text:
British expats in France and other EU countries
jura2 Thu 18-Oct-18 09:22:00
Despite Mrs May repeated reassurances, it is now clear, that
BRITONS living in France will instantly be deemed illegal immigrants if the UK crashes out of the European Union without an exit deal, Emmanuel Macron's government has proposed.
That will also mean the end of reciprocal health care and any kind of social support in case circumstances have changed, like losing a spouse, or illness or accident, etc, requiring any kind of assistance.
And you wonder why people are so worried, some of them actually suffering from severe anxiety, depression and other illnesses.
'What makes this all the more unpalatable is that, after the Salzburg summit, Theresa May came out and explicitly guaranteed the rights of EU nationals living in the UK.'
But Labour MP Owen Smith, a backer of anti-Brexit campaign group Best For Britain, said: 'The government has for over two years treated with contempt the future of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. Now this draft legislation from the French government shows us the scale of rights being ripped away from Brits by Brexit.'
paddyann Thu 18-Oct-18 09:48:57
dont understand why its "british ex pats" and EU immigrants...explain please? Is it the British sense of entitlement to live how they want anywhere they want,that old Empire thing? Seems to me that the Westminster government still thinks they are a big player and that Britannia rules the wave,they need to learn that the opposite is true and understand that there are a lot more than them paying into the EU so THEY have to abide by the rules.The UK had the best deal and voted on over 95 % of EU legislation .Now they're trying to walk away without penalties? Beggars belief.
oh I totally agree paddyann.
Smileless2012 Thu 18-Oct-18 09:55:42
Do they have to be deemed illegal immigrants? Is that an EU directive or is it what Macron wants to do?
We have friends who've live in France. We saw them a few weeks after the referendum and talked about how each of us had voted and why. He said he'd voted remain but if he'd still been living in the UK, he'd have voted leave.
Mamie Thu 18-Oct-18 09:58:25
Jura I don't think "illegal immigrants" is the correct phrase. We would be deemed third country nationals and subject to the same rules as Americans, Australians etc. In France, if we have been living here in a legal way, paying taxes, in the health system, then we would not be "illegal", but we would need to change certain things. The French Prime Minister has committed to helping us do that. For example, we don't know if the S1 will continue, but under the PUMA scheme we would have rights to health cover from the French state. Our titres de séjour might need a title change, but the conditions on which they had been granted would still apply. The French government is not being alarmist here, just re-iterating the rules which would apply when the UK is no longer part of the EU.
I think that workers are in a more difficult position, especially cross-border workers, as is anyone who has not lived here in a "regular fashion". I know a lot of people are very upset and stressed, but facts and actions are the way to progress, not panic.
I don't bother engaging in discussions about Brexit on here anymore because I see no point in continuing the same arguments with the same people, but I do think it important that we deal with it factually and calmly.
It is a terrible, unecessary mess, but I am far more worried about the disastrous impact on the UK and the future of my grandchildren than I am about us.
Nothing to do with Macron as such. If residents are non EU (or Switzerland), they automatically become 'third' country residents in case of a no-deal. Simple.
Just like I was when I first came to live in UK in 1970. Had to retake my driving licence from scratch- because you were not allowed to exchange it. After EU, that was no longer necessary if you were from EU country (or Switzerland). Third country residents have to retake licence. They have to have work and a permit before coming (now they have 3 months to find work), have to have private healthcare, and then a certain level of income. I mean, the UK is proposing to go up from 35.000 to £50.000 - now that is a pretty high salary! etc, etc.
British citizens in the EU will overnight become 'third' country national.
stree Thu 18-Oct-18 10:06:58
and??
You either live here or you don`t.
Day6 Thu 18-Oct-18 10:17:03
Thank you Jamie for your sensible and factual reply.
We have two sets of friends residing in France. They aren't panicking or feeling threatened.
But Remainers would like us to feel they are.
Sorry Mamie. My tablet does its own thing!
I think there are a lot of people who are very worried Day6. We pensioners have all lost a big chunk of income because of the decline of the pound and French bureaucracy is not easy to deal with especially if people do not have the language skills. If people have been paying their taxes, have sufficient income to weather the financial impact and have applied for their residence permits than they should not have to panic. There will be many people who do feel very vulnerable. The French statement is clear and based on the laws of France. The way it has been reported in the British press is inaccurate and inflammatory.
Elegran Thu 18-Oct-18 10:46:41
An illegal immigrant is someone who enters a country clandestinely, not one who was there legally but whose legal status is now uncertain with changes to the laws. Britons living or working in France will probably have to get visas etc, but he wouldn't do that instantly and Draconianly. He is talking rubbish.
This is posturing before the talks, to frighten T M. Watch cats or dogs before a fight starts - they circle each other, making threatening noises.
And this is why she should not have said so early on that the status of EU nationals in the Uk would of course depend on the agreed settlement, but that she would expect there to be reciprocal agreement
Sory, a redundand "not" in there. She should have said that.
There may be a political dimension Elegran but the statement in French is just that, a statement of how the legal position would change as we become third country nationals. It is the British press that is doing the posturing (and getting it wrong).
Yes Mamie- I think that perhaps those who have been there for a long time, have their residency permits even though they were not required, have no massive change in their circumstances (I am thinking of my young friend, with 2 young children- one of whom has severe disabilities, and who lost her young husband suddenly- and who finds herself in a situation where her income has plummeted- her house has, by French Law, been 50% inherited by her daughters) - and who just does not know what will happen to her. She has nothing to go back to in the UK.
Or other friends who bought 2.5 years ago- but had to wait for his retirement to make the move. They have not been there long enough to apply for permanent Residency- and do not have a high income at all. And 1000s more.
The uncertainty is causing so much stress and anxiety- especially to those who are, for one reason or another, 'vulnerable' - in a way they had never anticipated before.
I know quite a few who bought years ago and have been waiting for retirement to make the move - and not realise that will just not be possible.
But yes, I did pick up the 'illegal' from the Press- and you are right Mamie- 3rd country nationals.
When I arrived in London in 1970- I had to have a work place and work permit in place, applied for by my future employer beforehand. I was VERY very lucky to have had the right contacts for that to happen. I am the only Swiss/EU I know of, who didn't have to come as an Au Pair or as a Student.
As said, I had to retake my driving licence fully, no exchange possible. I can imagine how much stress would be caused, having to retake in French (or German, etc) for those in their 60s and 70s retired in rural areas. How many grans and grandads would like to have to retake their test fully, including first aid and theory, abroad and in a language their don't yet fully master.
stree - that is the whole point- When you are in the EU (or Switzerland) that did not previously matter. You did not require work permits and residency permits, and you were entitled to reciprocal health care, you could exchange your driving licence, etc. People made their choice to move on THAT basis, having done their research well.
I don't disagree with any of that Jura. There are also lots of stressed and worried people in the UK. If you read Mumsnet and other sources there are plenty of factual reports of people who are already losing their jobs and their businesses because of Brexit.
I personally just don't find that there is much point in discussing it on here any more. It is quite clear that (the vast majority) of posters won't change their minds.
Having said that, I will continue to point out when I know that the British press is misleading people.
On the subject of driving licences - if people have lived here for years without exchanging their licence for a French one then more fool them. The card licences would be out of date anyway. You would have to have had an old paper licence and not fallen foul of a speed trap ever. Unlikely I feel.
Fennel Thu 18-Oct-18 11:28:07
From another forum:
"The text that's suddenly being bandied about the UK media is a piece of internal French legislation. It wasn't written for British consumption. It was produced by the French government as part of doing its job. So to say it was written to show the UK what will happen, is paranoid in the extreme. Plus, the future of British citizens is not the main thrust of this document. It covers all the key areas for concern - trade, transport, food safety, animal health etc etc etc. "
Here's the original document:
www.senat.fr/leg/pjl18-009.html
Fennel 'So to say it was written to show the UK what will happen, is paranoid in the extreme.'
who said that and where?
Unless you mean this from Elegran 'This is posturing before the talks,' - in which case, yes.
Some UK friends did not change their driving licence because they keep a car in the UK, and you can't insure it if you have a foreign licence. We were in that position for a while, as we kept my old car at our flat for use when we are there- but had no choice but to get rid, as we had to exchange licence here in Switzerland.
lemongrove Thu 18-Oct-18 13:14:58
Reading the OP jura I thought to myself ' well, that's the French for you then!'
Here in the UK we are doing the opposite, telling all EU nationals that they are welcome to stay.
We are clearly the better led government.


text:
Q: Performance of sqrt function on AArch64 I'm taking the performance of sqrt function on AArch64 for academic reasons.
Code for Single float sqrtf function:
fsqrt s0, s0
ret

Code for Double float sqrt function:
fsqrt d0, d0
ret

I'm referring to theoretical latencies for FSQRT from here:
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.uan0015b/Cortex_A57_Software_Optimization_Guide_external.pdf

Single sqrt seems 2x better than double.
But, while profiling I'm getting these numbers:
326 ms  sqrt
 82 ms  sqrtf

I'm taking times for same number of cycles.
From those numbers, sqrtf seems 4x better.
I'm not able find proper reason why?
Not able to find proper explanations about how actually this instruction on internet.
Some info or direction on this would be really useful.

