I am in a situation where I have been forced to change from being paid weekly to monthly. I am therefore having to exist on %26#039;no wages%26#039; for 3 weeks. I will get those 3 weeks wages when I retire. In effect I will be working on 1/4 pay next month|||Happens all the time. Check with Labor relations; but it%26#039;s probably legal|||Yes, it is legal. Getting paid once a month is way better than not having a job.|||so now you get it all at once instead of in pieces? what is your problem with that? Didn%26#039;t they give you a weeks notice?
and how come your not saving a portion to help you through rough times anyway...didn%26#039;t you read the story about the grasshopper?|||I think you are getting confused between being paid monthly %26amp; working a month in advance.
during the switch over a good company would offer you a sub, if its not easy for you to do. which you would pay back out of your full wages at the end of the month.|||Payment policies are decided by the company not the law. It is legal for a company to change that policy from weekly to bi-weekly to monthly and back again. Although it may cause a hardship and temporary adjustments there is nothing in the law that states a company has to adhere to a set pay schedule unless stipulated in a contract made with the employee.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
What do you think about Homeland Security Sec. Napolitano's changing "Terrorism" word to "Man-Caused Disaster"?
In the endless parade to be politically ever-so-correct and in Obama%26#039;s campaign to distance himself as much as possible from any of Bush%26#039;s policies, the new U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has come out publicly refusing to use the word %26quot;Terrorism%26quot; in favor of a new word - %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot;. She claims the change is purposeful to denote a departure from the %26quot;politics of fear%26quot; to a supposed state of readiness for %26quot;any situation%26quot; that may come.
Do you buy this?
If a Terrorist purposely blows up another huge icon like the World Trade Center (regardless of which country it occurs in) and causes even just one casualty (not to mention hundreds or thousands of lives), are you going to call that some kind of %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot;? Or an outright act of Terrorism?
Is calling Terrorism a %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot; similar to calling a Garbage Man a %26quot;Sanitation Engineer%26quot;?
Why would anyone WANT to put a politically correct name on Terrorism? Are we trying to not offend Terrorists by calling them something less terrible-sounding? I think they WANT to sound as terrible as they can, right? Are we trying to diffuse Bad Bart by calling him %26quot;Not-so-Bad Bart%26quot;....%26quot;Confused Bart%26quot;....or %26quot;Excuse-him-because-he can%26#039;t-help-himself Bart%26quot;?
When you think of a %26quot;disaster%26quot;, don%26#039;t you think of something that occurs naturally or in the natural world, albeit unusual? By changing terrorism into something that is a %26quot;disaster%26quot;, is the underlying message that these horrific acts are just a natural consequence of different factions of mankind existing and interacting on the same planet, therefore are to be %26quot;understood%26quot;? Do we really want to %26quot;understand%26quot; when terrorists purposely kill thousands of innocent people to strike terror into the hearts of people they perceive as their enemy because they may not believe in the same God or worship in the same church?
Is Napolitano just parroting Obama, or was the term %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot; her brilliant idea for putting a cute little pink bow on murder and mayhem?
For the news story, see this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5095…|||Terrorism itself is really a policy created by one group with the intention to intimidate and invoke feelings of %26quot;terror%26quot; in another group. Terrorism is almost always used to prove an idealogical point and is aimed at innocents, non-combatants, third parties, etc.
In 1988, the US Army had over 100 different definitions of the word “terrorism.%26quot; Today, no doubt, there are hundreds more. Because of the wide range of definititions around the world, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.
The word “terrorism” is also VERY politically and emotionally charged, which adds to the difficulty in defining the word. While, we all believe that 9-11 was an act of terrorism (in a physical sense), one could also argue that the US Government uses terrorism. Posessing nuclear weapons while disallowing enemy nations to posess the same defenses is likely viewed as terrorism by those enemy nation%26#039;s people. We hope that out ever-present eminent threat will terrify them (terrorism). The media also practices a form of terrorism when they force unattainable beauty standards upon average people, then use scare tactics like, %26quot;You%26#039;ll never find true love if you%26#039;re overweight%26quot; or %26quot;Your partner won%26#039;t be happy with you if you don%26#039;t use Extenze.%26quot;
While I don%26#039;t love the term %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster,%26quot; I do feel that %26quot;terrorism%26quot; is too broad a term to use for any individual physical attack. Unfortunately, there are already too many %26quot;Man-Caused Disasters%26quot; that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as The Dust Bowl, Love Canal, and Britney Spears.
