become a servant to another nation: through military conquest and/or economic conquest. As long as our economy and our welfare are dependent on fossil fuels that are owned by other nations, then we are essentially at their mercy and at the mercy of the world's current and future ability to pay for these non-renewable resources. In the modern era, an affordable supply of energy is fundamental to the general welfare. I think it is oversimplification to equate this topic with planned economies. We're talking about the government taking the lead in ensuring there is energy available for the production of widgets in the future and not having a discussion over producing X number of widgets by Y number of companies each quarter.
If we want electric vehicles, then we are going to need to look to nuclear power. Electric powered vehicles sound great until the whole country is using them and then the cost of coal and natural gas soar in response to the increased demand for power on America's coal and gas fired power plants. When coal and natural gas soar, then the cost of electricity will soar, too. The only long-term solution to meeting our power needs is to stop converting fossil fuels into energy. Nuclear energy doesn't have to be the cause of the earth's destruction, it could be the cause of the earth's salvation. At some point we will have to go all nuclear and the only question is will we wait until natural gas, coal, and oil are nearly gone or will we do it sooner and save future generations of Americans the economic hardship of paying for energy that is produced from ever dwindling supplies of fossil fuels?
http://magicjack.com/ . YMMV, but apparently this little device plugs into the back of a USB port and you then plug any phone into the back of the device. As long as the software is running, for $40/year you are supposed to receive unlimited local and long-distance calling. You must have a computer running 24/7 if you plan for your phone to work 24/7. It doesn't make sense to keep a desktop with a 250W power-supply running 24/7 just to have a working phone -- in some markets, the money you save on the phone service might just be diverted to your electric bill. However, with an old laptop computer that has a tiny power supply and really isn't good for much else, this might make sense. I've read some reviews about this thing that are positive and some that are negative... don't buy it without investigating it, their customer service is nearly nonexistent, but there are other people out there who seem happy with their $40/year local and LD phone service.
I like this study because it helps highlight what an ignorant and knee-jerk reaction it is to advocate banning cellphones in cars, or forcing drivers to use hands-free kits. Cellphones are under fire because they are an easy to spot cause of distraction. Someone driving poorly can be spotted a good distance away with a cellphone to their ear, so drivers near them think, "Aha! More proof that cellphones are causing dangerous driving." The truth of the matter, as this study shows, is that having a conversation -- any conversation -- while performing any task is distracting. A hands-free kit does not remove the problem of distraction while driving since it is the act of being in engaged in a conversation that is the problem. The problem for law enforcement, the courts, lawyers, knee-jerk politicians, and well-meaning but misguided citizens is that once we accept the fact that any conversation distracts us from driving and makes us less safe on the the road, then we have to question the wisdom of putting passenger seats in cars. We have to question the wisdom of allowing radios to be in cars. Anything that might make our minds stray from the task of driving. Of course it is lunacy to think our society would ever accept outlawing passenger seats from cars, or radios from cars. But that's the dilemma. If the cellphone is dangerous because it distracts us with conversation, then so are passengers (perhaps even more so)... and so are radios. But there are those who could argue that not using a hands-free kit is more dangerous because we take our eyes off the road. Those people are not arguing that the conversation is the dangerous thing, they're arguing that taking our eyes off the road, or one of our hands off the steering wheel is what's so dangerous. To be consistent, then, those people would have to oppose cupholders, radios with knobs/dials on the dash, A/C switches on the knobs -- hell, even instrument clusters since the instrument guages force us to completely remove our eyes from the road umpteen times an hour. Those people should be opposed to vanity mirrors of any kind and frankly, they shouldn't like the idea of having in-car GPS or anything that could cause us to remove our eyes from the road. And for anyone who suggests that only having one hand on the steering wheel is less safe, I would remind them that there was a time in the not so distant past that every car was a manual trasmission and we always drove with one hand on the steering wheel. I even know an amputee with an automatic transmission who has no choice but to drive with one hand on the steering wheel and he's a fantastic driver. My point is simply that this study forces us to ask a lot of questions about what it is about cellphones that is any more dangerous than all the distractions in which we've been engaging since the invention of the automobile. I think its grossly inconsistent to moan and whine about cellphones without screaming about in-car radios, GPS, instrument clusters, cup-holders, passenger seats, vanity mirrors, map lights, manual transmissions, etc... and for a person to complain about everything distracting inside a car is to basically complain about cars themselves. Cars and everything in them... and life and everything about it... is distracting. Either accept it, or at least be consistent and blame all forms of distractions. It's just so much easier to blame cellphones since people can finally SEE one cause of distraction. It's a little harder to notice someone driving poorly because they are looking at themselves in the mirror, or because they're talking to a passenger seated next to them, or because they're glancing down at a GPS, or fiddling with their ashtrays, or adjusting a drink in their cupholders. But everyone can easily see a cellphone next to someone's ear so they say, "That's it, That's the problem!!! Ban cellphones from cars." That is very shortsighted and incredibly inconsistent.