A: If you look at the note attached to the table entries for the FSQRT instruction in the Cortex-A57 optimization guide, it says that the "FP divide and square root operations are performed using an iterative algorithm".
That means that depending on the input to the instruction, the latency will vary. That is the meaning of the "7-17" and "7-32" latency numbers in the table. Depending on the input the single-precision FSQRT can take between 7 and 17 cycles to complete whereas the double-precision variant can take between 7 and 32 cycles.
So if a particular single-precision computation happens to take 7 cycles but a double precision computation takes, say, 28 cycles you have a 4x disparity.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Discover what makes the renowned GeneO+ Treatment one of the most popular and effective alternatives to traditional cosmetic procedures. This celebrated super facial treatment has been designed to replicate the effectiveness of invasive cosmetic procedures, without the need for any invasive surgery.
The extraordinary GeneO+ Treatment combines four incredible treatment processes in one unique package, combining the power of OxyGeneo, Capsugen infusion with oxygenation, ultrasound and TriPolar radio frequency.
Enormously effective individually, though powerful in the extreme when delivered by way of the exclusive GeneO+ Treatment.
GeneO+ Treatment gets to work by deeply exfoliating the skin, infusing oxygen and nutrients deeper below the surface of the skin and using radio frequency and ultrasonic waves to stimulate the production of natural collagen. Clinically-proven as safe and effective for most skin types, HSA Dermal Clinic is proud to offer a complete range of GeneO+ Treatments to suit all requirements and budgets.
If looking for a safe and effective alternative to the traditional surgical facelift, we strongly advise considering the latest GeneO+ technology and its benefits. GeneO+ technology represents no less than revolution in advanced skin rejuvenation and lifting, combining four incredible technologies and countless benefits into one clinically-proven system. Unlike most comparable technologies, GeneO+ technology uses a four-headed approach to safe, effective and affordable skin rejuvenation.
GeneO+ technology combines OxyGeneo, Capsugen infusion with oxygenation, ultrasound and TriPolar radio frequency. This incredible skin improvement system deeply exfoliates the surface of the skin, delivers a rich dose of oxygen and nutrients deep into the lower layers of the skin, before using radio frequency and ultrasonic waves to stimulate the production of natural collagen and elastin. In essence, GeneO+ technology takes care of everything your skin needs to look and feel its best, all packed into one state-of-the-art treatment.
To discuss GeneO+ technology in more detail or to arrange a free consultation with one of our experts, contact a member of the HSA Dermal Clinic team today.


"Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Infarct Size Is an Independent Pre" by David Bello, Arnold Einhorn et al.
Bello, D., Einhorn, A., Kaushal, R., Kenchaiah, S., Raney, A. Fieno, D., . . . Kadish, A. H. (2011). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: Infarct size is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 29(1), 50-56.


text:
The rise and rise of Aldi: two decades that changed supermarket shopping in Australia
Professor Gary Mortimer, 22 January, 2021
Gary Mortimer, Queensland University of Technology and Louise Grimmer, University of Tasmania
Twenty years ago, on January 25 2001, a virtually unknown German supermarket chain quietly opened its first stores in Australia.
The two stores – one in Sydney's inner-west suburb of Marrickville, the other in the outer south-west, near Bankstown Airport – were small, about a quarter the size of a mainstream supermarket. Each stocked just 900 products, 90% of which were unknown brands.
Shoppers had to bring and pack their own bags themselves. To use a trolley required a "gold coin". They didn't seek to entice customers with "loyalty" rewards or other gimmicks.
Few Australian supermarket executives at the time would have considered them models for success. They couldn't imagine the impact Aldi would have on Australia's retail sector and shopping habits.
Aldi's history
Aldi's story began in 1913, when Anna Albrecht opened a small grocery store in 1913 in the city of Essen, western Germany.
Her two sons, Karl and Theo, took over the business after World War II. In the impoverished conditions that followed Germany's defeat, they focused on keeping costs, and prices, low. Among their strategies were to stock only the most popular items and avoid perishable items.
By the end of the decade they had more than a dozen stores, and by the end of the 1950s more than 300.
One of Karl Albrecht's stores in Essen, 1958.
Alfred Wagg Pictures/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
The brothers adopted the the name Aldi – combining the first two syllables of Albrecht Diskont ("discount" in German) – in 1961 (though accounts differ on the year).
At about the same time (again, accounts differ on the year) they had a major disagreement over whether to sell cigarettes. They resolved the dispute
by splitting the business into two geographic entities: Aldi Nord ("North"), run by Theo (and selling cigarettes), and Aldi Süd ("South"), run by Karl. The split was amicable, and they managed the two divisions collaboratively.
From the late 1960s Aldi began to expand across Europe, beginning with the acquisition of Austrian grocery chain Hofer. It opened its its first US store, in Iowa City, in 1976, and its first British store, in Birmingham), in 1990.
So by the time Aldi opened its first stores in Australia, it was a booming multinational. It now has more than 10,000 stores in 20 countries, including China.
Aldi stores worldwide. Aldi Nord territory is in blue, Aldi Süd in orange.
LnG91/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
Aldi's growth in Australia
In coming to Australia, Aldi pounced on a gap in the grocery retail market.
The "food discounter" model had been dominated by now defunct Franklins and Bi-Lo (owned by Coles).
By the late 1990s, however, these chains had messed with their "no-frills" model through attempts to go upmarket. It proved disastrous. Franklins went into terminal decline. Coles abandoned the Bi-Lo brand in 2006.
Aldi expanded quickly. By mid-2003 it had 38 stores in New South Wales and six in Victoria. By 2011, it had 251 stores. By early 2013, more than 280, and had expanded to Canberra.
It overtook the IGA group to become the third-biggest player in Australia's supermarket sector by the end of 2013 – taking 10.3% of all grocery dollars (with Coles having 33.5% and Woolworths 39%). Its first stores in South Australia and Western Australia came in 2016.
It now has more than 500 stores and a 12.4% share of Australia's A$110 billion food and grocery sector (according to the most recent data from Roy Morgan).
CC BY-ND
In 2020 Aldi was named Australia's best supermarket by consumer review website Canstar Blue (the seventh time in a decade), and second-most trusted brand (after Bunnings) by Roy Morgan.
Its practices have influenced how the other supermarkets do business. In particular it has forced competitors to increase their own "private label" (or home-brand) products, introduce "phantom brands", and promote ever-changing "special buy" general merchandise ranges.
Private and phantom labels
In 2004 private labels comprised an estimated 9% of the products Coles and Woolworths stocked. By 2019 they made up 30% of Coles' sales. Woolworths has similarly increased its private-label range, due explicitly to pressure from Aldi's arrival and expansion.
Notably, Aldi sells no "ALDI" branded products. Instead it trades in phantom brands, such as "Belmont" ice cream, "Radiance" cleaning product and "Lacura" skin care. These brands are intended overcome perceptions of private label items being lower quality.
In 2016, Woolworths launched its own range of phantom brands. Coles followed suit in 2020 with brands including "Wild Tides" tuna and "KOI" toiletries.
The bigger supermarkets have also been forced to emulate Aldi's drawcard of bi-weekly "special buys" – heavily discounted items not normally sold in supermarkets. These have included televisions, lawn mowers, vacuum cleaners, motorcycle jackets, luggage and (curiously for a country like Australia) ski gear.
There are always limited quantities and shoppers regularly experience disappointment. Despite this – indeed because of this – shoppers will queue and keep coming back. These quirky, seasonal, limited-stock items create excitement and FOMO – fear of missing out.
In June 2020, Coles launched its own fortnightly "special buys".
Unapologetically Aldi
While its competitors have emulated Aldi in several ways, the German chain remains a very different no-frills operation.
It hasn't bothered with investing in the self-service checkouts that are now ubiquitous in other stores. It continues to offer only long conveyer belts and seated register operators.
Nor does Aldi have plans to facilitate online deliveries, in which the two supermarket giants have invested heavily.
It never had to cope with customer backlash over phasing out free single-use plastic bags either. Because it never offered free shopping bags, always charging 15 cents for them.
So Aldi continues to be an exception to the rule in Australian supermarket retailing. It history suggests that's a recipe for continued success.
Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology and Louise Grimmer, Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, University of Tasmania
Page updated: 22 January 2021

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A big "Hello"…and THANK you for visiting my site! I am fairly new to the Young Living lifestyle and I can say with all confidence that YL has changed my life in SO many amazing ways!!
I hope you feel free to reach out to me! I would LOVE to talk with you and explore how Young Living can affect your life in a most POSITIVE WAY!