What I can%26#039;t understand is: Why demonize men by being gender-specific in the new title for terror? While women are socialized to be passive and non-agressive, you can%26#039;t exclude women from terrorism. Women are just as capable of having terrorist ideaology as men.
We simply can%26#039;t get away from the term %26quot;terrorism%26quot; because it is now part of our vernacular. I guess, in the end, I don%26#039;t understand the purpose of this new title for terrorist acts. If it%26#039;s to sugar-coat another bad, scary thing in our world, big mistake. If it%26#039;s to be more specific when talking about terrorism, it%26#039;s a good thought. Though, they haven%26#039;t gotten it yet, and they may just be tilting at windmills. Should we be spending time fighting the word %26quot;terrorism?%26quot; What%26#039;s next, WMDs are %26quot;extinguishment devices?%26quot;|||I%26#039;m a Brit, so not my concern really. But seems like a profound load of bollocks to me.
Do you buy this?
If a Terrorist purposely blows up another huge icon like the World Trade Center (regardless of which country it occurs in) and causes even just one casualty (not to mention hundreds or thousands of lives), are you going to call that some kind of %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot;? Or an outright act of Terrorism?
Is calling Terrorism a %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot; similar to calling a Garbage Man a %26quot;Sanitation Engineer%26quot;?
Why would anyone WANT to put a politically correct name on Terrorism? Are we trying to not offend Terrorists by calling them something less terrible-sounding? I think they WANT to sound as terrible as they can, right? Are we trying to diffuse Bad Bart by calling him %26quot;Not-so-Bad Bart%26quot;....%26quot;Confused Bart%26quot;....or %26quot;Excuse-him-because-he can%26#039;t-help-himself Bart%26quot;?
When you think of a %26quot;disaster%26quot;, don%26#039;t you think of something that occurs naturally or in the natural world, albeit unusual? By changing terrorism into something that is a %26quot;disaster%26quot;, is the underlying message that these horrific acts are just a natural consequence of different factions of mankind existing and interacting on the same planet, therefore are to be %26quot;understood%26quot;? Do we really want to %26quot;understand%26quot; when terrorists purposely kill thousands of innocent people to strike terror into the hearts of people they perceive as their enemy because they may not believe in the same God or worship in the same church?
Is Napolitano just parroting Obama, or was the term %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster%26quot; her brilliant idea for putting a cute little pink bow on murder and mayhem?
For the news story, see this link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5095…|||Terrorism itself is really a policy created by one group with the intention to intimidate and invoke feelings of %26quot;terror%26quot; in another group. Terrorism is almost always used to prove an idealogical point and is aimed at innocents, non-combatants, third parties, etc.
In 1988, the US Army had over 100 different definitions of the word “terrorism.%26quot; Today, no doubt, there are hundreds more. Because of the wide range of definititions around the world, there is no internationally agreed upon definition of terrorism.
The word “terrorism” is also VERY politically and emotionally charged, which adds to the difficulty in defining the word. While, we all believe that 9-11 was an act of terrorism (in a physical sense), one could also argue that the US Government uses terrorism. Posessing nuclear weapons while disallowing enemy nations to posess the same defenses is likely viewed as terrorism by those enemy nation%26#039;s people. We hope that out ever-present eminent threat will terrify them (terrorism). The media also practices a form of terrorism when they force unattainable beauty standards upon average people, then use scare tactics like, %26quot;You%26#039;ll never find true love if you%26#039;re overweight%26quot; or %26quot;Your partner won%26#039;t be happy with you if you don%26#039;t use Extenze.%26quot;
While I don%26#039;t love the term %26quot;Man-Caused Disaster,%26quot; I do feel that %26quot;terrorism%26quot; is too broad a term to use for any individual physical attack. Unfortunately, there are already too many %26quot;Man-Caused Disasters%26quot; that have nothing to do with terrorism, such as The Dust Bowl, Love Canal, and Britney Spears.