Sophia, Bulgaria was the home of the Dark Avenger one of the most notorious virus authors in history. He was quite active during the 80386/80486 time period. Some interesting reading about what is known of him can be found in these links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Avenger http://www.research.ibm.com/antivirus/SciPapers/Gordon/Avenger.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.11/heartof.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n2_v14/ai_13381563/pg_9
I think Housing has to be one of the greatest differences in terms of cost. My grandparents purchased their first home for a little less than $5,000 brand new on an annual income of about $3,000 and my grandfather had only been out of school for a few years. Granted, our homes today are much better apportioned in terms of safety, insulation, amenities, appliances, utilities, and materials (especially electrical and plumbing), but for the time period in which they purchased their first house it was very modern and up-to-date. Home ownership is only a dream for most members of our generation who live in many parts of the country, whereas, it used to be taken for granted that anyone with steady employment could own their own house.
If you are suggesting that we have less to worry about financially than we did in 1958, then you are the one who is in la-la land. Productivity is more than two times what it was just going back to the 1960's. Yet, the $1.40 minimum wage of 1967 was worth $6.93 versus $5.15 in 2005. Real Wages for the median income have remained completely flat, while the top 20% of income earners are making 115% in real wages compared to 1970. Add to this the rapidly deteriorating value of the dollar, the absolute lack of any job security and disappearance of pensions (hell, even Ford and GM are getting rid of pensions these days... New York Life is the sole remaining major insurer who still offers a pension) coupled with the threat of offshoring and soaring energy costs with almost mandatory college education in most industries and the costs in time and capital associated with post-high school education -- then add to that healthcare costs that are rising twice as fast as inflation while the healthcare benefits provided by companies have decreased by 30% since 1970... and what you have is someone in denial who suggests we are more financially secure than we were at the end of the 1950s. Please visit http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig_03.html for some helpful statistics and numbers in .pdf format.
This is one hell of a different world than it was 50 years ago! America is not the place it was in 1958... Let's see, 1958: A college education was completely unnecessary for most well paying and secure jobs. This started someone in their career about 4-5 years ealier and saved them $30k-$40k in debt. In 1958 it only took 1 income earner in a family to provide enough to support the entire family. In 1958 most everyone could count on working for a big megacorp throughout their career and retire with a big fat pension to carry them through their golden years. Healthcare costs were a pittance compared to what they are today. Anyone could own their own home. Rents were also a pittance compared to what they are today. Anyone who thinks people under the age of 31 are too impatient are goddamned right because we don't have time to be patient, your generation has generously taken everything you could get for yourselves and left very little to us except your Medicare and Social Security debt. The company that wants to pretend it is 1958 without offering the same pensions, or unionization, without paying an employee enough to take care of the whole family on 1 income -- is being disingenuous to say the least. Talk about blaming the victims!
Because I can not resolve in my own mind how anyone can claim to believe in global "warming", yet have no clue as to what represents a "normal" temperature. According to the article, Antarctica was once much warmer than it is today -- so why not establish that period of time as representative of earth's "normal" temperature? That would show we are in a period of global cooling and any rise in temperature would mean we were moving back towards normal. Who the hell is to say that the last 100 or 1000 years should represent the normal temperature of earth and totally ignore a couple billion years. Simply because someone likes the idea of keeping their beach house in the family doesn't mean this is the normal temperature of the earth. It wasn't so long ago that most of North America was completely underwater -- is that "normal" ? Why not?