text:
Courses & Clubhouses
Senior Open
Courses & Clubhouses, People & Places
Stage your personal War by the Shore at Kiawah resort
By Mitch Marcus
After spending several days at Kiawah Island Golf Resort and playing three of its five courses, I can rightfully say it is a golfer's paradise. It is remarkably beautiful and happy place; even the occasional double bogey won't sour your mood.
Kiawah is a barrier island, located about 25 miles southwest of Charleston, S.C. There is also plenty of doings to keep non-golfing spouses busy, including shopping at the Freshfields Village mall, relaxing on the beach, exploring the island by bicycle and more.
But I was there to golf!
My first round was at Turtle Point. Our foursome agreed the course was in pristine condition, having undergone a nine-month renovation overseen by Jack Nicklaus and his architectural team. Renovations included refurbishing green complexes, re-grassing the greens, tees and fairways with paspalum, a salt–tolerant strain also used on the resort's Ocean Course, Osprey Point and Oak Point. Turtle Point has rated as high as 48th on Golf Digest's 100 Greatest Public Courses, and has hosted the Carolinas Amateur, the Carolinas PGA, the South Carolina Amateur and the 1990 PGA Cup matches.
Three oceanfront holes (14-16) are the highlights, but the entire course is sufficiently challenging for even the best golfers. There are six sets of tees, allowing for higher handicappers to enjoy the course at a playable length, while the way-back Tournament Tees at nearly 7000 yards would provide a test for anyone, especially considering the ever-present wind and the small greens. The 14th is an uphill par 3, with a beautiful ocean vista as a backdrop. Playing straight into the wind, as we did, was probably a three-club difference. The next two windswept holes border the ocean. I was ecstatic to go bogey, par, par.
The famous – or infamous – Ocean Course was the next test. This Pete Dye design is only the fourth course to have hosted each of the PGA of America's major championships, It also hosted the 1991 Ryder Cup: The War by the Shore. The wind is always blowing, with no prevailing direction. From one day to the next, a player might experience an eight-club differential on any given shot. The course has been rated as high as the No. 4 public and No 25 best courses in the United States.
Again, the six tee boxes allow for play at every level. One of my playing partners, Tony from Texas, played the tournament tees at 7,356 yards. The rest of us played two sets of tees forward, a respectable 6,475 yards. Watching Tony break 80 from the back tees with the wind howling was the most impressive round of golf I have ever witnessed firsthand.
My highlight was birdieing the 501-yard 2nd hole, a beautiful par 5, by sinking a pretty lengthy double-breaking putt. Pure luck. A 2 on the par-3 5th hole gave me two birdies on the first five holes. After that, it was all downhill, though, as a 12-handicap, I was happy to break 90.
A round at Osprey Point followed. This Tom Fazio designed course was totally renovated in 2014. Also in pristine condition, this course winds through low-country forests, lagoons and saltwater marshes. With the wind a bit more relaxed, and playing the par-72 course at a leisurely 6200 yards, it was a welcome respite from the two previous demanding rounds. It was playable and pleasing to the eye, as long as you don't mind a few alligators sharing your golf course.
Paradise found at Kiawah Island Golf Resort.
Tourneys & Events
North Shore Golf magazine is your link to all things golf, whether it be local tourney results, upcoming events or features on prominent newsmakers and clubs.
Email: info@essexmediagroup.com
Contact Ernie Carpenter
Email: ecarpenter@essexmediagroup.com
© 2016 Essex Media Group


1. Buenos Aires has two airports: Ezeiza or EZE (sometimes called Pistarini) is the international and lies over 30 km from the city centre. Jorge Newberry Airport, AEP or Aeroparque is only seven km from the city and is used for most (but not all) domestic flights. If you are transferring between airports it's a 40 km ride and can take well over an hour if there's traffic.
2. Immigration procedures for foreigners coming into Argentina can be slow and you can be in line for up to an hour. Don't arrange tight connecting flights.
3. There's no charge for Argentinean tourist visas. But if you are Australian, Canadian or a US citizen, you'll be charged a "reciprocity fee" closely equivalent to what those countries charge Argentineans. The fees and rules change frequently but last year it cost $US75 for Canadians for a single entry, $US100 for a year of entries for Australians and $US160 for 10 years for Americans. The fees generally aren't charged if you arrive overland (though Chile has similar fees) or into airports outside BA.
4. It's most convenient to arrange transfers from the airport to your hotel in advance. There are competing agencies at the airport that will book you a car. It's suggested that both ways you should book through the hotel or the airport office as the many touts may offer unlicensed taxis with significant risks.
5. When exploring BA just carry some cash, a driver's licence and a credit card rather than a wallet. If something is squirted on your shoes or you are jostled in a crowd, hang onto your valuables and don't stop.
6. With prevailing westerlies a seat on the right hand (starboard) side of the plane will probably give you the best first views of Ushuaia.
8. There are often changes to the times of flights within Argentina so don't be surprised if this happens to you. And flights to and from USH are very heavily booked over summer. So are the hotels.
9. If you are using your home mobile phone in Argentina, good luck sorting out the number to call, with and without area codes. And expect to pay the highest roaming rates to both send and receive.
10. The great majority of shops and restaurants in Ushuaia are on San Martin that is a one-way street towards the east.
11. Make sure your Antarctic cruise company knows where you are staying in Ushuaia so they can contact you if the ship is delayed or boarding procedures are changed. (It's a very good idea to arrive in Ushuaia at least the day before you sail.) Have a local contact number for its Ushuaia agent, too, so you can contact them if you have queries or difficulties.
12. Your ship will have docked that morning, discharged passengers and will be frantically cleaned and provisioned over the few hours of port day. The dock is closed anyway (by port security) and few crew members will have a moment spare if you do arrive on board before the scheduled afternoon boarding time.
About the author: David McGonigal has been to Antarctica over 100 times as Expedition Leader, expert lecturer and expedition photographer. He left Antarctica last February and will be back there again this November.


text:
Q: Golang: running `go build` on save using vim (macvim) and vim-go I am recently moving from sublime 3 go to mvim (vim on the mac os) and am trying to get my Golang development environment to be as similar on vim to my sublime implementation as possible.
Within my sublime setup, it runs go build anytime I save the a Go file. This provides me instant feedback on if I have unused vars or other info go build provides.
I'm attempting to move to vim, and am wondering if I can have this functionality implemented there as well. I am using vim-go but have not found a setting to implement this.
In short I want to run :GoBuild upon the saving of a Go file while using vim / vim-go. Is this Possible and how do I do so?

A: yes, use vim autocommand to run :GoBuild:

You can specify commands to be executed automatically when reading or
  writing a file, when entering or leaving a buffer or window, and when
  exiting Vim.  The usual place to put autocommands is in your .vimrc or
  .exrc file.

Run the following command:
:autocmd BufWritePre *.go :GoBuild
Now each time you save your Go file with :w it will run :GoBuild too.
The event type is BufWritePre, which means the event will be checked just before you write *.go file.

BufWritePre starting to write the whole buffer to a file
BufWritePost after writing the whole buffer to a file

and:

When your .vimrc file is sourced twice, the autocommands will appear
  twice. To avoid this, put this command in your .vimrc file, before
  defining autocommands:
:autocmd! " Remove ALL autocommands for the current group.

If you don't want to remove all autocommands, you can instead use a
  variable to ensure that Vim includes the autocommands only once:
:if !exists("autocommands_loaded")
:  let autocommands_loaded = 1
: au ...
:endif

like this (put this at the end of your vim startup file):
:if !exists("autocommands_loaded")
:  let autocommands_loaded = 1
:  autocmd BufWritePost *.go :GoBuild
:endif

ref:
http://vimdoc.sourceforge.net/htmldoc/autocmd.html
http://learnvimscriptthehardway.stevelosh.com/chapters/12.html

A: Create ~/.vim/after/ftplugin/go.vim with:
autocmd BufWritePre *.go :GoBuild


Pearl and Ruby were born joined at the pelvis and without legs, to parents James Henry (24) and Lucinda (19). The girls were reported to have been 22 pounds at birth. Sources listed their birthplace alternately as either Tipton or Russiaville, Indiana.
On February 19, 1890, the girls died. They had been recovering from measles and, during their compromised health, were afflicted with bronchitis. Pearl preceded her sister in death by 45 minutes. Ruby was "bright and hearty" until the moment her sister died and deteriorated quickly after.
Their parents encased their remains in a specially-made casket. Initially, they were to be buried in a cemetery with a guard detail to prevent grave robbing, but their father decided instead to bury them at their home to keep a diligent watch over them. At some point, the girls' remains were apparently exhumed as I found an advertisement in several newspapers printed on November 22, 1890 for the Boston Dime Museum, listing Pearl and Ruby as an attraction.
Their father died November 23 of the same year during a hunting accident. The Republic (Columbus, IN; Nov. 26, 1890) reported "He was standing on a log to reload when the gun slipped off the log, and the hammer striking as it went down discharged the gun into her bowels of the unfortunate man." Their mother remarried eventually and died in 1941.


