text:
Manning the pump, manning the ship
(William Collins, The Caves of Ulysses at Sorrento, Naples, 1843
Photo credit: Victoria and Albert Museum)
There's a moment in Hermione Lee's biography of Penelope Fitzgerald when, discussing the long period of Fitzgerald's teaching, she mentions that 'Her copies of Joyce and Beckett are full of little jokes to herself, as when the citizen in the "Cyclops" episode of Ulysses goes out "to the back of the yard to pumpship", and she notes: "Has to pee just like Bloom. We're all human."'[1] By 'the citizen' is meant—or should be meant—not 'the Citizen', that violent and foul-mouthed Polyphemus figure but the unidentified narrator of the 'Cyclops' episode. 'So I just went round to the back of the yard to pumpship'.[2]
Pumpship – or pump ship. Yes, perhaps inevitably there comes a time in a man's life when his thoughts alight and pause on slang terms for urination. Might women be content to be left out of this general discussion? On the basis of my (admittedly very limited) survey, it would seem so. . . .
Don Gifford's authoritative Ulysses Annotated didn't find the term worth elucidating, though R. W. Dent's Colloquial Language in Ulysses has an entry (which basically reproduces Eric Partridge's).[3] Joyce's friend Frank Budgen doesn't enlarge on it either, merely commenting that 'I', or 'the Nameless One', as he also refers to the narrator, 'goes out into the yard to pumpship'. But then Budgen, in earlier life, had spent six years at sea.[4]
All this put me in mind of the account in Regina Marler's Bloomsbury Pie of the discussions between Joanne Trautmann Banks and Nigel Nicolson, the editors of Virginia Woolf's letters, on the level of annotation to be used there:
'Having decided, too, that the annotation should insult neither English nor American readers, the editors sometimes battled over what should be explained. The Adirondacks, for instance, were judged too basic. But what about "pumping ship," or as Virginia used the phrase, in reference to T. S. Eliot's extreme reserve: "It's on a par with not pump shipping in front of your wife." "What's that?" Trautmann asked, certain they would have to annotate it. "Pumping ship means urinating," Nicolson told her. "Every Englishman knows that." Trautmann decided to test his assumption:
So the typists, the cook, and the nanny were asked. Nigel's children were asked, as was every guest at Nigel's next dinner party….Only one man knew, a physician, as it happens. I say "as it happens," because Nigel determined that it was not the doctor's profession that led to this particular genito-urinary information, but his age and schooling. "Only Old Etonians over 50 know about pumping ship," Nigel announced. We annotated it.[5]
They did. The note reads 'Virginia misconstructed this now obsolescent term for urinating.'[6] With a markedly worse misconstruction, E. M. Forster, floundering badly and unappealingly, writes in letters of having 'pump shitted' and of 'pump shitting'.[7]
'P.S.', Rupert Brooke wrote in a 1912 letter to James Strachey, 'When I pump ship, it's bright green. What does that portend?'[8] A portentous question.
(Penelope Knox, 'the blonde bombshell', via Slate Magazine )
Penelope Fitzgerald, anyway, seems untroubled by the word 'pumpship'. To be sure, she wasn't an Old Etonian over fifty, but two of her uncles had been (though Dillwyn died in 1943, aged only fifty-eight). Back in mid-1930s Oxford, where men at the university outnumbered women by six to one, 'the blonde bombshell' then at Somerville College—'No one was surprised when she got a First after a "congratulatory viva", at which the candidate is praised rather than quizzed'—surely met a good many Old Etonians (and Harrovians and Rugbeians).[9]
But then a Dubliner, educated at O'Connell, Clongowes and Belvedere, also seems quite untroubled about it, as does 'the Nameless One', as fluent in speech as in relieving himself—and admiring too (if grudgingly) of Leopold Bloom's own fluency:
And of course Bloom had to have his say too about if a fellow had a rower's heart violent exercise was bad. I declare to my antimacassar if you took up a straw from the bloody floor and if you said to Bloom: Look at, Bloom. Do you see that straw? That's a straw. Declare to my aunt he'd talk about it for an hour so he would and talk steady.[10]
[1] Hermione Lee, Penelope Fitzgerald: A Life (London: Chatto and Windus, 2013), 199.
[2] James Joyce, Ulysses (1922; London: The Bodley Head, revised edition, 1969), 435.
[3] Don Gifford, with Robert J. Seidman, Ulysses Annotated: Notes for James Joyce's Ulysses, revised and expanded edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989); R. W. Dent, Colloquial Language in Ulysses: A Reference Guide (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1994), 145; Eric Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, edited by Paul Beale, 8th edition (London: Routledge, 1991), 933: nautical slang, late 18th century to c.1870, given there as two words.
[4] Frank Budgen, James Joyce and the Making of 'Ulysses' and other writings, enlarged edition (1934; London: Oxford University Press, 1972), 165.
[5] Regina Marler, Bloomsbury Pie: The Story of the Bloomsbury Revival (London: Virago, 1997), 158. She quotes from Trautmann's piece in Charleston Magazine, 13 (1996), 12. See also Joanna Trautmann Banks, 'The Editor as Ethicist', in Virginia Woolf: Interpreting the Modernist Text, edited by James M. Haule and J. H. Stape (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 29.
[6] Virginia Woolf, The Question of Things Happening: Collected Letters II, 1912-1922 (London: The Hogarth Press, 1980), 572, n1.
[7] Selected Letters of E. M. Forster, Volume One: 1879-1920, edited by Mary Lago and P. N. Furbank (London: Collins, 1983), 95, 238. His editors note, of the letter of 19 October 1908, '"Pump shitted": EMF's misspelling of "pumpshipped"' (96, n.3).
[8] Friends and Apostles: The Correspondence of Rupert Brooke and James Strachey, 1905-1914, edited by Keith Hale (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 253. A footnote mentions 'semen', so poet and editor appear to have something else in mind here.
[9] Lee, Penelope Fitzgerald, 57. In the 1970s, Fitzgerald became friends with Mary Lago, one of the editors of E. M. Forster's letters (quoted above)—on which she was probably then working.
[10] Joyce, Ulysses, 410.
Author reconstructionarytalesPosted on January 23, 2018 Categories Literary HistoryTags James Joyce, Language, Penelope Fitzgerald
Previous Previous post: Odysseys: man—and woman—of many devices
Next Next post: Prince of morticians


Mires and peatlands are the most widespread wetland type on earth. They represent 50 to 70 % of the global wetlands. However, mires and peatlands are continuously threatened by human induced drainage and land use change. Their protection requires increasing attention then ever. Therefore this web page is dedicated to enhance information exchange about mires and peatlands under threat. Therefore IMCG requires your action. If your peatland is currently threatened fill out the form and IMCG will put this information on the web to inform a wider public and to give expertise in all issues of mire and peatland conservation if required.
Download the threatened mire and peatland site form from the bottom of the page and send the information via email back to IMCG.
The information on this site has been checked by IMCG members to their best knowledge. However, we request everybody who disagrees with the information on this site to contact the IMCG secretariat.


text:
Q: Connect to sql server with windows authentication in different domains I get we have two options while connecting to remote SQL Servers or other domains with Windows authentication:

*

*runas /netonly method

*adding windows credentials

But doesn't Windows authentication mean that the user who logged in to Windows has authentication to use SQL Server?
So since I am not an authorized login or user in remote servers, I mean I am not a Windows user on their machine, how could I connect to their servers?
So everyone who knows my domain name and instance name can connect to my machine.
What about security? Do we have to add other Windows users or machines to connect to our SQL Server?
I believe we must add other machines to our domain or we must add other domains as trusted to our domain.
Please help; what is the point I missed?