What I can%26#039;t understand is: Why demonize men by being gender-specific in the new title for terror? While women are socialized to be passive and non-agressive, you can%26#039;t exclude women from terrorism. Women are just as capable of having terrorist ideaology as men.
We simply can%26#039;t get away from the term %26quot;terrorism%26quot; because it is now part of our vernacular. I guess, in the end, I don%26#039;t understand the purpose of this new title for terrorist acts. If it%26#039;s to sugar-coat another bad, scary thing in our world, big mistake. If it%26#039;s to be more specific when talking about terrorism, it%26#039;s a good thought. Though, they haven%26#039;t gotten it yet, and they may just be tilting at windmills. Should we be spending time fighting the word %26quot;terrorism?%26quot; What%26#039;s next, WMDs are %26quot;extinguishment devices?%26quot;|||I%26#039;m a Brit, so not my concern really. But seems like a profound load of bollocks to me.
How can intelligence be immortal?
Intelligence is not a simple thing.
It involves recognising and ordering patterns of information, then building relationships between these patterns, based on past experience.
It seems unlikely to me that %26#039;something%26#039; that works in this way, could have existed %26#039;forever%26#039;.
Complex systems like intelligence, need considerable time to come about, and an awful lot of trial and error.
On the other hand, I can see how energy might have existed indefinitely. In all of human experience, we have never been able to create energy out of nothing, or destroy it entirely. It only ever changes from one state to another.
The way energy changes and interacts in different situations, is exactly what you need for complex systems like intelligence, to come about. Add unimaginably long periods of time into the mix and it shouldn%26#039;t come as much of a surprise, that something as complicated as human beings might develop eventually.|||If this is directed to me, I never said, intelligence was immoral. God gave us intelligence, we did not get it on our own. Who do you think gave Einstein his brain? God did. I told you, the bible says he gets the credit for everything. But mankind is very sinful so we can make the intelligence God gave us into something ugly. Look how we kill babies through abortion. That%26#039;s intelligence gone bad. We still and lie to get any and everything we desire. Yes, we are intelligent, we have to be, God said, he created mankind in his own image. But we are also wicked with the intelligence.|||God is clearly impossible, but you%26#039;re not going to be able to use logic with that bunch.|||Because Creator God Made %26quot;Intelligence%26quot; in the first place and He is not the author of confusion, dude!|||it%26#039;s not your intelligence that%26#039;s immortal, it%26#039;s your essence, your true Self.
It involves recognising and ordering patterns of information, then building relationships between these patterns, based on past experience.
It seems unlikely to me that %26#039;something%26#039; that works in this way, could have existed %26#039;forever%26#039;.
Complex systems like intelligence, need considerable time to come about, and an awful lot of trial and error.
On the other hand, I can see how energy might have existed indefinitely. In all of human experience, we have never been able to create energy out of nothing, or destroy it entirely. It only ever changes from one state to another.
The way energy changes and interacts in different situations, is exactly what you need for complex systems like intelligence, to come about. Add unimaginably long periods of time into the mix and it shouldn%26#039;t come as much of a surprise, that something as complicated as human beings might develop eventually.|||If this is directed to me, I never said, intelligence was immoral. God gave us intelligence, we did not get it on our own. Who do you think gave Einstein his brain? God did. I told you, the bible says he gets the credit for everything. But mankind is very sinful so we can make the intelligence God gave us into something ugly. Look how we kill babies through abortion. That%26#039;s intelligence gone bad. We still and lie to get any and everything we desire. Yes, we are intelligent, we have to be, God said, he created mankind in his own image. But we are also wicked with the intelligence.|||God is clearly impossible, but you%26#039;re not going to be able to use logic with that bunch.|||Because Creator God Made %26quot;Intelligence%26quot; in the first place and He is not the author of confusion, dude!|||it%26#039;s not your intelligence that%26#039;s immortal, it%26#039;s your essence, your true Self.
If I am taking an existing chemical product but using it for a new application is it patentable?