These posts are all about raising my purebred Dalmatian puppy Quest. But there are many different routes you can take when getting a new dog.
I searched and interviewed over 40 breeders before I found Linda McSherry at Patch Mountain Dalmatians.
I was determined to get a puppy from a quality breeder who was willing to work with me to select a puppy with the most potential for what I was looking for.
I also new that bringing a puppy home before 12 weeks was very important for the Imprint period and development of confidence. American Guide Dogs for the Blind identified that 90% of puppies enrolled in their program who left their mother and siblings for their forever home on or before 12 weeks graduated as successful guide dogs. Only 30% who stayed with their mother past 12 weeks made it. Leaving the nest before 12 weeks is important due to the stage of puppy development the pups are in and the stimulation they get outside the confines of the world they have become accustomed to.
The importance of this early socialization experience is one of the reasons I started my own Puppy Classes. Half of each class is devoted to play and socialization and we push for people to enroll their puppies as soon as possible.
There are so many things a breeder can do to help the puppy develop stronger and better adjusted. Even making sure the mother is taken care of while pregnant can help her deliver puppies who are less anxious and more interested in human companionship and contact.
Puppy Culture – Hands down the BEST DVD I have seen about having and raising puppies. The first 12 weeks of a pups life has a GIGANTIC influence on the dog they will grow up to be. This 3 DVD set is super comprehensive, informative and should be a mandatory watch for anyone even thinking about having or getting a puppy.
What Makes a Good Breeder guide from the Dalmatian Club of America. Great info no matter what breed of dog you want to get.
Questions you should ask when searching for a breeder.
Questions a good breeder should be asking you. If you speak to a breeder and they don't ask questions like these, that should be a big warning flag. Look for someone who does.
Patch Mountain Dalmatians – I couldn't really have a list of links without adding Linda's kennel.