A: When you login to a computer you can do so in the following manner:

*

*login to the computer with a user that is stored on the computer (e.g. COMPUTER_1\USER_3)

*login to the computer with a user that is stored in the active directory of the domain you are using (e.g. DOMAIN_1\USER_1)

When the login is complete you have verified the authenticity of your account (USER_n) against either the computer (COMPUTER_1) or against the Active Directory domain (DOMAIN_1).
Environment
Now let's say we have the following information based on your questions:

*

*first domain user account USER_1

*second domain user account USER_2

*first computer user account USER_3

*second computer user account USER_4

*first computer COMPUTER_1

*second computer COMPUTER_2

*first server SERVER_1

*second server SERVER_2

*first domain DOMAIN_1

*second domain DOMAIN_2

Next I am assuming the following:

*

*USER_1, COMPUTER_1 and SERVER_1 are members of the DOMAIN_1

*USER_2, COMPUTER_2 and SERVER_2 are members of the DOMAIN_2

*USER_3 is a user account on COMPUTER_1

*USER_4 is a user account on COMPUTER_2

Scenario 1:
You login to COMPUTER_1 using the account USER_3 (computer user account). When you try to connect to the SERVER_1 using Windows Authentication you are denied access.
Why?
The COMPUTER_1\USER_3 local Windows account cannot be added to the SQL Server as a login on SERVER_1. Only SERVER_1\USER_n accounts could be added as SQL Server Logins to SERVER_1 or DOMAIN_1\USER_n accounts. SQL Server is unable to find COMPUTER_1\USER_n accounts when creating Windows Authenticated SQL Serer Logins.
Scenario 2
You login to COMPUTER_1 using the account DOMAIN_1\USER_1 (Domain user account). When you try to connect to the SQL Server SERVER_1 using Windows Authentication you are granted access.
Why?
DOMAIN_1\USER_n accounts can be added as Windows Authenticated SQL Server Logins to the SQL Server instance running on SERVER_1 and then granted access to the SQL Server. SQL Server will determine that you (DOMAIN_1\USER_1) are a valid Domain user and will allow you to connect to the SQL Server (assuming you have previously assigned these permissions to the account on your SQL Server).
Scenario 3
You login to COMPUTER_1 using the account DOMAIN_1\USER_1 (Domain user account). When you try to connect to the SERVER_2 (remember server is in DOMAIN_2) using Windows Authentication you are most likely denied access.
Why?
DOMAIN_1\USER_n accounts cannot be added as SQL Server Logins to the SQL Server instance running on SERVER_2. Unless you have a trust between the domain DOMAIN_1 and DOMAIN_2. The SQL Server instance on SERVER_2 will be unable to verify that you (DOMAIN_1\USER_1) is a valid Domain login and will deny you access SQL Server.
Summary
When you login to a computer you have only verified your authenticity towards either the computer or to the domain the computer belongs to. Any other permissions (SQL Server access, Windows Server access) depend on the rights assigned to your account either in the domain or on the target system. If a system is out of scope of the DOMAIN_1 or SERVER_1, then you will be unable to access these servers with Windows Authenticated SQL Server logins.
If a user is trying to connect to a SQL Server in a non-domain environment then you will possibly be better off with dedicated Native SQL Server Logins instead of Windows Authenticated SQL Server Logins. When you want to connect to the SQL Server you will have access via the SQL Server login.
This is a very short basic summary of how authentication works.

A:
But doesn't Windows authentication mean that the user who logged in to Windows has authentication to use SQL Server?

Generally yes, but more specifically it depends on how "Windows" is defined in this context. In your scenario, the Windows account / login exists in one Domain, and hence will have access to the resources in that Domain. But having access to that Domain doesn't magically grant access to all other Domains. If it did, then you would be able to connect to all other Windows servers that are accessible from the one that you authenticated against, even across the interwebs.

I believe we must add other machines to our domain or we must add other domains as trusted to our domain.

You are correct: you must add a trust relationship between the Domains so that the "other" Domain knows that it can trust authenticated logins from the Domain that you are currently on.
The following resources will explain this trust relationship, the various options for trust relationships, and some provide details on how to establish a trust relationship between domains (some of the documentation is written for Windows 2000 but at least one states, at the top, that it is still relevant, at least through Windows Server 2012):

*

*Pass-Through Authentication and Domain Trusts

*What Are Domain and Forest Trusts?

*Managing Trusts

*Domain Trust

A: There are things like Group policies in windows,so the user to be able to access your sql server or windows, needs to be added into a particular group of database users first for that particular domain maintained by the respective organization.
Apart from that most of the times a jump box is provided by the organization with limited access permissions to windows features which enables DBA's to run clients such as Sql server management studio for example and do the routine tasks as per his /her role ,mostly multiple instance nodes are registered in sql server and thus a user can connect to it via ssms by just providing the node or instance name.
Hope this helps.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Are you experiencing BMW 535i problems? Do you own a twin-turbocharged BMW 535i that produces one or more of the following symptoms/problems, and at least one of the symptoms/problems has been subject to 3 or more repair attempts (2 if specifically for stalling complaints) at the dealership during the original 4 year/50,000 mile factory new vehicle limited warranty, or "BMW Certified Pre-Owned" warranty? A number of the new twin-turbo series vehicles have issues with the high pressure fuel pump/pressurized fuel delivery system, fuel injectors and spark plugs, causing a rash of drive-ability issues including "no-start", "hard-start", "extended cranking time", "start then stall", "stall while engine is running" and more.
Does your twin turbo BMW 535i consume too much oil?
If you feel that you meet the "3 or more repair attempts" (or 2 repair attempts if both repair invoices specifically noted for engine stalling complaint) criteria noted above, please call us at the toll-free number below to receive a FREE Lemon Law case review and evaluation of your vehicle. PLEASE NOTE: For engine/drive-ability/etc. cases, we do not accept cases for review in which the owner has modified the vehicle via installation of aftermarket performance "chips", "mapping", "intake systems" and "starting at the exhaust manifold" exhaust systems, etc. We also do not pursue cases wherein one or more repair invoice on your twin-turbo that states "outside influence – not a warranty issue" or "evidence of tampering". If the vehicle is used for "business purposes," a lemon law claim/case cannot be brought on that vehicle if there are more than 5 vehicles registered to the owner/business.
We would like to stress that BMW's are one of the highest quality and most technologically advanced vehicles on the market, and that the issues noted above will likely not happen to most owners of these vehicles. That being said, despite a manufacturer's best efforts, some twin turbo BMW's will turn out to be "lemons" by their qualifying warranty repair histories. For these vehicles California's largest lemon law firm can be a great asset to consumers in getting their legal entitlement under the California Lemon Law.
Watch out for the age-old trick of the "dealer trade assist" or similar wording used by some car dealers if a customer complaints about his/her BMW that has symptoms/ problems. Customers are often told "we will get you out of your car and into a new one". Don't fall for this time-worn consumer ploy. This is simply the dealer trying to take your twin-turbocharged BMW back in trade and sell you a new one, taking all the negative equity from your current twin turbo BMW and hiding it in the loan or lease on the new replacement vehicle.
Our California lemon law is the avenue car buyers utilize to get their money back, or a new replacement vehicle (replacements may be possible if vehicle purchased/leased new).


Chidori is a cozy ryokan which a gentle owner couple welcome you. The ryokan has been welcoming tourists with dishes made from fresh seafood which caught on the day. You will feel cozy like you are at home.


Expecting a child can be considered to be a joyous moment. Many couples may have tried for years to have a child. The announce this special occasion to others, the following pregnancy announcement wording examples serve as the perfect examples to the types of messages you can include. These have been shared by others and intended to help inspire your own unique, creative, and personalized message.
A child is the richness of tradition, the excitement of youth, and the promise of tomorrow. We're expecting our tomorrow this fall.
Here's an announcement that is sure to be fun. Parents to be are expecting a son.
I'm as happy as be because I'm going to have a new baby sister to play with me. Mommy and Daddy are excited too. We couldn't wait to share the news with you.
Oh baby, we have some news. We're pregnant. We will be welcoming our bundle of joy into the world on [due date]. Warmest regards.
Pink or Blue? We simply can't say. We're so excited for our delivery day.
Roses are red, violets are blue, on [due date] our little miracle is due.
The best is yet to come… [due date].
The special time has arrived for us to share our big surprise. We are expecting a baby. We';; have to wait and see if it is a boy or girl. Wither one will bring us joy. Expected due date [date].
There's nothing like a brand new pair of genes. That's right, we are expecting. Celebrate new life with us this spring.
Twinkle Twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are. We hoped and prayed it would happen some day and oh we're pregnant by the way.
We are all excited and happy as can be. Guess what? Parents to be will soon be three.
we are letting you know we plan on expanding our house by two more feet. We're pregnant.
We did it! We are having a baby expected on [due date].
We wished upon a star and it came true. Now we're expecting baby number two. Expected arrival date [date].
We're expecting the store to drop by next June. Who knows what it will be but we should know soon.
Many expectant mothers are not receiving the right type of nutrition for their growing child. The below infographic aims to provide vital facts regarding your prenatal nutrition. To promote healthy brain and nerve development, the right amount of iodine consumption should occur. This and other important facts can be found below.


text:
Q: sshd won't stop/start properly I am running ubuntu 13.10 (fresh install).  I have installed openssh-server.  During the process of trying to troubleshoot a problem with logging in via ssh from another linux system (also running ubuntu) I discovered that stopping and starting the server don't seem to work properly.  I have googled the problem extensively and found many (sometimes conflicting) answers.  Below are the results for the four methods I have found
root@newton:~# invoke-rc.d ssh stop
initctl: Unknown job: ssh
root@newton:~# service ssh stop
stop: Unknown job: ssh
root@newton:~# /etc/init.d/ssh stop
root@newton:~#
root@newton:~# stop ssh
stop: Unknown job: ssh

In no case do I get feedback that indicates the daemon stopped.  The same goes for trying to start the daemon.  When I look at /var/log/auth.log I see that the daemon apparently stopped multiple times but not because of the above commands.  It only stops when I kill it using killall sshd.  After which it immediately restarts.  Somehow something appears to be completely broken with my system.  Does anyone have any ideas on how to sort it out?  Thanks for any help.