*(I have seen similar questions on here but am still unsure about this situation)
Somewhat similar example: Say completely hypothetically I wanted to take an existing cleaning product (like CLR) and found out that it works to remove wine from couches. All I wanted to do to the product was to add in some dye the same as the color of the couch to make it more plesurable to the consumer. Is this considered an improvement patent? I am changing the use of the product and industry it is marketed in but using the existing chemical balance and just adding in something for this new particular use. Any advice is helpful.|||I am not an expert in this field. However, simple logic suggests that if YOU do NOT own the Original Patent, then you do not have the right to modify or sell that product. Obviously, if you are serious about your idea, a consultation with a qualified patent attorney would be wise.
Best wishes and good luck.|||Yes. New use, new patent. But good luck defending it if your competitors find out.
Somewhat similar example: Say completely hypothetically I wanted to take an existing cleaning product (like CLR) and found out that it works to remove wine from couches. All I wanted to do to the product was to add in some dye the same as the color of the couch to make it more plesurable to the consumer. Is this considered an improvement patent? I am changing the use of the product and industry it is marketed in but using the existing chemical balance and just adding in something for this new particular use. Any advice is helpful.|||I am not an expert in this field. However, simple logic suggests that if YOU do NOT own the Original Patent, then you do not have the right to modify or sell that product. Obviously, if you are serious about your idea, a consultation with a qualified patent attorney would be wise.
Best wishes and good luck.|||Yes. New use, new patent. But good luck defending it if your competitors find out.
Vitamins for Chronic Dry Eyes?
Hi! I%26#039;m a 41 year old female, recently diagnosed with Chronic Dry eyes, according to my eye doctor, have a mild case. I%26#039;ve been reading alot about dry eyes online and have a few questions.
From what I read, chronic dry eyes can be caused by age, vitamin defficiency, menopause, prolonged computer use, allergies and other medical conditions. I%26#039;m in good health but eat a terrible diet - junk food, fast food, no vegetables. I have bad allergies, am a writer so I stare at a computer screen for hours at a time and I%26#039;m in peri-menopause.
I was wondering if changing my diet and taking supplements like Vitamin A or Omega 3 or even %26quot;eye vitamins%26quot; would halt or even reverse this condition.
Also, do allergies cause chronic dry eyes or just make an existing situation worse?
I am able currently able to wear a contact but should I consider puctual plugs now or wait to see if the condition worsens.
Thanks for your help!|||What kind of contacts do you currently wear? You should definitely talk to your doctor about punctal plugs or trying a drop called Restasis. It helps your body produce more tears. Unfortunately it takes a couple of months to notice a difference but it works. Allergies can make your dry eye symptoms worse as well. There is a vitamin you can look into - its called Ocuvite - you should be able to find it in any drugstore or wal-mart. But dry eyes is so common at your age with hormone changes. Do you use any drops while on computer?|||Here%26#039;s a great article about omega-3%26#039;s and dry eye:
http://www.theratears.com/nutrition-in-d鈥?/a>
As far as allergies and dry eye, my understanding is that it%26#039;s the treatments (ie, anithistamines) that can exacerbate dry eyes. Also, allergies can make contact lens wear difficult, but some people find that use of daily disposables helps to solve this.
Also, you may want to read this about dry eye and menopause:
http://www.allaboutvision.com/over40/dry鈥?/a>|||I didn%26#039;t have a huge problem but I got silicone ( permanent plugs) placed and rarely need to use artificial tears. I do think that vitamins that contain lutein are always good and now there is another type of vitamin called Biotears that supposably help, ( I have not used them but several patients have bought them and most are complaining less and less of dry eye. it helps rehydrate all sebaceous glands as well from what I hear) Maybe you can try them if you haven%26#039;t already. Age and everything you listed are contributing to dry eye although I don%26#039;t think your eyes would be greatly better if you stopped using computer of changed to a healthy diet , some of us just have this darn problem.
From what I read, chronic dry eyes can be caused by age, vitamin defficiency, menopause, prolonged computer use, allergies and other medical conditions. I%26#039;m in good health but eat a terrible diet - junk food, fast food, no vegetables. I have bad allergies, am a writer so I stare at a computer screen for hours at a time and I%26#039;m in peri-menopause.