I completely agree and was searching for a post that mentioned using the GMAT or I would have posted the suggestion. I too just took the GMAT and all the mathematics the parent poster is interested in learning can be learned by preparing for the GMAT. I would add, however, that most free test-prep materials are inadequate except for those that come directly from mba.com (sample tests). When it comes to purchasing prep books, I have found a number of errors in the books from McGraw Hill and would advise avoiding those. The Kaplan books are fairly well done, as are the Peterson's books. Nothing will be a good substitute for hiring a tutor, though. Most university mathematics departments will have a "tutor list" and without much trouble one can locate a willing Doctoral candidate in Mathematics to teach the quantitative on the GMAT for $15/hr. They will easily identify where you are weak and teach you tricks and techniques that will be hard to locate in any single book. I more than doubled my quantitative score on the GMAT in only 2 months (the second time I took it) after I used this strategy and am now a candidate for most top-10 schools. Sadly, the GMAT doesn't cover statistics or accounting, both of which are fundamental to success in business school, so I'm auditing those next semester at the local university to make sure I don't arrive at b-school unprepared.
Sorry, the link I gave you is to their main banking page, in order to sign up for an eONE account, you need to use this link http://www.salemfivedirect.com/
--Dave
I've been using SalemFive http://salemfive.com/ for four months now and have been wildly impressed. My "eONE checking account" had no setup fees, has no minimum acccount balance, they pay me 5.00% interest compounded daily and credited monthly, they REIMBURSE ATM FEES up to $20/mo. (I believe this is the figure, I've never exceeded the amount)and they even gave me my first 25 checks free. I keep thinking this is too good to be true and soon something will change, but I'll be damned if it hasn't been simply the best online banking solution. Oh, and their customer support is fantastic. Honestly, with options like this out there, I can't imagine you'll be too disappointed for long.
--Dave
In my program, there's only 1 MBA student out of 120 students who uses a Mac. No professors have them. It may be popular with the kids, but in business school Mac might as well not exist.
I just don't understand all this badmouthing Vista. I haven't had a single problem, not a system freeze, no BSOD, everything "just works" perfectly fine. It's been far more reliable for me than XP was.
This is "the police doing something right"?? WTF! "robberies spiked on paydays outside check cashing businesses in certain neighborhoods" was discovered in a criminology/sociology book entitled Armed Robbers in Action and beat these geniuses by several years. Rather than waste so much money "discovering" something that researchers have already known for years, maybe they could spend $8 at Amazon and read. You'd think the police would find research that interviews active armed robbers about their motivations and techniques to be relevant to their line of work. Hell, I had this as required reading in a criminology class I took as an elective. Maybe the police could just go to a local university and ask the criminology/sociology departments for their required reading lists each semester and they will leapfrog into the future without any need for data mining.
--Dave
As some have pointed out, this legal attack involves students from Oklahoma State University, about 15,000-20,000 students. For the record, OSU does not have a school of law. The University of Oklahoma has a school of law, as does the University of Tulsa, and Oklahoma City Univesity. One wonders if the RIAA is focusing its efforts on big universities and the publicity they generate, but avoiding those universities that have a school of law (and the professors of law that accompany them) to avoid the scenario you mention.
--Dave
This is an especially relevant topic to me because my fiance and I just had this conversation a few days ago. We marveled over the massive amount of seemingly useless data we are storing and decided to write down as much of it that had to do with numbers as we could. We wrote down all the accounts for which we could recall passwords, pin #s, the television channels we could recall, the radio stations we could recall, the addresses of our family members and extended family members, etc... the list was staggering. You don't really realize how much crap you carry around with you every day until you try to write it all down.
50 years ago...
...a friend and their whole family would share 1 phone number, the dad might have an office #. That's a total of 2. Today, a family of four might have one cellphone for each family member, a house number, and each parent may have a work number for a total of 7. 50 years ago, every person you called had an area code that matched the physical region they live in. Because of number portability, you need to remember the entire 10-digit number.
...you didn't have to remember email addresses.
...you didn't have to remember PIN #s because there weren't debit cards, ATM cards, credit cards, or touch-tone automated phone systems.
...you didn't have to remember which of the 300+ digital cable channels your favorite shows were on, nor did you have to remember which of the 150 satellite radio stations your favorite music was playing on.
...the divorce rate was tiny. A remarriage often introduces twice as many numbers into one's brain. A new anniversary, an additional birthday, each step-sibling adds a new birthday and new phone numbers, as they move out, there are more addresses to remember.
...personal computers didn't exist. For the programmers out there, think about the incredible amount of information you store that's related to programming. For everyone else, consider every URL you have memorized, every password, every command you still remember from your DOS days, every ASCII-character code, etc...
...feel free to add to the list, but it just shows that we remember a lot more than we realize. One can't be faulted for relying on a PDA to keep track of a person's 3 phone numbers, 2 email addresses, fax #, AIM screename, etc...
--Dave