text:
stories filed under: "broken windows"
Net Neutrality And The Broken Windows Fallacy
from the ajit-pai,-read-your-bastiat dept
Wed, Jun 20th 2018 9:20am — Mike Masnick
I've mentioned the idea of the broken windows fallacy -- not to be confused with the long debunked broken windows theory of policing -- twice in the past in reference to net neutrality, including in my recent post about what Ajit Pai should have said about repealing net neutrality. But both times I talked about it, it was kind of buried in much longer articles, and the more I think about it, the more important I think it is in understanding why Pai and his supporters are so far off in their thinking and understanding on net neutrality. What I find most perplexing about this is that people who often position themselves as doing away with overly burdensome regulations -- which is a stance that Pai has staked out pretty clearly -- are usually the kind of folks who talk frequently about the broken windows fallacy. And yet, here, those same folks seem to be missing it.
As background, the broken windows fallacy comes from Frederic Bastiat, the French economist often associated with free market and libertarian thought, and it's his clever and highly evocative way of explaining why destructive behavior -- while it may generate economic activity, is not good for the economy, because it misses all of the other (often hidden) costs, including the opportunity cost of investing that money in more productive activity. Bastiat's version went as follows:
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
In short, breaking windows may generate economic activity for the glazier, but that doesn't count the economic cost to whoever had his window broken, or the opportunity costs of how the money spent on fixing the window could have been fixed.
So how does this apply to net neutrality? Well, Ajit Pai and nearly all of the rather vocal supporters of taking away net neutrality rules continually go back to the claim that the rules harmed broadband infrastructure investment. We'll leave aside the (rather important point) that this claim is not even remotely close to true -- but even assuming it is, it's still a broken windows fallacy.
That's because broadband infrastructure investment is not the entire market, and focusing just on that is the same as just focusing on the economic activity for the glazier created by a broken window. To take this to the extreme case: if we want to stimulate broadband infrastructure investment, just rip up the current internet -- and then we'd need to spend a ton on rebuilding the internet. Yes, that would be the best way to "stimulate" a massive internet infrastructure investment, but the costs to everyone else would be dire.
In the same way, when the FCC focuses just on broadband infrastructure, it is ignoring the costs on everyone else who use the internet. Or, as per Bastiat's story, the FCC is ignoring the costs to the guy whose window is broken as well as all of the opportunity costs from the money he spends on the glazier that doesn't go towards more productive pursuits.
In the net neutrality world, those costs are massive. It is the costs of nearly all internet platforms and services, which now have massive levels of uncertainty about whether or not ISPs will end up abusing their power to limit access (or, more likely, charge for preferred access). It includes the uncertainty of the big broadband companies favoring their own content and service partners to effectively shut out independent services. It includes the costs to the public who have less choice and fewer services that they can use, and who are more locked in to a dwindling number of giant broadband companies.
In short, Ajit Pai's FCC has fallen completely for the broken windows fallacy, by focusing just on one narrow area of economic activity, without even being willing to acknowledge that it will negatively impact a much wider swath of the economy. This is especially disappointing to see, considering that Pai and his supporters keep claiming that they are the ones to "bring economics back" to the FCC, and they are the ones who argued that the Tom Wheeler FCC ignored economics. Yet, when you look at the details, it's Pai and his supporters who seem to be the ones sticking their heads in the sand here and, as Bastiat noted, confining their theory to "that which it seen" and taking "no account of that which is not seen."
In economics this is a pretty 101-level mistake. That the FCC is making it in dismantling a key concept that makes the internet function competitively is particularly disappointing.
Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband investment, broken windows, economics, fcc, innovation, make work, net neutrality
What Ajit Pai Should Have Said About Killing Net Neutrality... And Why It Still Would Have Been Wrong
from the but-he-didn't,-which-says-it-all dept
Mon, Jun 11th 2018 10:44am — Mike Masnick
As you've probably heard, today's the day that the fairly straightforward and non-onerous net neutrality rules put in place in place by Tom Wheeler back in 2015 are officially taken off the books. We've posted a ton about net neutrality and will post a lot more, but I've been thinking about a few things related to how all of this went down that seem worth discussing. As background reading, it might help to first read why I changed my mind about net neutrality -- from originally being against the FCC setting any rules to eventually being for a fairly limited set of rules. However, what really inspired this post was the podcast conversation I had with Barry Eisler back in December about the lost art of productive debate. One of the points that Barry made was that it's especially easy in these crazy social media-driven times to argue against someone by taking the absolute worst or most extreme version of their argument and then destroying that. As he notes, as a former practicing lawyer, it's the kind of thing he was trained to do. However, he suggested that the more intellectually honest way of holding a debate is to actually reframe the argument and present back to the person what their best argument appears to be, and then debate that.
That can be difficult to do -- but let's take a shot. Because the arguments that Pai and his supporters have given so far for wiping net neutrality off the books really don't make any sense.
The core of Pai's argument to date has been that the net neutrality rules that were put in place in 2015 created a massive regulatory burden on broadband access providers, leading them to decrease their investment. In a new interview he suggests that decreasing the regulatory burden on broadband access providers will have some sort of trickle down effect on everyone else: "I think ultimately it's going to mean better, faster, cheaper Internet access and more competition."
But if that's actually the case, it seems that Pai should back up that statement with a further explanation. The broadband market is about infrastructure, and if you understand the economics of infrastructure there are a number of different factors at play. For example, it seems quite reasonable to point out that both the net neutrality rules and the lack of net neutrality rules create some winners and losers. And it would be reasonable to point out that the FCC shouldn't be the ones picking those winners and losers (though, that would be a tough sell, given the FCC's entire charter is basically to be doing that). An intellectually honest description of the net neutrality rules would note that there are multiple competing interests at play: the interests of broadband infrastructure players (big telcos/cablecos), the interests of upstart competitors (smaller ISPs), the interests of big services on the internet, the interests of small services on the internet, and the interests of the public. And you could (and perhaps should) look at the impact on each of those and note who is likely to benefit and who is not.
And then, if we were having an honest debate, Pai could note that he believes, strongly, that empowering the biggest broadband infrastructure players with leverage to create differentiated services on their network would provide benefits that outweigh the damage that might do to others. Pai sort of tries to make that argument with his statement about "better, faster, cheaper Internet access and more competition", but he fails to describe any real mechanism for that to actually happen -- other than suggesting that merely removing the regulations will magically lead to it. So, let's try to create the mechanism by which this might happen. You could say that... due to a lack of regulations, it will allow the big broadband providers more leeway to experiment with alternative business models and new technologies, which will create a faster and better internet, including different types of access and different levels of service for different users. And maybe you could then argue that this would also somehow allow for new entrants, because they could attack the market in disruptive ways.
Another argument Pai could have -- and perhaps should have -- made would be looking into questions about how the market for broadband works. Last year, in posting the free market case for net neutrality, we noted that there are cases where even the staunchest free market economists out there have recognized that government intervention can make some sense, mainly in getting uncompetitive markets unstuck. Pai could have tried to rebut the various assumptions in that piece as well. For example, he could argue that broadband is not, in fact, a natural monopoly, and present some evidence for why the market was increasingly competitive -- and even argue that knocking out net neutrality rules would enable brand new broadband infrastructure investment to occur by enabling brand new competitive forms of internet access.
If he said all of that, then we could be having an honest debate about getting rid of the net neutrality rules. So, now, let's point out why even if he said all of the above, he'd still be incorrect (this may be why he didn't say all of the above, because he understands these arguments don't hold up to much scrutiny, and it's much easier to stick with a voodoo trickle-down "broadband regulation bad!" form of argument -- but that's getting away from the intent of this post). So, first let's tackle the "get rid of regulation to help everyone" argument.
As we've discussed at length, the one argument that Pai has made strongly -- that broadband investment is down because of net neutrality -- is not even remotely close to true. Just looking at broadband companies and their Wall Street statements (in which they face serious penalties for lying), you find that there is no decline in broadband investment due to the net neutrality regulations, at all. So the idea that removing these "barriers" will somehow lead to an increase in investment doesn't make any sense.
Second, even going beyond the pure "less regulation means more investment" argument, if the market is not at all competitive (and it is not), then what incentive do the broadband players really have to invest and innovate here? As we've seen time and time again, the real incentive for innovation is greater competition. But we're actually seeing less and less competition in the broadband market, which means that broadband providers have greater and greater incentive to just protect their own monopolistic position and cheap out on customer service and innovation.
Third, if we look at the various players in the market, it's disturbing that Pai only seems to take into account the interests of the largest broadband providers. The smaller broadband providers have made it clear that net neutrality actually improves competition because, without it, the largest broadband providers are better positioned to cut the necessary deals with Netflix, Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook and others, while the smaller players won't be able to do so. That means that the bigger players will be able to contractually make smaller broadband companies provide a worse overall experience to their users, again further cementing the lack of competition. And while Pai claims that net neutrality harms smaller ISPs, the FCC's own data shows the opposite.
Fourth, so much of the argument that we have to focus on broadband infrastructure investment of the largest players is a broken windows fallacy. As I pointed out in a post last year, if broadband infrastructure investment is the only metric we're using here, the FCC's best plan would be to physically destroy the internet. After all, that would stimulate an awful lot of new investment. You just have to ignore all the costs it would create for everyone else.
And that's the part that's most disturbing here. Pai seems to be deliberately focusing only on the big broadband players and what this means for them -- without caring about what it means for everyone else. Having clear and simple net neutrality rules in place helps lots and lots of internet services, because it means they get to compete on a level playing field against the Googles, Facebooks, Amazons and Netflixes of the world. Those companies can pay to get preferential treatment. The startups cannot -- and Pai has yet to explain how this state of affairs helps those startups. Just saying, "well you'll have more internet," isn't an answer.
Indeed, a strong argument can be made that harming the ability of smaller companies on the network to compete, in favor of granting much greater discriminatory power to the large networks themselves, does much more harm to competition and a free market than having a set of very limited net neutrality rules in place that give all of the internet companies and entrepreneurs certainty that they can actually build their own businesses.
As for the argument that the market is more and more competitive -- that is clearly not at all true. Pai himself telegraphed this fact by trying to downgrade the definition of broadband to make the market look more competitive.
So, what are we left with? Pai's key argument appears to rest on the broken windows fallacy, by only focusing on broadband infrastructure investment and ignoring all of the investment a layer up on the network and how much that will be harmed by this move. He also is misrepresenting what is happening with infrastructure investment and the level of competition in the market.
In the end, we're left with no real argument at all for why we've just wiped out net neutrality, other than a blind faith that "regulation is bad." That may get some people excited, but hardly seems like a real exploration of the topic. And that's going to matter, because one of the key things that Pai is going to need to defend in court during the various challenges is what material change had happened that required this repeal. And simply falsely claiming that broadband infrastructure spending had dropped is hardly convincing.
Filed Under: ajit pai, broken windows, competition, fcc, investment, net neutrality, regulations
NYPD Pouts And Refuses To Do Their Duty; Residents Split Between Applauding And Failing To Notice
from the irrelevant dept
Mon, Jan 12th 2015 8:59am — Timothy Geigner
As you may be aware, things have gotten weird with the NYPD over the past several weeks. In what amounts to the police force in our nation's largest city throwing a temper tantrum over either the brutal murder of 2 officers or the sudden attention being paid to how police officers treat the city's minority residents in the wake of the stop and frisk scandals and the death of Eric Garner, the NYPD's numbers are all down. Arrests are down somewhere in the neighborhood of 50%, and citations appear to have plummeted to a fraction of the norm, resulting in arraignment numbers dropping by nearly a third. While the NYPD has denied that this is any kind of coordinated lack-of-effort, that claim is laughable and it's obvious that the police officers have banded together to show us how much New York City needs them and how horrible life will be when they stop performing the duties they swore to perform.
Too bad most people are barely noticing and that those who have noticed are thrilled.
Few managers in the court system expect the current downturn to last. Many public defenders, however, said they hope the steep decline in minor arrests will become permanent. They noted felonies did not rise over the last three weeks as arrests for low-level crimes plummeted.
"This proves to us is what we all knew as defenders: You can end broken-windows policing without ending public safety," said Justine M. Luongo, the deputy attorney-in-charge of criminal practice for the Legal Aid Society.
Those who have been arrested are getting better service from public defenders, while the courts themselves are free from the clutter of the massive arrests the police usually perform. You might be tempted to think that this means low-level criminals are getting away with their crimes. That might be true to some extent, though nobody seems to want to put forth any actual empirical data to support the claim, but what's plainly obvious thanks to the lack of clutter is how silly NYPD arrests can get.
Those arrested for relatively minor offenses now stand out. On Wednesday morning in Manhattan, William Talen, 64, who calls himself Reverend Billy, awaited arraignment. He had been arrested on Tuesday afternoon as he gave a sermon in Grand Central Terminal — protesting police brutality.
If the drop in arrests resulting from the NYPD refusing to do their jobs is made up of these kinds of arrests, good riddance. And it isn't just public defenders with more free time that appreciate the police taking a walk on their duty. The citizens are happy about it as well.
Charles Franklin, a 27-year-old student wearing a Shepard Fairey hat that reads "OBEY," is also enjoying the latest trend in policing."This is how it's supposed to be," he says, referring to the "quiet" he's been sensing, the "lower volume" of cops he's been seeing on local corners. "I'm not talking about guys getting away with nothing, I'm talking about feeling safe. The police driving up on us, because of some hearsay, and jumping out, that don't make us feel safe. The police smelling every drink I drink, looking in my bag every time I come out the store, that don't make me feel safe. This is how it's supposed to be," he reiterates. "We feel safe. And for once, we're not running late – usually we always be running late because of having been hassled."
Those sentiments are accompanied by wry quotes affirming that some of the police force's biggest money-making habits, such as parking citations on the one block where they make lots of money are still going strong even as overall tickets are way down,
That said, the reaction to the police sitting on their hands and refusing to do their duty is pretty clear: shrugs and applause. As one person noted, it's somewhat revealing:
To many of us from these communities, the past two weeks have amounted to a vacation from fear, surveillance and punishment. Maybe this is what it feels like to not be prejudged and seen as suspicious law breakers. Maybe this is a small taste of what it feels like to be white.
If the NYPD was trying to teach the city's citizens a lesson, it appears to have taught one unintentionally: there are too many police on staff arresting too many people most of the time. Nice job, union bosses!
Filed Under: broken windows, nypd, tickets, virtual work stoppage
Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
from the disruption-and-broken-windows dept
Wed, Aug 10th 2011 11:00am — Mike Masnick
There's been a ton of talk from politicians lately about the importance of "creating jobs." This comes from both major political parties, of course. We've seen the Democrats jump heavily on the jobs agenda and the Republicans have been hyping up their ability to create jobs as well. A few months ago, This American Life produced a fantastic episode on the hilariousness of politicians claiming that they're going to "create" jobs, with a focus on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (one of the few stories about him that has nothing to do with unions).
All of this talk about "job creation" from politicians has really been bugging me... with the only really "honest" politician I've seen being the totally ignored Presidential candidate and former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson. After the National Review praised him for being "the best job creator of them all," (based on jobs numbers associated with all the GOP Presidential candidates), rather than accepting the cheap political accolade, Johnson responded by rejecting the crown:
"The fact is, I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor."
Instead, he noted that it was "entrepreneurs and businesses" that created the jobs, and all he tried to do was keep obstacles out of the way.
Still, it is true that governments can create jobs. It's just that they're almost never the jobs that actually help the economy. The government can hire 20 million people to move piles of dirt around or to just sit around if it wants. That will "create jobs." But it won't be good for the economy, because those people are not productive for the economy. They won't be adding value or producing something of value that expands the economy.
This, of course, was famously explained a century and a half ago by Frederic Bastiat, who explained the fallacy of the broken window as an economic or "jobs" stimulator. And, yet, it's still oh so tempting for politicians to jump on this train. But the problem for those who buy into the "broken windows fallacy," is that they make really bad decisions on "jobs," because they create the easiest jobs to create, which will almost always add the least value to the economy (and most likely take away value from the economy).
It's why you get amazing statements from President Obama (who really must know better) in which he talks about ATMs meaning fewer jobs for tellers and auto check-in kiosks at airports that mean fewer jobs for airline employees. But this turns out to be wrong in oh-so-many ways. First, it's just wrong on the facts:
At the dawn of the self-service banking age in 1985, for example, the United States had 60,000 automated teller machines and 485,000 bank tellers. In 2002, the United States had 352,000 ATMs--and 527,000 bank tellers. ATMs notwithstanding, banks do a lot more than they used to and have a lot more branches than they used to.
It's "easy" to claim that technology "destroys" jobs, but it's never the case in practice. It may change jobs, but increased efficiency creates jobs through economic growth. There are all sorts of complex economic proofs of this in action, but the simplest way to understand it (and there's lots of both empirical and formulaic proof to back this up) is that when you increase efficiency, you can produce more for less, and thus, by the very definition, you have increased the size of the overall pie. Now plenty of people can (and do!) quibble about how that pie is divided and allocated, but arguing that jobs are destroyed by technology is a red herring.
It's for that reason that I'm a bit surprised to see Jeff Jarvis more or less jumping on this bandwagon by claiming that "we're going to have a jobless future":
Our new economy is shrinking because technology leads to efficiency over growth. That is the notion I want to explore now.
Pick an industry: newspapers, say. Untold thousands of jobs have been destroyed and they will not come back. Yes, new jobs will be created by entrepreneurs -- that is precisely why I teach entrepreneurial journalism. But in the net, the news industry -- make that the news ecosystem -- will employ fewer people in companies. There will still be news but it will be far more efficient, thanks to the internet.
Take retail. Borders. Circuit City. Sharper Image. KB Toys. CompUSA. Dead. Every main street and every mall has empty stores that are not going to be filled. Buying things locally for immediate gratification will be a premium service because it is far more efficient -- in terms of inventory cost, real estate, staffing -- to consolidate and fulfill merchandise at a distance. Wal-Mart isn't killing retailing. Amazon is. Transparent pricing online will reduce prices and profitability yet more. Retail will be more efficient.
While I agree with Jarvis on many, many things, he's missing half of the equation here, and doing a sort of reverse "broken window fallacy." He's looking at jobs that are changing, but not looking at the massive new opportunities it creates. Eric Reasons points me to my own post which touches on this.
It's easy to look at how jobs appear to "disappear" in a dynamic market. Whether it's the tellers President Obama is talking about, or the "journalists" that Jarvis talks about. But that ignores all of the new jobs created around the new efficiencies. Take, for example, the fears that a telephone switching network would wreak havoc on our economy, decades ago. After all, telephone companies employed thousands of operators whose job it was to "connect calls." Automate that, and all of those women (and they were predominantly women) were "out of work." Devastating, right? Well, no, actually. Not at all.
A switched telephone network not only made the phone system more valuable and useful (increasing its usage), but opened up all sorts of new opportunities for businesses and jobs. At a basic level, you could just note that call centers were suddenly possible, as was the ability to do customer service (and, annoyingly, telemarketing) on a large scale. But, it also did much more. A switched telephone network also paved the way to an eventual internet system, which has led to a huge revolution, millions upon millions of jobs, and the fact that you are reading this today.
The idea that technology leads to efficiency over growth is preposterous. Efficiency is growth. But it's not always obvious how or where that growth occurs.
And that's why I think there's something of a paradox of job creation. The job creation we really want for the economy is the job creation that initially looks bad. It's the job creation that worries Obama and Jarvis, in that they believe it's somehow "taking away jobs." And yet, it's not. It's actively creating more jobs -- it's just not as obvious how or where, but they are being created, without question. Instead, the focus is put on the exact wrong kinds of jobs. You hear things about stimulus projects that grant money or protectionism to certain industries. On the face, that appears to create jobs, because those companies that are recipients of that support "hire" more people. But it's at the expense of productive and economic growth that would create real long term jobs and real long term opportunity.
So the best way to create jobs is the politically impossible plan of increasing efficiency, which may appear to replace jobs, even as it's creating many more. It means allowing real competition to take place, rather than propping up a few big legacy players. It means supporting true innovation, through encouraging startups and entrepreneurship, rather than rewarding the legacy players who seek to hold back the innovators. Job creation is a paradox. Anything politicians do to try to force it almost always does the opposite.
Filed Under: broken windows, economics, efficiency, job creation, jobs, politicians, politics, productivity