I was wondering if changing my diet and taking supplements like Vitamin A or Omega 3 or even %26quot;eye vitamins%26quot; would halt or even reverse this condition.
Also, do allergies cause chronic dry eyes or just make an existing situation worse?
I am able currently able to wear a contact but should I consider puctual plugs now or wait to see if the condition worsens.
Thanks for your help!|||What kind of contacts do you currently wear? You should definitely talk to your doctor about punctal plugs or trying a drop called Restasis. It helps your body produce more tears. Unfortunately it takes a couple of months to notice a difference but it works. Allergies can make your dry eye symptoms worse as well. There is a vitamin you can look into - its called Ocuvite - you should be able to find it in any drugstore or wal-mart. But dry eyes is so common at your age with hormone changes. Do you use any drops while on computer?|||Here%26#039;s a great article about omega-3%26#039;s and dry eye:
http://www.theratears.com/nutrition-in-d鈥?/a>
As far as allergies and dry eye, my understanding is that it%26#039;s the treatments (ie, anithistamines) that can exacerbate dry eyes. Also, allergies can make contact lens wear difficult, but some people find that use of daily disposables helps to solve this.
Also, you may want to read this about dry eye and menopause:
http://www.allaboutvision.com/over40/dry鈥?/a>|||I didn%26#039;t have a huge problem but I got silicone ( permanent plugs) placed and rarely need to use artificial tears. I do think that vitamins that contain lutein are always good and now there is another type of vitamin called Biotears that supposably help, ( I have not used them but several patients have bought them and most are complaining less and less of dry eye. it helps rehydrate all sebaceous glands as well from what I hear) Maybe you can try them if you haven%26#039;t already. Age and everything you listed are contributing to dry eye although I don%26#039;t think your eyes would be greatly better if you stopped using computer of changed to a healthy diet , some of us just have this darn problem.
Does any kind of drug exist, legal or illegal, that doesn't have a negative physical or psychological affect?
If the circumstances of your life are negative and injurious to your psychological well being but you can not, as a fact, not as a perception, remove yourself from the situation - does a drug exist that can either numb you or help you to endure, that is not physically or psychologically damaging or addictive over the course of long term use? Prayer doesn%26#039;t work and there is no possiblity of a change in circumstances. Finally, if such a drug does not exist why has it not been developed and the necessary funds invested in its research and development?|||What?|||everything has some effect...even eggs................
They have some happy pills that take the edge off.see the doc........|||All prescription and non prescripton drugs have side affects and they can be major. Illegal drugs can be helpful somewhat. Smoking a little pot, isn%26#039;t going to kill you. But most of the other illegal drugs are pretty bad. Why nothing else is available is upsetting, but the FDA is making money
so, apparently that is their biggest concern.|||It does not, and never will exist. No amount of development, research, or investment will give you this magic pill. Wake up, and try living in the real world. Seriously.
Now, if you%26#039;re willing to actually TALK about your circumstances, there are plenty of wonderful, knowledgeable people on this site that can give you some useful feedback.|||all drugs have side-effects but no always occur. If the circumstances of your life are negative and injurious to your psychological well being.....remove yourself from the situation....the best option is to try to change the surrounding so that the person will be less affected (psychologically) by the circumstances around him or her. NO such drug will exist because where would the money to pay for the research and development come from?|||no if it did not then it would not be classified as a drug it would be something else
They have some happy pills that take the edge off.see the doc........|||All prescription and non prescripton drugs have side affects and they can be major. Illegal drugs can be helpful somewhat. Smoking a little pot, isn%26#039;t going to kill you. But most of the other illegal drugs are pretty bad. Why nothing else is available is upsetting, but the FDA is making money
so, apparently that is their biggest concern.|||It does not, and never will exist. No amount of development, research, or investment will give you this magic pill. Wake up, and try living in the real world. Seriously.