A: Thanks to all who have posted trying to help me sort this out.  I wanted to update all on the current status and explain what I did to put the system in its current state.  You will notice in the original post that I tried sudo service ssh start, etc. and obtained various unhelpful errors.  Eventually, I did
#touch /etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run

and then
# killall sshd

a few times.  At this point sshd stopped restarting (as you would expect).  I then ran
sudo service ssh status
ssh stop/waiting

sudo service ssh start
ssh stop/pre-start, process 22510

sudo service ssh status
ssh stop/waiting

sudo service ssh stop
stop: Unknown instance:

sudo service ssh status
ssh stop/waiting

sudo service ssh start
ssh stop/pre-start, process 22579

sudo service ssh status
ssh stop/waiting

These results are expected given the presence of sshd_not_to_be_run file.  After subsequently removing this file I was able to run:
sudo service ssh status
ssh stop/waiting

sudo service ssh start
ssh start/running, process 25063

sudo service ssh status
ssh start/running, process 25063

sudo service ssh stop
ssh stop/waiting

sudo service ssh start
ssh start/running, process 25141

sudo service ssh status
ssh start/running, process 25141

sudo service ssh stop
ssh stop/waiting

sudo service ssh start
ssh start/running, process 25247

It looks like things are in order for now.  If anyone has any ideas about tests that I could to to help ubuntu sort this out (I have seen several other posts on the web that indicate the errors I was originally getting) I would be happy to do them and post results.  Thanks again for all of your help.

A: try
service sshd stop
service sshd start


Geoghegans Chartered Accountants Completion of the RSABI Great Glen Challenge 2014.
On Friday 29th August the RSABI Great Glen Challenge 2014 came to an end. Geoghegans Chartered Accountants came in a very respective 6th place out of the 22 teams competing.
The event involved team members running, kayaking, walking and cycling. Team 'Geoghegans' involved our keen members of staff; Blair Paterson kayaked, Laura Forrester ran, Allan Smith walked and Alan Shek cycled. Despite our cyclist encountering a puncture and our kayak being grounded, Laura successfully finished third place in the running. Overall the team raised over £1,000 for RSABI which has helped them reach their total fundraising target of £36,000. We would like to thank everyone who donated and hopefully see you all again next year!