text:
In Fairfax, Va., a different, no-less-scary police shooting
World·Analysis
Eighteen months ago, a Virginia man was shot by police while standing at his suburban front door with his hands raised. The facts are clear and barely in dispute, but no one seems to want to do anything about it, Neil Macdonald reports.
18 months ago John Geer was shot by police while standing at his front door with his hands raised
Neil Macdonald · CBC News · Posted: Feb 18, 2015 5:00 AM ET | Last Updated: February 18, 2015
John Geer, shown here in a still from a cellphone video standing at the front door of his townhouse in August 2013 as police responded to a complaint from his girlfriend. It was an almost 30-minute conversation in the doorway before one of the officers shot him dead. (CBS)
White privilege didn't protect John Geer.
That's not to say he didn't have it. As a middle-class kitchen designer living in the pleasant Washington suburb of Fairfax, Va., he had nothing whatsoever in common with the impoverished black men killed by police in Missouri and Brooklyn last year.
Neil Macdonald: American shakedown - Police won't charge you, but they'll grab your money
Neil Macdonald: It won't be easy reining in America's 'chokehold' police
Neil Macdonald: How the law follows the wealth gap in modern-day America
FBI director gives frank talk on policing and race
Those deaths triggered riots, marches and demonstrations across America, and interventions by the White House.
But Geer, pierced 18 months ago by a police bullet as he stood inside the screen door of his own home, his hands raised, begging not to be shot, simply disappeared into the emotional mixing bowl of American news and political priorities.
That should not have happened. The killing of John Geer is probably the clearest and most compelling example of what amounts to police impunity in recent American history.
He committed no crime the day he was killed. Even the officer who shot him acknowledges that. There was no struggle. The details are not murky.
But because no one was marching in the streets on behalf of John Geer, because he was absent from national headlines, the system was able to make his outrageous death go away by the simple expedient of doing nothing and refusing to discuss it.
In August 2013, Geer's common law wife, who was breaking up with him and moving out, called police to report he was angrily throwing her possessions onto his front lawn.
Asked whether Geer had weapons, the woman answered yes, but they were legally owned and secured. No, he hadn't been drinking.
John Geer, 46, was fatally shot by police in August 2013 in an unusual confrontation for which no charges have been laid. His family has launched a suit for wrongful death. (Jeff Stewart/Washington Post)
Two squad cars — four officers — initially responded. Geer, on seeing them, retreated into his home, refusing to answer questions.
A few minutes later, Officer Rodney Barnes, a trained police negotiator, arrived, and as the four other policemen stood close behind him with weapons drawn, he began trying to coax John Geer out onto the porch.
Barnes would later recall that Geer was polite, but reluctant to leave his home, saying repeatedly he was frightened of being killed.
He said "I don't want anybody to get hurt," the negotiator told investigators a few months later. "I don't want to get shot."
'I know I can get shot'
Barnes asked Geer if he owned a pistol. Geer said yes, and fetched it. He held it up, holstered, for Barnes to see and set it aside, raising his hands again. He offered to let Barnes come into the house and retrieve the weapon.
He asked for permission to scratch his nose, Barnes said, and did it slowly, then raised his hands again. He asked to reach into his pocket for his phone; Barnes asked him not to, and he obeyed.
"He said 'I know if I reach down or drop my hands I can get shot," Barnes told detectives later. "I said, hey, nobody's going to shoot you…"
But Geer pointed to one nearby officer in particular: Adam Torres, who kept raising his Sig Sauer pistol from the "ready" position (pointed at Geer's legs) to aim at Geer's chest.
Please ask him not to point his gun at me, Geer begged Barnes. Geer even offered to come out and be handcuffed voluntarily if Torres and the other patrolmen would agree to move "way back."
Then he asked to scratch his nose again. Barnes consented. And Torres fired.
Geer, grabbing his wound, screamed in pain and stepped back, slamming his door.
"And I'm like, who the fuck shot?" Barnes told detectives later. "I kinda got a little pissed."
Torres acknowledged it had been him, and began muttering how he was sorry, and that his wrist was hurting. Then, unbidden, he told Barnes how he'd had a fight over the phone with his wife just before arriving on the scene.
Everyone else is wrong
Asked by Barnes why he'd fired, Torres said Geer had dropped his hands to his waist suddenly, that he appeared to be going for a weapon.
"I said I didn't see that," said Barnes later. "You know, and I never took my eye off him (Geer)."
In this cellphone video, Fairfax County police stand outside John Geer's home after he had been shot by an officer and fell back into the house. The officer at left is said to be Rodney Barnes, the main negotiator. By the time police tactical forces arrived to enter the home, Geer had bled to death. (CBS)
The other three officers who'd been present told investigators the same thing. So did two civilian witnesses.
But prosecutors and police commanders and county officials buried the case.
Fairfax County's top prosecutor declared a conflict of interest and referred the shooting to federal authorities.
The police department stonewalled reporters.
Federal investigators did investigate, and have reported to the U.S. attorney in Virginia, who has done nothing.
And all this was done under a cloak of secrecy, until, earlier this month, a judge finally ordered disclosure of nearly 11,000 documents, containing interviews with nearly everyone involved.
Torres, it turns out, stuck to his story that the other four officers were wrong.
Does he regret having shot Geer? "I don't feel sorry for shooting the guy at all."
Why did he tell Barnes immediately afterward he was sorry? He was concerned about having upset Barnes by shooting, he said.
Why did he talk about his wrist hurting? He doesn't remember. Why did he immediately say he'd just had a fight with his wife? "I don't know why."
The judge's disclosure order has created a bizarre situation: Nearly all the available evidence, including audio of the witness statements, is now available on the Fairfax County website.
According to those official documents, the shooter — a cop with significant anger issues (he once screamed and cursed at prosecutors in open court) — is contradicted by four fellow officers and two civilian witnesses. That sort of rank-breaking is practically unheard of.
And yet there has been no judicial action, and almost no public uproar. Most politicians have remained silent. Those who have marched against police shootings in the past have been largely uninterested.
A protest at Fairfax police headquarters drew a couple of dozen people. Only the Washington Post has taken a serious interest in the case.
But the killing of John Geer should frighten everyone. It is the best example yet that while police often target minorities disproportionately, their basic and overriding demand is total and unquestioning submission to their authority.
Resist, however peacefully and even in your own home, and heaven help you, no matter what your skin colour.
Neil Macdonald
Neil Macdonald is a former foreign correspondent and columnist for CBC News who has also worked in newspapers. He speaks English and French fluently, as well as some Arabic.
Video by Neil Macdonald
More by Neil Macdonald
James Comey, FBI director, gives frank talk on policing and race
Michael Brown shooting: Federal autopsy results released
Police shooting: White Missouri officer shoots, kills black man who pulled gun near Ferguson
Craig Stephen Hicks, accused Chapel Hill shooter, gun stash, ammo
NYPD question 3 suspects after 2 more officers shot
American Sniper Chris Kyle: Film success occurs as real-life murder trial begins
Fairfax Country: Documents in John Geer case