Now, if you%26#039;re willing to actually TALK about your circumstances, there are plenty of wonderful, knowledgeable people on this site that can give you some useful feedback.|||all drugs have side-effects but no always occur. If the circumstances of your life are negative and injurious to your psychological well being.....remove yourself from the situation....the best option is to try to change the surrounding so that the person will be less affected (psychologically) by the circumstances around him or her. NO such drug will exist because where would the money to pay for the research and development come from?|||no if it did not then it would not be classified as a drug it would be something else
Does any kind of drug exist, legal or illegal, that doesn't have a negative physical or psychological affect?
If the circumstances of your life are negative and injurious to your psychological well being but you can not, as a fact, not as a perception, remove yourself from the situation - does a drug exist that can either numb you or help you to endure, that is not physically or psychologically damaging or addictive over the course of long term use? Prayer doesn%26#039;t work and there is no possiblity of a change in circumstances. Finally, if such a drug does not exist why has it not been developed and the necessary funds invested in its research and development?|||I think anything in life can be both positive and negative, even water. It depends on how we use things. What matters is whether the positive effects or benefits are far greater than the negative effects. So while we may not have the drug you describe, we do have very effective drugs for all kinds of situations. For example, medical marijuana has very beneficial effects in contributing to an overall sense of well being and can be taken in pill form with minimal side effects.|||%26quot;negative%26quot; is a subjective word.
Most drugs can be positive or negative, depending on how they%26#039;re used. If you%26#039;re using any drug to escape %26quot;negative circumstances%26quot;, then it%26#039;s likely the drug will have %26quot;negative%26quot; effects.|||Ecstasy would probably work well maybe once a week, not too often tho. Its been researched as a remedy for post tramatic stress disorder|||There are many drugs that will address exactly the conditions you described..Which one is right for all the conditions you pose,is a process or elimination.. Just because your conditions have not been addressed by whatever medications you have taken,,does not equate none exists..Most conditions are addressed by trIal and error..Sometimes remedies are not so black and white, or clearly definable..Patience is the virtue which must be practiced, and adhered to.. Some medications ARE addictive and damaging over the long run,,that is why after continued usage, an alternative will be used for a prescribed time, to %26#039;freshen%26#039; the patient with different medicines.. Then after a time, the former medicines are reintroduced,,and so forth..Prayer is faith based ,and not to be confused with medical treatment.. I would suggest you keep an open mind and be persistent in your quest for a medicine or medicines ,to treat the disorders of which you speak!! Every day new medications come on line and perform better than old ones, and address issues that formerly could not be addressed, or only partially treated..A month from now new treatments may be available to greatly improve or remedy the conditions you state.. Remember, there are diseases out there today, that we have NO treatment for ,,so ANY treatment working towards a cure or containment is always a plus!! Live your life in Hope,because there is hope!!
Most drugs can be positive or negative, depending on how they%26#039;re used. If you%26#039;re using any drug to escape %26quot;negative circumstances%26quot;, then it%26#039;s likely the drug will have %26quot;negative%26quot; effects.|||Ecstasy would probably work well maybe once a week, not too often tho. Its been researched as a remedy for post tramatic stress disorder|||There are many drugs that will address exactly the conditions you described..Which one is right for all the conditions you pose,is a process or elimination.. Just because your conditions have not been addressed by whatever medications you have taken,,does not equate none exists..Most conditions are addressed by trIal and error..Sometimes remedies are not so black and white, or clearly definable..Patience is the virtue which must be practiced, and adhered to.. Some medications ARE addictive and damaging over the long run,,that is why after continued usage, an alternative will be used for a prescribed time, to %26#039;freshen%26#039; the patient with different medicines.. Then after a time, the former medicines are reintroduced,,and so forth..Prayer is faith based ,and not to be confused with medical treatment.. I would suggest you keep an open mind and be persistent in your quest for a medicine or medicines ,to treat the disorders of which you speak!! Every day new medications come on line and perform better than old ones, and address issues that formerly could not be addressed, or only partially treated..A month from now new treatments may be available to greatly improve or remedy the conditions you state.. Remember, there are diseases out there today, that we have NO treatment for ,,so ANY treatment working towards a cure or containment is always a plus!! Live your life in Hope,because there is hope!!
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)