The experiences of these leave takers, including the amount of time they took off, whether or not they received pay during that time, and how they coped with the loss of wages or salary if they didn't vary considerably depending on factors such as their gender, educational attainment and household income.
For example, the survey finds that the median length of leave for mothers after the birth or adoption of a child is 11 weeks, compared with one week for fathers.5 Among mothers, those with household incomes of $75,000 or more and those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 tend to take more time off after birth or adoption than those with incomes below $30,000 (a median of 12 weeks and 10 weeks, respectively, for the higher and middle income groups vs. six weeks for mothers with lower incomes).
In fact, about six-in-ten (62%) leave takers with household incomes under $30,000 say they received no pay at all, compared with 40% of those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 and even fewer (26%) among those with incomes of $75,000 or more.
The survey findings reveal that the financial consequences of not receiving full pay during family or medical leave can be substantial for many workers. About eight-in-ten leave takers (78%) who say they received no pay or received only part of their regular pay when they took time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons say they cut back on spending to cover lost wages or salary during that time. A third or more say they used savings they had set aside for something else (50%), cut their leave time short (41%), took on debt (37%) or put off paying their bills (33%); about a quarter say they borrowed money from family or friends (24%) or received money from family or friends they weren't expected to pay back (23%), and 17% went on public assistance.
Lower-income leave takers – especially those who took parental leave – are particularly likely to say they had to resort to more consequential measures to make up for the loss of income during their time off. About six-in-ten parental-leave takers (57%) with household incomes under $30,000 who did not receive their full pay during their leave say they took on debt, while roughly half say they went on public assistance (48%) or put off paying bills (46%).
The survey also explores the experiences of those who say there was a time in the past two years when they needed or wanted to take time off from work following the birth or adoption of a child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or to deal with their own serious condition but were unable to do so for some reason. About one-in-six (16%) American adults who were employed in the past two years say this happened to them during this time, and the share is higher among women as well as among blacks and Hispanics, those without a bachelor's degree and those with annual household incomes under $30,000.
For example, about a quarter of blacks (26%) and Hispanics (23%) who were employed in the past two years report that there was a time during this period when they needed or wanted to take time off from work but were not able to do so; 13% of employed whites say this happened to them. Similarly, three-in-ten workers with annual household incomes under $30,000 say they had this experience in the past two years, compared with 17% of those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 and 12% of those with incomes of $75,000 or more.
The reasons some people aren't able to take time off from work when these situations arise vary, but most (72%) say they couldn't afford to lose wages or salary. Just over half (54%) of those who didn't take leave when they needed or wanted to say they didn't take time off from work because they thought they might risk losing their job, a concern that is particularly common among lower-income workers. In addition, 42% of workers who needed or wanted to take leave but were unable to do so say they felt badly about co-workers taking on additional work, 40% thought taking time off might hurt their chances for advancement, 36% felt no one else was capable of doing their job, and 32% had their request for time off denied by their employer.
The amount of time workers take off from their jobs for parental, family or medical reasons differs depending on the situation. For example, among those who have taken time off from work in the past two years following the birth or adoption of their child, the median length of leave was 4.3 weeks. For those who took time off from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition in the past two years, the median length of leave was two weeks, similar to the median amount of leave taken by those who were dealing with their own serious health condition (2.1 weeks).
Mothers take much longer leaves than fathers: a median of 11 weeks for mothers vs. one week for fathers. In fact, about seven-in-ten fathers (72%) say they took two weeks or less off from work following the birth or adoption of their child. In contrast, about half (47%) of mothers who took time off from work in the past two years following birth or adoption say they were off for 12 weeks or more. Still, 17% of women say they returned to work less than six weeks after the birth or adoption of their child.
Women with lower household incomes generally take far shorter leaves than those with higher incomes. The median length of leave was 12 weeks for mothers with household incomes of $75,000 or more and 10 weeks for those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999. In contrast, the median length of leave for mothers with household incomes under $30,000 was six weeks.
For the most part, parents take time off from work all at once following the birth or adoption of their child; 78% say they did this, compared with 16% who say they took time off in separate blocks or as needed. Fathers (22%) are more likely than mothers (9%) to say they took time off in separate blocks or as needed following the birth or adoption of their child.
Among those who took time off from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition in the past two years, 15% took at least six weeks off, and this is more common among women than among men who have taken time off to care for a seriously ill family member (19% vs. 11%). Regardless of the number of weeks they took off, about half (48%) say they took this time off all at once, while about as many (49%) took it in separate blocks or as needed.
Older workers typically take longer leaves than younger workers to deal with their own serious health conditions. Roughly a third (36%) of workers ages 50 and older who took time off for this reason say they were off for at least six weeks, compared with 27% of those 30 to 49 and 23% of those younger than 30. About two-thirds (68%) of those who have taken time off to deal with their own serious health condition took the time off all at once, while 29% say they took it in blocks or as needed.
Among those who took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child, 56% say they took less time off than they needed or wanted to, while 36% say they took about as much time off as they needed or wanted to and 7% say they took more time than they needed or wanted.
Compared with those who took time off for parental reasons, workers who took time off to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to deal with their own serious condition are more satisfied with the amount of time they spent away from their jobs. About half (50% of those who took leave to care for an ill family member and 55% who took leave because of their own medical condition) say they took about as much time off as they needed or wanted, while close to four-in-ten say they wish they had taken more time off than they did. One-in-ten of those who took time off from work to care for an ill family member and 5% of those who were dealing with their own serious health condition say they took more time off than they needed or wanted to.
Mothers and fathers, as well as parents across racial, educational and income groups, give similar assessments of the amount of time they took off from work following the birth or adoption of their child. For example, about six-in-ten fathers who took time off from work (59%) say they took less time off than they needed or wanted to, while 5% say they took more time off and 35% say they took about as much time off as they needed or wanted to. Among mothers, 53% wish they had taken more time off, while 10% say they took more time off than they needed or wanted to; 37% said they took about the right amount of time off.
There is a significant income gap in satisfaction with the amount of time taken off among workers who took leave to care for an ill family member or to deal with their own health problem. Among those who took time off from work in the past two years to care for a family member with a serious health condition, six-in-ten workers with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more say they took as much time off as they needed or wanted to. By comparison, only about four-in-ten of those with incomes below $75,000 say the same.
Those with lower incomes who took time off to deal with their own serious health condition are also less likely than those with higher incomes to say they took as much time off as they needed or wanted to. About four-in-ten (42%) of those with household incomes under $30,000 say this is the case, while about as many (47%) say they took less time off than they needed or wanted to. Among those with household incomes of $75,000 or more, six-in-ten say they took as much time off as they needed or wanted (35% say they wish they had taken more time off).
When those who say they took less time off from work than they needed or wanted to following birth or adoption of their child, to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to deal with their own serious condition are asked why they did not take more time off, financial concerns top the list of reasons. About seven-in-ten (69%) say they could not afford to lose more wages or salary.
Nearly half (47%) of leave takers who took less time off from work than they needed or wanted to say they thought they might risk losing their job if they took more time off, while 41% say they felt badly about co-workers taking on additional work. About a third thought taking more time off might hurt their chances for job advancement (34%) or felt that no one else was capable of doing their job (33%). Roughly a quarter (23%) of those who took less time off than they needed or wanted to say their employer denied their request for more time off.
Across income levels, majorities of leave takers who say they took less time off from work than they needed or wanted to cite loss of wages or salary as a reason. But while most (63%) of those with household incomes below $30,000 say they thought they might risk losing their job if they took more time off, middle- and higher-income workers are much less likely to point to this as a factor (47% among those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 and 42% among those earning $75,000 or more). Differences across income groups are not as pronounced on any of the other items.
Those who say there was a time in the past two years when they needed or wanted to take time off from work but were not able to do so also point to financial and career concerns as reasons why they didn't take time off. About seven-in-ten (72%) say not being able to afford to lose wages or salary was a reason why they didn't take time off. About half thought they might risk losing their job (54%), while about four-in-ten say they felt badly about their co-workers taking on additional work (42%) or worried that taking time off might hurt their chances for job advancement (40%); 36% of those who did not take leave when they needed or wanted to felt no one else was capable of doing their job and 32% say their request for time off was denied.
A majority of Americans who took time off from work in the past two years for parental, family or medical reasons say they received at least some pay during this time, including 47% who received the same amount as their regular pay and 16% who received only part of their regular pay; 36% of leave takers received no pay.
Experiences vary dramatically by income. A majority (62%) of leave takers with household incomes under $30,000 say they received no pay when they took time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons. In contrast, six-in-ten leave takers with household incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 (60%) and an even higher share (74%) of those with incomes of $75,000 or more say they received at least some pay, including 42% of those in the middle income group and 58% of those in the higher income group who say they received full pay during the time they were off from work.
The pattern is similar when it comes to educational attainment. About six-in-ten (59%) leave takers with a bachelor's degree or more education say they received full pay during their time off from work, compared with 47% of those with some college experience and even fewer (34%) among those with a high school education or less. Roughly half (48%) of those with a high school diploma or less received no pay during their parental, family or medical leave.
Fathers are far more likely than mothers to say they received the same as their regular pay when they took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child: 62% of fathers say this, compared with only a quarter of mothers. This may be, at least in part, because fathers report having taken considerably less time off from work than mothers. Seven-in-ten fathers and six-in-ten mothers say they received at least some pay during their time off from work. Men and women who took time off in the past two years to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to deal with their own serious condition are about equally likely to say they received pay, including similar shares who say they were paid the same as their regular pay.
Among all leave takers who received only part of their regular pay, a majority say it was difficult for them to have enough money to cover their basic expenses during their time off from work (41% say it was somewhat difficult, 18% say it was very difficult). This is particularly the case for those who took leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition (65% say it was difficult to cover basic expenses) or to deal with their own serious health condition (64%). About half (49%) of those who took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child and received only part of their regular pay say it was hard for them to cover their basic expenses during their leave.
Leave takers with annual household incomes under $30,000 (75%) and those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 (63%) are more likely than those with higher incomes to say it was difficult for them to cover their basic expenses when they were receiving only part of their pay. But even among those with incomes of $75,000 or more, half say this was the case.
About eight-in-ten Americans (79%) who received at least some pay when they took time off from work in the past two years for parental, family or medical reasons report that at least part of their pay came from vacation, sick leave or paid time off (PTO) they had earned. Roughly one-in-five say at least some of the pay they received was part of temporary or short-term disability insurance provided by their employer (22%) or part of family or medical leave benefits paid by their employer (20%). Relatively few say they received pay from family or medical leave benefits paid by their state (9%) or from vacation days or sick leave donated to them by their co-workers (5%).
Among those who received pay when they took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child, an equal share of mothers (76%) and fathers (74%) say at least part of their pay came from vacation, sick leave or PTO they had earned. But mothers are far more likely than fathers to report that at least some of the pay they received was part of temporary or short-term disability (50% vs. 10%), family or medical leave paid by their employer (35% vs. 23%), and family or medical leave paid by the state (23% vs. 7%).
Those who took paid time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child are more likely than those who took paid time off to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to deal with their own serious condition to say they received at least some pay as part of family or medical leave benefits paid by their employer, separate from vacation, sick leave or PTO (28% vs. 15% and 17%, respectively).
Leave takers who were employed by a private, for-profit company are somewhat more likely than those who were employed by government or by a nonprofit organization to say at least some of their pay was part of family or medical leave benefits paid by their employer (22% vs. 15%).
Leave takers who received pay when they took time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons in the past two years report that they often needed to combine various benefits in order to cover their wages or salary during their leave. Most leave takers who received pay (62%) say their pay came from only one source. Still, about three-in-ten (29%) say their pay came from two or more benefits.
Mothers who received pay when they were on leave from work following the birth or adoption of their child are the most likely to report that their pay was part of two or more benefits (60% vs. 22% of fathers who received pay when they took time off for the same reason). This reflects, at least in part, the fact that mothers tend to take more time off from work than fathers, which may require tapping into additional benefits in order to receive pay.
Among those who say there was a time in the past two years when they needed or wanted to take time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons but were not able to do so, half say they had access to paid vacation, sick leave or PTO at the time; 26% say they had access to temporary or short-term disability insurance provided by their employer; 21% say they had access to family or medical leave benefits paid by their employer; and 14% say they had access to family or medical leave benefits paid by the state.
Among workers who weren't able to take time off when they needed or wanted to, those with household incomes of $75,000 or more are far more likely than those with lower incomes to say they had access to vacation, sick leave or PTO at the time. Six-in-ten in the higher income group say this, compared with 49% of those with household incomes between $30,000 and $74,000 and just 29% of those with incomes under $30,000. And while about a third (34%) of those with incomes of $75,000 or more say they had access to temporary or short-term disability insurance and a quarter say they had access to family or medical leave paid by their employer, fewer among those in the middle and lower income groups say the same (19% in each group say they had access to temporary or short-term disability and 15% and 13%, respectively, say they had access to employer-paid family or medical leave).
People who take unpaid or partially paid time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons often have to make financial sacrifices to compensate for the shortfall in earnings. About eight-in-ten (78%) say they cut back on their spending during this time, while half say they used savings they had set aside for something else to cover lost wages or salary. Fewer than half say they used savings they had set aside for the particular situation that led them to take time off (45%), cut their leave short (41%) or took on debt (37%).
A third of leave takers who received no pay or received only some of their regular pay say they put off paying their bills during their time off, while about a quarter say they borrowed money from family or friends (24%) or received money from family or friends that they weren't expected to pay back (23%). About one-in-five (17%) say they went on public assistance in order to cover lost wages or salary.
While majorities of leave takers across income groups who received no pay or only some pay during their time off say they cut back on spending during this time, those with household incomes under $30,000 are far more likely than those with higher incomes to say they had to take more consequential measures, such as taking on debt, putting off paying their bills, and going on public assistance, in order to cover their lost wages or salary, and this is particularly the case among those who have taken parental leave in the past two years.
About six-in-ten parental-leave takers (57%) with household incomes under $30,000 who did not receive their full pay when they took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child say they took on debt to deal with the loss of wages or salary; roughly half say they went on public assistance (48%) or put off paying their bills (46%).
Among those with household incomes between $30,000 and $74,999, a smaller but not insignificant share (28%) say they went on public assistance during the time they took off from work following the birth or adoption of their child; just 5% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more say they did this. About a third (35%) of those in the middle income group also say they put off paying their bills, compared with 13% of those with higher incomes.
More than eight-in-ten Americans (86%) who took time off from work in the past two years for parental, family or medical reasons say they continued working for the same employer following this time off; 7% went to work for a new employer and 7% did not go back to work.
Leave takers who received pay – particularly those who were paid the same amount as their regular pay – are more likely than those who took unpaid time off to say they went back to work for the same employer: 97% of those who received full pay and 85% of those who received part of their regular pay say this is the case, compared with 74% of those who did not receive any pay. Among those who did not receive pay, 13% say they went back to work for a new employer and 13% did not go back to work.
One-in-eight mothers (12%) who took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child say they did not go back to work after their time off; just 1% of fathers say this is the case. Among fathers, 95% went back to work for the same employer; 79% of mothers did the same.
About eight-in-ten leave takers (83%) say their supervisor was at least somewhat supportive when they took time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons, including 56% who say their supervisor was very supportive. Similar shares of those who took time off following the birth or adoption of their child (58%), to care for a family member with a serious health condition (53%) or to deal with their own serious condition (56%) say their supervisor was very supportive when they needed to take time off from work.
Older adults, as well as those with higher household incomes, are particularly likely to say their supervisor was very supportive. For example, about two-thirds (66%) of leave takers ages 65 and older and 61% of those ages 50 to 64 say their supervisor was very supportive, compared with 55% of those ages 30 to 49 and 46% of those younger than 30.
Among leave takers with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more, about six-in-ten (61%) say their supervisor was very supportive when they took time off from work, compared with 55% of those with middle incomes and just 38% of those with incomes under $30,000. Similarly, higher shares of those with at least a bachelor's degree (62%) than those with some college (54%) or with a high school diploma or less (51%) describe their supervisor as very supportive.
When it comes to taking leave following the birth or adoption of a child, mothers and fathers are about equally likely to say their supervisor was very supportive (57% and 59%, respectively). There are also no significant differences in the shares of women and men saying their supervisor was very supportive when they took time off to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to deal with their own serious condition.
The vast majority (89%) of leave takers also say their co-workers were very or somewhat supportive when they took time off from work, with 61% saying their co-workers were very supportive. As is the case with assessments of a supervisor's support, older leave takers and those with higher incomes are more likely than those who are younger and have lower incomes to say their co-workers were very supportive. Men and women across the different types of leave – parental, family and medical – are about equally likely to report that their co-workers were very supportive when they took time off from work.
About four-in-ten (42%) leave takers say they had to respond to work-related emails or phone calls during their time off frequently (14%) or occasionally (28%); most say they rarely (26%) or never (32%) had to do this. Those who took time off to care for a family member are more likely than those who took parental or medical leave to say they had to do this at least occasionally (52% vs. 39% each among those who took parental or medical leave).
Leave takers with a bachelor's degree or more education and those with higher incomes are more likely than those with less education and lower incomes to say they had to respond to work-related emails or phone calls at least occasionally. For example, 53% of those with at least a bachelor's degree say they had to do this, compared with 38% of those with some college experience and 33% of those with a high school education or less.
Men and women who took leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition or to deal with their own serious condition are about equally likely to say they had to respond to work-related emails or phone calls while they were taking time off from work. Among those who took time off following the birth or adoption of their child, however, a higher share of men than women say they had to do this at least occasionally during their time off (44% vs. 34%).
Most leave takers (69%) who had to respond to work-related email or phone calls at least occasionally say they were not bothered by this, but about three-in-ten (31%) say it did bother them. Those who were taking time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child (38%) or to deal with their own serious health condition (31%) are more likely than those who were taking time off to care for an ill family member (24%) to say it bothered them to have to respond to work-related emails or phone calls.
Three-in-ten leave takers say it was difficult for them to learn about what leave benefits, if any, were available to them when they took time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons, and this is particularly the case among those who say their supervisor wasn't supportive when they took time off: 64% of those who say their supervisor was not too or not at all supportive say it was difficult to learn about leave benefits, compared with 24% of those with more supportive supervisors.
Leave takers with lower incomes and without college experience are more likely than those with higher incomes and at least some college experience to say it was difficult for them to learn about leave benefits that might be available to them. For example, about four-in-ten (44%) of those with household incomes under $30,000 said this was the case, compared with 34% of those with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 and 24% of those with household incomes of $75,000 or more.
Among Hispanics who have taken time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons in the past two years, 43% say it was hard to learn about benefits that might be available, more than the shares of white (27%) or black (30%) leave takers who say the same. Hispanics who needed or wanted to take leave but were not able to do so are also more likely than their white and black counterparts to say it was difficult for them to learn about what benefits, if any, might be available to them when they needed or wanted to take time off (58% vs. 47% and 38%, respectively).
Overall, about half (49%) of those who didn't take time off when they needed or wanted to say it was hard for them to learn what leave benefits, if any, were available to them when they needed or wanted to take time off from work for parental, family or medical reasons but were not able to do so.
About one-in-five Americans who took leave from work in the past two years (21%) say taking time off had a negative impact on their job or career, while 16% say it had a positive impact; 63% of leave takers say it didn't make much difference.
Among those who took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child, women are nearly twice as likely as men to say this had a negative impact on their job or career: 25% of women say this, compared with 13% of men. Men, in turn, are more likely than women to say the time they took off following the birth or adoption of their child didn't make much difference on their job or career (66% vs. 54%).
When it comes to taking time off to care for a family member with a serious health condition, about one-in-five men (20%) and women (22%) say taking time off had a negative impact on their job or career. However, higher shares of men than women who took time off from work for this reason say taking time off had a positive impact at work: About a quarter (26%) of men say this, compared with just 10% of women. There are no gender differences when it comes to assessments of the impact of taking time off to deal with one's own medical issue.
Assessments of the impact on one's family of taking leave are decidedly positive, particularly when it comes to taking time off from work following the birth or adoption of a child or to care for a family member with a serious health condition. About eight-in-ten (79%) of those who took parental leave say taking time off had a positive impact on their family, as do 72% of those who were caring for an ill family member. Among those who took time off to deal with their own serious health condition, just 34% say this had a positive impact on their family, while 17% say it had a negative impact and 48% say it didn't make much difference.
For those who were not able to take time off from work when they needed or wanted to, significant shares say the inability to take leave had a negative impact on their family; overall, 45% say this is the case, while 21% say not taking time off had a positive impact on their family and a third say it didn't make much difference.
Just over half (55%) of those who took time off from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition in the past two years say that they provided more care than anyone else in their family for these family members; about one-in-five (19%) say someone else in their family provided more care and a quarter say they and others in their family provided about the same amount of care.
Primary caregiving responsibilities tend to fall to women more than men. For example, 65% of women who took time off from work to care for an ill family member say they were the primary caregiver, compared with 44% of men. Higher shares of whites and blacks (58% and 66%, respectively) than Hispanics (41%) who took time off from work for this reason say they were the primary caregiver. Hispanics, in turn, are more likely than whites and blacks to say caring responsibilities were shared about equally by them and others in their family (38% vs. 20% and 24%).
Families weigh a variety of factors in deciding how to delegate caregiving responsibilities. Among those who took time off to care for a family member who was ill, about half say they considered who lived closer to the family member who needed care (49%), who had a closer relationship with the family member who needed care (49%), and who would do a better job providing care (48%).8 Some 36% say who had fewer work responsibilities was a factor, while fewer (28%) say who had fewer family responsibilities was a factor.
For the most part, those who took time off from work in the past two years to care for a family member with a serious health condition say they were caring for only one seriously ill family member during this time; 87% say this is the case, while 12% were caring for more than one family member with a serious health condition.
Those who were caring for only one family member with a serious health condition were typically caring for one of their parents (36%) or for their spouse or partner (29%). Some 17% say they were caring for their child younger than 18, while fewer say they were caring for their adult child (6%), a sibling (3%) or a grandparent (3%). Adults ages 65 and older who took time off from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition are far more likely than those who are younger to say they were caring for a spouse or partner; 56% in the older group say this, compared with 34% of those 50 to 64 and 24% of those younger than 50. In turn, larger shares of family-leave takers ages 50 to 64 than of those who are younger or older say they were caring for one of their parents when they took time off from work (47% say this vs. 32% of those 65 and older and 30% of those younger than 50). About three-in-ten (28%) adults younger than 50 who took time off from work to care for a family member with a serious health condition say they were caring for their child younger than 18; only 1% of those 50 and older say this.
Among parental-leave takers with a spouse or partner who was employed at the time, about eight-in-ten (83%) say their spouse or partner took at least some time off from work, even if just a few days, following the birth or adoption of their child, while 17% say their spouse or partner did not take any time off. About a quarter (24%) of women who were married to or living with a partner who was employed when they took leave say their spouse or partner didn't take any time off after the birth or adoption of their child; just 8% of men say the same about their spouse or partner.
Nearly all women (95%) who were married or living with a partner who took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child say their spouse or partner took less time off from work than they did; this is the case whether women were working full time or part time. Among men who took time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child, 82% say their spouse or partner took more time off from work than they did.
When parental-leave takers whose spouse or partner didn't take time off or who say that one took more time off than the other (rather than saying both took about the same amount of time off) are asked how they decided who would take more time off, most (69%) say they took into account who needed more time to recover physically. About half say they took into consideration who had more flexibility at work (50%), who had more generous leave benefits (45%) and who would do a better job caring for a new child (45%). About four-in-ten say who wanted to take more time off (40%) or who earned more money (35%) was a deciding factor, while 22% say focus on job or career was.
Women and men are generally about equally likely to say each of these was a factor in deciding whether they or their spouse or partner would take more time off from work following the birth or adoption of their child, with two exceptions: Men are more likely than women to say that who wanted to take more time off was a deciding factor (48% vs. 34%), and women are more likely than men to point to earnings as a factor (42% vs. 27%).