text:
Warka
Home » #Puntland: MAP concludes a 4-days Safety and Election reporting Seminar held in Bosaso.
#Puntland: MAP concludes a 4-days Safety and Election reporting Seminar held in Bosaso.
Garowe, Feb 15, 2021: 20 Journalists drawn from media outlets located in the towns of Bosaso, Carmo, Baran, Dhahar, and Qardho successfully completed a 4-day training on safety and election coverage. MAP organized the training with support from the International Media Support (IMS) and Fojo Media Institute and was held from 9-12 February 2020 at Juba hotel hall in Bosaso.
At the opening, MAP invited Mr. Abdusalaam Bashir, Bosaso city Mayor as the guest of honor to officially open the workshop. in his opening remarks, the mayor praised the local media for their work in informing the public, he also acknowledged the hard circumstances under which local journalists work.
"Somalia Including Puntland, journalists perform their duties under uncertain circumstances in which most of the people can hardly understand, thank you for the vital work you are doing for the community. I would also want to thank MAP and its partners for organizing this training, I wish you all success in your learning", said Abdusalam Bashir, Bosaso mayor.
The MAP chair, Mohamed Dahir, who also spoke at the opening session of the conference welcomed the participants, thanked IMS and Fojo partnership for supporting the initiative that aims to prepare local media practitioners to safely, accurately, and ethically cover the upcoming national elections.
''As we wait on politicians to set a clear date on when the upcoming national elections will be held, it is critical that we sensitize and build the skills of our members to adequately cover the elections, adding, during the upcoming 4days participants will be trained on personal safety and election processes and coverage, said MAP chair Mohamed Dahir.
The training was co-facilitated by IMS Somalia programs staff Mr. Abukar who said "the media faces challenges and get into trouble during election reporting, which most of the time is caused by the lack of skills journalists, we want to enhance your knowledge to safely and accurately on the upcoming national elections'", said Abukar al Badri, an official from the IMS Somalia programs.
The following topics were covered by the facilitators during the 4-day period.
Vehicle safety and travel
Personal and workspace security
Suicide attacks and IED
Security forces and the media
Accommodation safety and security Planning
Medical: Trauma first aid
Sensitivity related to the election time
Professional election reporting step by step
Role and responsibilities of the journalist during the election
Planning the election coverage and challenges related to it.
Journalistic credibility and its impact on public opinion
Handling hate speech and inflammatory language
Participants earned attendance certificates on the last day of the training, which was handed out by the Bosaso city mayor Mr. Abdu salaam Bashir.
The Association continues its effort in enhancing the capacity of the local media through specialized training including an in-house mentorship program.
MAP recognizes that the promotion of journalists' safety and the battle against impunity must not be limited to follow-up action. Alternatively, preventive measures and actions are required to resolve some of the root causes of violence against journalists and impunity.
#Puntland: MAP Concludes a 4-day Media Training on Safety & Election coverage in Garowe
#Puntland: Controvertible Military court sentencing is a gross violation to Journalist Kilwe's rights & a blatant gag to free press – Key Timeline
#Puntland: Gender sensitive training in News coverage...
#Puntland: MAP holds the Puntland Civil Society...
Puntland: MAP concludes a 2-day media and judiciary...
#PUNTLAND: Under the "Danwadaag"...
Puntland: Advanced Training for Media on Developing...
Campaigns • News • Press Release
#Puntland: Mudug Media and Law-Enforcement Dialogue...
Copyright © 2016. Site Hosted by Ramaas.


Located on Great Road and Route 4, the Boston/Bedford Travelodge is in the heart of historic Boston, less than four miles from Lexington and Concord and only 18 miles from downtown Boston and Logan Airport. Guest will find this hotel is conveniently located right next to restaurants and a small shopping mall.
Website visitors interested in BOSTON BEDFORD TRAVELODGE were also likely to be searching for these additional terms.


Prasad Nidhi began his career in 2009 shortly after graduating as an Electronics Engineer from Jawahar Lal Technical University. Prasad Nidhi went on to work with many sales and marketing companies as a Product Engineer for many renowned educational products. Years after working in these companies, Prasad Nidhi founded Dhanbad Lab Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2011.
Prasad Nidhi's past experience, commitment, and passion for laboratory business still come to the forefront when dealing with potential new and existing clients. He works hard to ensure all his clients are satisfied and is always searching for great results. His vision and leadership are what sets us apart.
We believe in quality and standard worldwide.


text:
coronavirus, COVID-19, contact tracing, ACT Health, phone messages
Backdated results arriving into the ACT Health system from an unnamed pathology provider caused hundreds of mobile phone messages to anxious people who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 in the ACT. The messaging glitch which occurred last week went out to hundreds of people, some of them multiple times, after they had tested positive causing anxiety and distress among those who had already self-isolated but were now concerned whether they had been re-infected. ACT Health could not explain how the backdated positive results, some of them going back 23 days or more and triggered long after the recipients had emerged from self-isolation, were not recognised as outdated and discarded by its automated messaging system. The long-running advice on testing results from ACT Health has been that anyone who has not received their result via text message within two days should only then contact the testing site, although private pathology labs can turn results around quicker. Canberra residents have also been encouraged to continue to use the CBR Check-in app, even though its effectiveness now appears to be much-diminished with so much infection now in the community. Exposure site updates within the ACT quietly disappeared from the government's COVID-19 website at Christmas time as the focus of contact tracing has now shifted toward tracking those who have been "high risk sites" such as aged care facilities and hospitals. MORE COVID-19 NEWS: "Our [contact tracing] teams are focused on whether cases have visited any high-risk sites and if they have come into contact with people at higher risk of serious illness," ACT Health confirmed. They said contact tracers now "need to focus on the key information that will protect our most vulnerable community members and settings". As to the effectiveness of using the check-in app, ACT Health says the tool is now more useful to people who have tested positive so they can warn those who they previously came into contact with, rather than as a means of collating exposure sites. "People are still encouraged to use it [the Check-in app] to assist with their own tracking of movement which is helpful for if they become a confirmed case to notify those around them in their social and workplace settings," the spokesperson said. This shifted approach falls in line with that recently adopted by national cabinet and reiterated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday when he said that the contact regime of the past was connected to the Delta strain of COVID-19, not the now more dominant Omicron variant. "The close contact rule, remember, is that you're a close contact if you have someone in your own accommodation setting that has the virus. That's when you're a close contact," the Prime Minister said on Thursday. "You're not a close contact because you happened to be here today and one of you might have COVID. "You're not a close contact if you've gone to a bar or to a restaurant or another venue and there happened to be a case there. "This notion of exposure sites, which means you're a close contact, that's Delta. That's in the past." People travelling to and from COVID-19 testing clinics have been advised to do so by private transport and not to stop at any workplaces, cafes, shops or restaurants "unless there is an emergency", says ACT Health. Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/ZBtA3uhzm786CWHKXPpjK4/46f36d05-8cff-4edc-8ff2-4c267e8ca458.jpg/r0_300_4743_2980_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
January 14 2022 - 11:30AM
ACT Health's IT system ingested old positive results from a third party provider, and sent false messages
Peter Brewer
Although exposure sites are no longer publicly listed, ACT Health is still encouraging people to use the the CBR check-in app. Picture: Sitthixay Ditthavong
Backdated results arriving into the ACT Health system from an unnamed pathology provider caused hundreds of mobile phone messages to anxious people who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 in the ACT.
The messaging glitch which occurred last week went out to hundreds of people, some of them multiple times, after they had tested positive causing anxiety and distress among those who had already self-isolated but were now concerned whether they had been re-infected.
ACT Health could not explain how the backdated positive results, some of them going back 23 days or more and triggered long after the recipients had emerged from self-isolation, were not recognised as outdated and discarded by its automated messaging system.
The long-running advice on testing results from ACT Health has been that anyone who has not received their result via text message within two days should only then contact the testing site, although private pathology labs can turn results around quicker.
Canberra residents have also been encouraged to continue to use the CBR Check-in app, even though its effectiveness now appears to be much-diminished with so much infection now in the community.
Exposure site updates within the ACT quietly disappeared from the government's COVID-19 website at Christmas time as the focus of contact tracing has now shifted toward tracking those who have been "high risk sites" such as aged care facilities and hospitals.
MORE COVID-19 NEWS:
Is the pandemic burning itself out? Experts suggest it could be
Knock-on effects through supply chain despite eased COVID rules for workers
1000 kids a day to be immunised at Canberra's AIS mass vaccine clinic
"Our [contact tracing] teams are focused on whether cases have visited any high-risk sites and if they have come into contact with people at higher risk of serious illness," ACT Health confirmed.
They said contact tracers now "need to focus on the key information that will protect our most vulnerable community members and settings".
As to the effectiveness of using the check-in app, ACT Health says the tool is now more useful to people who have tested positive so they can warn those who they previously came into contact with, rather than as a means of collating exposure sites.
"People are still encouraged to use it [the Check-in app] to assist with their own tracking of movement which is helpful for if they become a confirmed case to notify those around them in their social and workplace settings," the spokesperson said.
This shifted approach falls in line with that recently adopted by national cabinet and reiterated by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Thursday when he said that the contact regime of the past was connected to the Delta strain of COVID-19, not the now more dominant Omicron variant.
Old pathology results trigger false ACT COVID text messages
A computer glitch caused false messages from ACT Health.
https://players.brightcove.net/3879528182001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6290833697001
'New phase of the pandemic': Dr Paul Kelly
"The close contact rule, remember, is that you're a close contact if you have someone in your own accommodation setting that has the virus. That's when you're a close contact," the Prime Minister said on Thursday.
"You're not a close contact because you happened to be here today and one of you might have COVID.
"You're not a close contact if you've gone to a bar or to a restaurant or another venue and there happened to be a case there.
"This notion of exposure sites, which means you're a close contact, that's Delta. That's in the past."
People travelling to and from COVID-19 testing clinics have been advised to do so by private transport and not to stop at any workplaces, cafes, shops or restaurants "unless there is an emergency", says ACT Health.