text:
Written by catherine• December 21, 2022• 12:55 pm• Survival • Views: 1
Toyota Gibraltar: The Secret Factory That Builds Trucks for the UN
Toyota 4×4 trucks equivalent to Hilux and Land Cruiser have gained a worldwide status for his or her strength and sturdiness. In almost every modern armed conflict, you will note combatants on each side using these trucks, often with bodies covered in camouflage spray paint and a bed-mounted machine gun (also known as technique). However, also they are popular outside the military with relief groups and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The United Nations uses 1000's of Toyota trucks in third world countries yearly, often with specific upgrades equivalent to heavy-duty bumpers, snorkels, winches and radios. The little-known company Toyota Gibraltar Stockholdings (TGS) rose to the occasion, shipping around 650 white Toyotas a month to war and disaster-torn regions all over the world.
recent video episode from the BBC programme Top gear gave us a glimpse of the Toyota Gibraltar plant, which is situated in a small 2.6 square mile British territory on the southern tip of Spain. It is an optimal location for the distribution of white Toyotas half of the world's shipping passes through the Strait of Gibraltar between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.
Almost like a scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark where the camera zooms out to disclose an almost countless sea of wood crates, this BBC video shows multiple garages crammed with an astonishing variety of an identical white Toyotas. There were over 1,000 such vehicles on site on the time of filming.
Sign up today and save!
The hottest vehicle within the Toyota Gibraltar is the venerable 70-series Land Cruiser. The basic vehicles are spartan, with canvas interiors and manual locks. Most are equipped with off-road tires, upgraded bumpers, roof racks, snorkels, spare tire racks, canisters, dual batteries, and other off-road-oriented upgrades. This custom work is finished by in-house mechanics at TGS, using items from warehouses stacked floor to ceiling with parts.
Depending on the client's needs, TGS can construct fully equipped ambulances or search and rescue vehicles. The video also shows more specialized vehicles, equivalent to a green Land Cruiser built for anti-poaching operations in Africa and a white Corolla with shatterproof film on the windows (possibly to move relief staff through dangerous cities).
This results in the query. Given the plain demand for these trucks in armed conflicts, you'll be able to make lots of money selling them to less peaceful customers. So does Toyota Gibraltar also construct vehicles for the military and warlords? The Top Gear host explains: "They don't make armor here. This isn't the place to go for a military spec vehicle. Toyota and the UN they don't need to be involved in this sort of business." We'll allow you to draw your individual conclusions from this statement, however it's hard to disclaim that Toyota did he alluded to the military uses of his trucks prior to now.
Watch the 6-minute Top Gear video below:
Why Batwings Could Be a Secret Weapon To Strengthen Your Back
Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous — Secret ending guide
Peeling "The Glass Onion: The Secret of Cutting Knives"
Actor David Harbour Shares How Running Builds Gratitude
The 'Barbie' trailer starring Margot Robbie has just been released – here's all the pieces we all know to date
Exploring the World in Miniature: A Model Train Lover's Paradise in Hamburg