text:
"Manhunter" (1986) dir. Michael Mann
This was the first film featuring Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lecter character, approximately five years before Jonathan Demme's adaptation of "Silence of the Lambs" in 1991. Based on Harris's novel "Red Dragon", director Michael Mann directed this extremely suspenseful, intense, and atmospheric tale of a troubled FBI agent called back into duty to find a serial killer the top FBI officials can not find. William Peterson does a masterful job playing the troubled FBI agent, Will Graham, a man physically and mentally scarred from an earlier assignment where he captured the infamous Lecter. It was a job where he had to think like Lecter in order to capture him … and this process landed him in a mental hospital.
While there was a decent, but ultimately unnecessary big-budget remake of "Red Dragon" in remake made in 2002 with Ed Norton as Graham and … that's right … Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter … Michael Mann's 1986 version is so much better. As iconic as Hopkins' characterization is, Brian Cox may actually be a scarier Lecter, based on how low-key he plays the infamous mad man. Watch this incredibly intense scene where Lecter meets with Graham where Lecter tries to dominate Graham and oh-so-casually asks Graham for his home phone number.
The attached scene is the climax of the film with major spoilers, but it has one of the best uses of rock music and film ever committed to celluloid … Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" used to absolute sinister perfection.
"Manhunter" … along with David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" … were the jewels in the ill-fated DeLaurentiis Entertainment Group studio's late 1980s forays into filmmaking. An ironic jewel, because "Manhunter" was not successful … but Hannibal Lecter was a movie star in the making … and Dino DeLaurentiis got his money back in spades with the 2001 film "Hannibal" as well as the 2002 remake "Red Dragon."
If you have any love for this film at all … or are just fans of the Hannibal Lecter films … please check out the Projection Booth's recent podcast on this film:
http://projection-booth.blogspot.com/2014/06/episode-170-manhunter.html
Trivia note: David Lynch was the original director attached to this film. As much as I love what Michael Mann did here, my mind is blown over the prospect over what Lynch would have done with this material.
This entry was posted in Film, Music and tagged anthony hopkins, brian cox, david lynch, deg, delaurentiis enterainment group, dino delaurentiis, hannibal lecter, in-a-gadda-da-vida, iron butterfly, manhunter, michael mann, projection booth, projection booth podcast, red dragon, silence of the lambs, thomas harris, william peterson by Dave's Strange World. Bookmark the permalink.


How was your Memorial Day weekend? Ours was definitely "Memorable!" We started it all on Friday morning by the delivery of puppies. By the days end, Dakota, our Golden Retriever had 12 puppies. We stayed fairly close to home to help with the delivery and assist the pups as the got started nursing. But we did make a quick run up the road to our local plant nursery and got some flowers to plant in the flower boxes out front. Mike worked hard refilling all the boxes with fresh dirt.
Sabbath we went to church, came home, ate lunch, and the kids played in the pool to keep cool for a little while, then naptimes and, well, that was pretty well our day!
Sunday we woke up and started working on the church social that us and another couple were hosting over at the church later in the afternoon. I made a quick run to the grocery store for a few items. Mike made his delicious Veggie Burgers (they look like the real thing and taste oh soooo good.) I made two different kinds of homemade icecream-Raspberry Cheesecake and Chocolate and homemade lemonade. We got everything ready and loaded into the truck-including our grill and several coolers full of ice for the icecream machines and drinks.
One guy manned the three icecream machines-the icecream turned out so delicious.
Here's my plate-I couldn't fit all the potato salads, coleslaw, etc etc etc on my plate OR in my stomach. This was it. And I was stuffed.
After eating, the kids played with large inflatable balls in the gym and ran around running and laughing. Hannah got a blister on her foot and it was hurting her pretty bad. We bandaged it up and she hobbled off, but she really wanted to play horseshoes. So, since no one else was playing them, I called her on over to me and told her I'd show her how. They were a nice, brand new set and looked like so much fun to her! I showed her how you toss it from a distance over the ring. You know how little ones are when they throw things-they have to go up to it and throw it right over-not from a distance. She was doing so well! Then she wanted to try the ring on the other side, so she walked over there with her horseshoe in hand and I followed behind with the remaining horshoes. She had just gotten over there when, "OWWWWY!" she cried and turned to face me with her fingers in her mouth and blood dripping all over her. I was naturally horrified-what on earth could she have done?! Evidentally, she had slammed the horseshoe down onto the ring, but had gotten her middle finger of her right hand pinched in between. When she took her finger out of her mouth for me to see I was even more horrified-the whole padding of her finger from one side of the fingernail to the other was completely torn and lifted up in one big chunk. Blood was oozing everywhere. I took her inside to get cold water to rinse it and then a cloth full of ice. Several nurses and others took a look and knew right away that it was going to require stitches. So, off we went to the E.R. (no other places were open) Hannah cried an awful lot, poor little sweetie. Nathan kept wanting to kiss her. After a super long wait in the E.R, we finally got back to a room. The Dr. took a good look at her finger and then had the nurse get her something for the pain. In a few minutes he was back with his needle and thread and the nurse and Mike and Nathan were asked to wait in the waiting room. The nurse and I wrapped Hannah up like a burrito so as to keep her one arm secure. I leaned over her feet, just in case. The Doctor gave Hannah a small prick of number in the finger and she screamed. I began telling her a story-making it up as I went, putting more thrill into it as was needed. Hannah intently listened to my story and 11 stitches later, we were all done. Whew. The Doctor and Nurse couldn't get over how good Hannah had been. Mike and Nathan came back into the room-Nathan had a bunch of stickers all over him-some kind nurse must have given him a few to occupy him. ;) Hannah got a big drink of water and then a sticker for her bravery. They bandaged up the finger real good and we were sent on our way with prescriptions to fill and stitches that needed to be kept dry and then taken out in 10 days. Whew. By the time all that was finished and the prescriptions filled and we were home again, it was close to 10:00 at night. The accident had happened around 5. Can you imagine?! So, here's our little sweetie with her big bandaged finger. She's a brave little girl!
I'm glad it was her finger, and not her getting knocked in the head unconscious or something like that. Still, it was terribly traumatic She woke up the second night from pain, but mostly she's doing pretty well. Unless you bump her finger, or change the bandaging-she doesn't like that in the least.
On Memorial Day itself, we pretty much took it easy- and recovered from all the events of the weekend!
So! How's that for Memorable?!
OH, I'm so sad about the puppies. :( And Hannah is certainly brave. What a traumatic evening for you all! Cute braids though! :) And the food looks and sounds delicious!


MovieFlix.com is the leading broadband movie provider on the Web. MovieFlix.com has developed and maintains a library of over 3,000 full-length movies, short films, independent films, television shows and more in over 30 popular categories. The MovieFlix service is available over the Internet via streaming video technology from the MovieFlix Web site.
You can find lots of free streaming movie from MovieFlix.com. they are windows media or realvideo format. If you want to record them, you need use the streaming recorder which can record realvideo(.rm,.rmvb,ra) and windows media(.wmv, .asf, .wma).


Hearts boss Craig Levein has defended his right to criticise referees in the wake of Sunday's defeat to Rangers, whilst defender Jimmy Dunne has updated fans on his injury situation.
As we told you at the time, Levein insisted his Jambos side were playing 'against 12 men' during the weekend's 2-1 reverse at Tyencastle, with whistler Bobby Madden in the firing line.
His Gers counterpart Steven Gerrard took a cheeky dig in retaliation during his weekly media conference earlier today but Levein reckons he was firmly in the right to say what he did.
Speaking ahead of tomorrow night's trip to St. Johnstone, via the Sun, he said: "I criticise my players and I criticise myself.
"If officials make the same blatant mistake seven times this season I should be entitled to say that.
"Of course I'm angry. This is my job, my livelihood.
"How Morelos gets away with what he gets away with, I just don't understand.
"How many fouls can you give away without being booked?
"The one where he's jumped into Christophe Berra off the ball and the referee said that 'he's just a bit silly sometimes' – that's what he told one of the players!
What do you think of Levein's comments? Does he have a point when he makes the point about officials affecting his livelihood?