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian
General Christian
Latter-day Saint
More Voices
Progressive Christian
Food and Religion
Sports and Religion
Religious Music and Entertainment
History and Religion
Style and Religion
Women in Religion
Recreation Outdoors and Religion
Business Finance and Religion
Careers Workplace and Religion
Education and Religion
Family Parenting and Religion
Health Fitness and Religion
Home and Religion
Relationships and Religion
Technology and Religion
Travel and Religion
Buddhist Columnists
Business Finance and Religion Columnists
Careers Workplace and Religion Columnists
Catholic Columnists
Contemplative Columnists
Education and Religion Columnists
Evangelists Columnists
Family Parenting and Religion Columnists
General Christian Columnists
Health Fitness and Religion Columnists
Hindu Columnists
History and Religion Columnists
Home and Religion Columnists
Jewish Columnists
More Voices Columnists
Latter Day Columnists
Muslim Columnists
New Visions Columnists
Nonreligious Columnists
Pagan Columnists
Politics and Religion Columnists
Progressive Columnists
Recreation Outdoors and Religion Columnists
Relationships and Religion Columnists
Religion News Columnists
Religious Art Columnists
Religious Events Columnists
Religious Music and Entertainment Columnists
Sports and Religion Columnists
Style and Religion Columnists
Technology and Religion Columnists
Travel and Religion Columnists
Women in Religion Columnists
Library of World Religions
Patheos Answers
Faith Leaders Database
Anglican Episcopalian
Holiness and Pentecostal
Presbytarian and Reformed
Religion Behind the Scenes
Shia Islam
Sunni Islam
See all religions
Comparison Lens
Preacher Resources
Thought Readers
E-Books and Other Special Offers
Books of the Bible Study series
History of the Bible
7 Day Prayer Challenge for Spouses
A Different Kind of Christian
Jesus is Love
Prayer Devotional
The Saints We Love
FaithChatter Conversation Cards
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
Follow Patheos
Who is Cranach?
The Psychology of Hate
January 15, 2020 by Gene Veith
The Psychology of Hate January 15, 2020 Gene Veith
Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.
"Hate" has become another all-purpose term of opprobrium, like "Nazi." If you oppose someone for any reason, you are a "hater." If you disapprove of some idea or practice, you "hate" the people who hold that idea or follow that practice. If you speak out about it, you may get accused of "hate-speech." And yet, despite the inflation of the word's meaning, there is such a thing as "hatred," and we would do well to understand the emotion.
I came across a discussion of the psychology of hatred and how it is different from other negative emotions. Amanda Ripley sees it as facet of what is called "high conflict," along with fear and anger. But whereas fear and anger can have positive effects, the same cannot be said of hatred.
In the context of her article, she is mainly discussing long-running, intractable wars, which become fueled by hatred–Arabs vs. Israelis, the civil wars in Sudan, Angola, etc.–but it applies also to our own conflicts, from our political polarization to the degeneration of relationships that can wreck marriages.
From Amanda Ripley, Americans are at each other's throats. Here's one way out:
The American people appear to be in a "high conflict," which is a term of art among people who study conflict. A high conflict is one that feels existential and irresolvable, and it continues on its own momentum, even when specific problems could in fact be solved. . . .
"Once we are drawn in, they take control," Coleman writes. "They tend to enrage us, trap us, frustrate us, drain us of energy and other critical resources, and seem to never go away no matter what we do."
In high conflict, our brains behave differently. Emotions – specifically, fear, anger and hatred – matter more than all the leaked documents or congressional reports imaginable. . . .
Under certain circumstances, for example, anger can be useful. It can boost people's support for reconciliation and for taking risks in peace talks. Angry people usually want to correct their opponents' behavior. They still contemplate a future together on the same planet, which is something. Even fear can be managed; it still allows for compromises.
Hatred, though, is different. Hatred assumes the enemy is unchangeable. Irredeemable. Unimprovable. The goal of hatred, generally speaking, is not to correct; it's to annihilate. Why correct someone who is inherently and immutably evil? Hatred, then, is an impediment to peace, Halperin says. It escalates and prolongs conflict, and it can motivate people to commit massacres.
No one in conflict wants to admit they feel hatred. "If you talk to Israelis and Palestinians, they will definitely agree that negative emotions are a problem," Halperin says, "but it's the problem of the other side."
[Keep reading. . .]
The Bible says that we should "Hate evil, and love good" (Amos 5:15). And yet, we are not to hate even our enemies: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-44). To be sure, Christians should expect to be hated, but they must not respond in kind. Rather, they should repay hatred with love:
"Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. . . .
I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. . . .And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. . . .But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. [Luke 6: 22-23, 27, 31-33, 35)
Illustration: "Hatred or Jealousy," from Expressions of Emotions by Charles Le Brun (1619-1690) via Wikimedia Commons
Sermon on the Plain
The Leading Cause of Death
January 16, 2020 The Jewish Queen of Rome
0 | Leave a Comment
Browse Our Archives
Select a Category America Apologetics Art baseball Bible Blog Christ Church crime Culture Economics Education Ethics Family Food Football Government History Holidays Holy Week Humor International Islam Language Law Life Issues Literature Media Medicine Movies Music Nature News Personal Philosophy Politics psychology Reformation Religions Sacraments Science sex Social Science Sports technology television terrorism Theology Uncategorized Vocation war
Select a Month January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
Maverick Scientists and a Spiritual Worldview
Roger E. Olson
7 Bible Verses About The Lord's...
Christian Crier
Joel 2:21-27 Attitude of Gratitude
Jim Erwin
What Is Gravity? A Theologian Learns...
Books by This Author Books by Gene Veith
See All Titles »
Related posts from Cranach
And now the "Transabled"
Cranach
Losing Your Religion & Suicide
Not Living Up to Values Does Not Mean...
Revenge vs. Justice
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
A Devoted Life: A Short Story from the...
Last year, I wrote an essay on Paul and worship for a...
Join the Launch Team for TELL HER STORY
I am really excited about the March 14, 2023 release of my...
Hymn of the Day: The Church's One Foundation
"In the mid-nineteenth century, Bishop John William Colenso of Natal raised a...
Some people have the desire to be physically disabled--to be blind, deaf,...
This is the Most Dangerous Mission Book in...
At best, A Just Mission is a missed opportunity. At worst, it's...
Checking Out the Library of Congress-- Part Four
Photography from the Civil War on became an occupation for all sorts...
view all Evangelical blogs
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
Manage Newsletter Subscriptions
Copyright 2008-2022, Patheos. All rights reserved.
Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In


What am I most excited about as I prepare for the PASS Summit here in Seattle this week? A lot of things. Preparing for my session, which will be on Thursday at 1:30, by far the most popular and interesting topics are about integration and tool choice. Today's public announcement on the SSRS product team blog about on-premises Power BI integration with Reporting Services is really big news. It's great to see two of the technologies I love working together. Whether in the cloud or on-premises, Power BI and Reporting Services can be used together.
Thursday's session is titled "Reporting Services 2016, the Force Awakens". The consensus among industry users is that Reporting Services was stalled and left alone for far too long. Technology and industry trends have moved forward over the past five years or so but Microsoft have invested in other tools and products, aside from Reporting Services. The SSRS server architecture is capable but the rendering and delivery components needed to be modernized.
The good news is that the modernization effort has been underway for quite some time. Resources that were directed to other investments have been recommitted, not only to the Reporting Services product, but to integration across the product stack. It's really hard to build a reporting platform that addresses every need. I think Microsoft have a history of creating false expectations by putting experimental and incomplete features out in the industry that weren't on the committed roadmap. I know better than to believe that the pattern won't ever be repeated but I firmly believe that there is a well-defined reporting and BI roadmap and product teams are making rapid progress against it. It is once again an exciting time to invest in the Microsoft analytics, reporting and BI tool set.
Comparing the progress of new features added to SSRS over the release cycles, the product really slept from 2010 until 2016.
Microsoft's reporting & analytic platform has shifted significant as they moved from products to services, and from servers to the cloud. The dust is settling on this major refocusing effort. Capabilities that were introduced in Azure, Cortana Analytics and Power BI are now becoming available to "the box", on-premises or in hybrid cloud scenarios. We can expect more announcements on this as the roadmap is played-out and gaps are filled-in.
Reporting Services is a central player in the on-prem delivery of the BI, analytics and reporting tools offered by Microsoft. These include Excel, Paginated reports created with SSDT/report designer or Report Builder, Mobile Reports and Power BI Desktop.
This entry was posted in Power BI, Self-service BI, SQL Server, SQL Server Pro Magazine, SSRS Design. Bookmark the permalink.
Paul, I'm very glad with new capabilities from the SSRS, but, I have a lot of clients using SSRS integrated with Sharepoint, and I just have heard from native solution. Are there expectation to replicate the news to integrated mode too?


There is something fantastically unworldly yet alluringly familiar about Amy Joy Watson's bright sculptures. Whether it's a drooping bow or a glitter-filled orb, this Australian's artful structures feel like a 1986 birthday party, translated or abstracted by a video game of that same era: there are no soft edges, only the disjointed illusion of it.
To make each piece, Watson stitches or glues together watercolor-stained balsa wood, occasionally adding a tasteful Gobstopper here, or helium balloon there, to garnish her own primal sense of whimsy and sacred geometry, resulting in a somewhat spiritual monument to another imaginative age and time.
Australian based artist Rebecca Baumann often uses what appear to be party supplies to build sculptures and installations. Her art interacts with the surrounding air – the space it occupies and even the breeze that makes it dance. From a bus station teeming inside with colorful streamers to vibrant books flapping in the wind, Baumann's work is unexpectedly playful. However, the temporary nature of her materials and the relatively short-lived 'performances' of her installations hint at something much more weighty behind each piece.


text:
Replay: Live at 9 News Channel 3 TV Schedule Autos
JobNet 3
Oklahoma man convicted of killing Arkansas family wants new trial
Posted 4:44 am, September 12, 2018, by AP
FILE - In this Oct. 31 1997, file photo Danny Lee waits for his arraignment hearing for the 1996 murders of an Arkansas family in Russellville, Ark. Lee wants to get a new trial in his 1999 conviction and death sentence. Attorneys for Lee said in documents filed Monday, Sept. 10, 2018, in federal court in Little Rock that prosecutors illegally failed to tell defense attorneys that a witness who testified that Lee admitted to the murders also told investigators he believed Lee was lying. (Dan Pierce /The Courier via AP, File)
OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma man says new evidence of prosecutors withholding information should result in a new trial on his 1999 murder conviction and death penalty for killing an Arkansas family as part of a plot to set up a whites-only nation in the Pacific Northwest.
Attorneys for Danny Lee, 45, of Yukon say in documents filed late Monday in U.S. District Court in Little Rock that prosecutors illegally failed to tell defense attorneys that a witness, who testified that Lee admitted to the murders to him, also told investigators he believed Lee was lying.
The witness "warned authorities that Mr. Lee had a habit of falsely claiming responsibility for criminal acts in order to make himself seem like a 'tough guy,'" according to the filing, which said the man was told by prosecutors not to volunteer information while testifying.
"He therefore did not relate to the jury that Danny Lee had a penchant for boasting about acts he had not done; that he had consistently warned authorities about that fact; and that despite appearing as a witness for the (g)overnment, he continued to discount the veracity of Mr. Lee's purported admission," the motion said.
Lee's attorneys also said DNA tests in 2007 excluded Lee from evidence connected to the slayings and that, plus the newly revealed information should result in a new trial.
The motion did not indicate when the information was discovered, and Lee's attorney, Morris Moon of the Federal Capital Habeas Project, did not immediately return a phone call to The Associated Press.
The filing also said DNA testing in 2007 revealed that hair on evidence linked to the killings, and to Lee by testimony during the trial, has excluded Lee.
Court filings do not show that a direct appeal based on DNA evidence has been filed, but an appeal claiming Lee's defense attorneys during the trial should have requested DNA testing on the hair was denied in 2008 on the grounds that not enough of the evidence existed at the time.
Lee and Chevie Kehoe, 45, of Colville, Washington, were convicted of killing gun dealer William Mueller, his wife Nancy Mueller and her 8-year-old daughter, Sarah Powell, of Russellville in 1996 and stealing guns and cash as part of the plot to set up a whites-only nation.
Kehoe, described by federal prosecutors at the time as the leader of the plot, was sentenced to life without parole days before Lee was sentenced.
Prosecutors, seeking the death penalty for both men, at the time described Kehoe as the ringleader and Lee as his henchman.
"In light of the sentencing that Chevie Kehoe received, I'm struggling to understand the verdict," said Jack Lassiter, who represented Lee at the time.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Givens in Little Rock referred questions to the U.S. Department of Justice, which also did not immediately return a phone call for comment.
Topics: Arkansas, Chevie Kehoe, crime, Danny Lee, Nancy Mueller, Oklahoma, Sarah Powell, William Mueller
Send us your news tip
Click here to reach us by email or phone
Two Dollar Generals robbed at gunpoint within days
Horn Lake man sentenced for internet stalking of a child
Allegiant announces four new nonstop flights from Memphis
Panola County computers erased as new sheriff takes office
America just had its best month for new home construction in 13 years
WREG announces programming changes due to AFC Championship coverage
Live at 9: Tre Hargett, overtime pay, Tyler Craig & Chef Anthony
The world's biggest food company is now making vegan sausages
Curtis Flowers posts bail after 23 years and 6 trials
Three men indicted for murder of key witness in Amber Guyger trial
Woman charged in former Arkansas lawmaker's death faces new charges
Mississippi DA leaves murder case after multiple trials
No trial date set in Lorenzen Wright murder case
Former Arkansas lawmaker's family confident in case despite recusals
George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin's parents, others for $100 million
Prosecutor won't seek death penalty in Waffle House shooting
Arkansas man gets probation after mailing powder to Senator Cotton
Man charged with capital murder after Marianna shooting
Amber Guyger's offensive text messages are introduced at her sentencing
Court plea deal agreements upsetting some families
Roger Stone found guilty of witness tampering, lying to Congress
Severe Weather iPad App
• 803 Channel 3 Drive Memphis, Tennessee 38103
• Copyright © 2020, WREG


text:
Prema kineskim predajama, Zhao Ming (kineski 昭明, pinyin Zhāo Míng, Wade-Giles Chao Ming; ? – ?) bio je kineski plemić te predak kineskih kraljeva iz dinastije Shang. Njegovo obiteljsko ime bilo je Zi (子).

Otac mu je bio plemić zvan Xie, sin cara Kua. Nakon očeve smrti, Zhao Ming je postao vladar Shanga te je unaprijedio svoju civilizaciju. Nakon njegove smrti, Shangom je vladao njegov sin, Xiang Tu.

Poveznice
Tang od Shanga – potomak Zhao Minga

Izvori i bilješke

Dinastija Shang
Kineska mitologija

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Chaléwood
March 11, 2011 by Kiko Martinez
Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Shiloh Fernandez
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke ("Twilight")
Written by: David Johnson ("Orphan")
No matter what version you've heard, when it comes to traditional folklore and fairytales, there isn't one that comes with more thematic baggage than "Little Red Riding Hood." Whether as a parable on a young girl's sexuality or simply a cautionary tale for kids about the dangers of wandering off the beaten path, most written adaptations over the last 300 years tend to follow the same narrative pattern before offering some type of intrinsic morale.
In "Red Riding Hood," director Catherine Hardwicke ("Twilight") communicates none of the above, nor does she pretend to have the least bit of interest in capturing any of the enchantment, eeriness or menacing quality of the original fable. Instead, Hardwicke is out to tap into the 13-18-year-old tween demographic who funds these gothic soap operas with their babysitting money. "The Twilight Saga" might shamelessly placate the horror/fantasy world, but at least Stephenie Meyer's vamps and wolfboys brood vehemently. In the passionless "Red Riding Hood," you're lucky to get a blank stare and whimper.
Set in the medieval, snow-covered village of Daggerhorn (fortunately not the most optimal weather conditions to show off werewolf abs), a bloodthirsty beast has killed a human after 20 years of feasting only on the livestock appetizers he is served. Amanda Seyfried ("Letters to Juliet") plays Valerie, a pretty little thing caught in a love triangle with a poor woodsman (Shiloh Fernandez) and a well-to-do blacksmith (Max Irons). Paranoia sweeps across the village when werewolf hunter Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) rides in and deems everyone a suspect, including creepy, old grandma (Julie Christie).
Unintentionally hilarious (the "what big eyes you have" scene begs for ridicule especially), "Red Riding Hood" piles on the dreadful dialogue and unconvincing romance like salad-bar fixings. The only way it could have possibly been hokier is if the climax actually featured a computer-generated wolf dressed in granny's nightie knitting a doily.
Tags: 2011, Amanda Seyfried, Billy Burke, Catherine Hardwicke, David Johnson, Gary Oldman, Julie Christie, kikoreview, Max Irons, Shiloh Fernandez
November 7, 2008 by Kiko Martinez
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke ("Thirteen")
Written by: Melissa Rosenberg ("Step Up")
I completely understand the fascination with the "Twilight" series and I would go as far as calling author Stephenie Meyer a genius because she though of the combination of the horror/drama genre and tween demographic, which really hasn't been tested before.
With that said, "Twilight" gets points for not falling into the clichés of its subjects like most vampire movies do. We don't get bloody fangs, cloves of garlic, or faces melting in the sun, which is admirable. But what Meyer and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg replace some of this universal lore with is just as hokey as zapping one of the undead with holy water or shoving a stake through their heart.
In "Twilight," Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) moves from Phoenix to the small town of Forks, Washington to live with her father so her mother and her minor-league-baseball-playing new husband can go on the road. While fitting into her new school and making friends isn't too difficult for her, Bella's love life gets a bit strange when she becomes intrigued by the mysterious Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a pasty heartthrob who she later finds out is a blood-sucking vampire.
But Edwards isn't the type of vamp that kills people for sustenance. Although he does lust for human blood, he has learned how to suppress his hunger (good for Bella) and live off the animals in the nearby forests. Knowing this, Bella is never frightened of her new love interest, but is tossed in the middle of a rivalry when a group of rogue vampires come into town and find out Edward has feelings for a mortal girl.
While the foundation of "Twilight" is a love story, there is far too much dialogue between Bella and Edward that will have young girls swooning and everyone else rolling their eyes. While I could have ignored lines like "I don't have the strength to stay away from you" as poetry any gothic teenager would write in their high school English class, Rosenberg chose to keep pushing the schmaltziness until the relationship between the star-crossed lovers is maintained only by long glances into each others' eyes.
Instead of telling us more about the vampire culture (which might be saved for the two sequels), Rosenberg let's Edward say things like "Her scent is like a drug to me" and "I never knew a lion could fall in love with a lamb." It'll hit the demographic fine, but for everyone else the romance might stall.
Tags: 2008, Billy Burke, Catherine Hardwicke, kikoreview, Kristen Stewart, Melissa Rosenberg, Robert Pattinson, Twilight
Untraceable
January 16, 2008 by Kiko Martinez
Starring: Diane Lane, Billy Burke, Colin Hanks
Directed by: Gregory Hoblit ("Fracture")
Written by: Robert Fyvolent (debut), Mark Brinker (debut), Allison Burnett ("Autumn in New York")
Not everything about the new tech-thriller "Untraceable" is ridiculous and worthy of deletion, but most of it is. If there is a saving grace it must be Diane Lane, who could thrive in this genre if there was a workable screenplay to match what the classic beauty can do as an actress.
It happened in 2002 when Lane was nominated for her first Oscar in the dramatic thriller "Unfaithful." In that film, Lane peeled back the layers of Connie Sumner, a wife and mother emotionally torn between her family and her lover.
In "Untraceable," it's the screenwriters (three of them to be exact), who are doing most of the cheating. Two newbies and the writer behind the sad and sappy film "Autum in New York" is an unusual combination that falters around the time the picture should kick into high gear.
It's simple enough to guess from the title of the movie that either someone or something can't be found. Turns out the missing link is a murdering computer geek who has created a Web site (killwithme.com) where visitors can assist in the killing of one of his victims by simply logging on.
It doesn't seem like much to worry about at first for FBI Cyber Crime detective Jennifer Marsh (Lane) and her team of Portland-based Internet-browsing personnel. The killer makes his presence known by offing a kitty (don't all serial killers have a history of animal violence?) on the World Wide Web. But when he starts kidnapping actual humans and rigging them to his computer system, Jennifer must do everything she can to find the whereabouts of the sadist before he broadcasts another death.
Where the film could have possibly made some sort of statement on the media's influence on society and the curiosity the everyman has with violence (they mention the video of the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, which made its rounds on the net back in 2002), "Untraceable," instead, goes for basic clichéd scenes where FBI agents knock down doors and come up empty. Why not just call it "CSI: Portland" and save us a trip to the theater? Plus, once the identity of the killer is revealed fairly early in the film (and you realize that, in fact, he is as dorky as any stereotypical computer programmer with an evil grin), there's no reason to invest in the film especially if you're the type of moviegoer who craves the unobvious.
Transparent and less shocking than the film thinks it really is, "Untraceable" is nothing more than a high-tech torture flick that's heavy on the gore and light on the logic.
Tags: 2008, Allison Burnett, Billy Burke, Colin Hanks, Diane Lane, Gregory Hoblit, kikoreview, Mark Brinker, Robert Fyvolent, Untraceable
Trailer of the Week
Clip of the Week
Films Seen
Copyright © 2020 · All Rights Reserved · Cinesnob.net