text:
For many industries it is imperative to test and prove that our designs are good before launching into production. The very idea of proof, however, carries risk, which we must prepare our business to assume.
Most of us do some form of testing or other validation of our designs and production systems before we initiate production of our products. For some of us, especially those of us who produce products related to safety, we must prove to a regulatory agency that our products are safe and meet regulations.
I've yet to witness an environment where testing of products is not a delicate balance. Even in high-volume production environments that produce low cost products, a 5 percent error in defect rates or the time delay in production due to testing can be very expensive. Similarly, testing a helicopter isn't cheap or easy.
Testing becomes a gamble for almost all of us. When your business takes that gamble, does it also plan contingencies or insurance in the event that the gamble doesn't prove out? Let me give some examples of what I mean.
Looking at the transportation industry for one of my favorite conundrums for discussion,iIt can be very expensive to test a fully functional automobile. It is vastly more expensive and difficult to test a passenger aircraft or a train. So, how do we prove or otherwise validate that a design is good, and how do we prove that it is safe? We test it, of course.
Here's the challenge. How many should we test? Well, we can't afford to test a statistically significant sample of 30 or more. In many cases we test only one sample for each required test.
In the transportation industry, many of the design firms have sophisticated computer models that are used to do their designs and predict their performance and safety. The test of one sample is more useful to verify the model than it is to prove the design by itself. Demonstrating that the model accurately predicts the test results allows us to have greater confidence that the evidence of performance predicted by the model is more-or-less truthful.
Unfortunately, sophisticated models, particularly of dynamic scenarios such as vehicle crashes, are very expensive to develop. They require an enormous amount of data and huge investment in time and expertise to get them to reasonably predict an outcome. Some of us don't have those things, but our products are just as cost prohibitive to test, at least for our own businesses. What do we do then?
Often the temptation is, again, to test one and, if we pass, we go into production. In many businesses that must meet industry safety or regulatory minimums there is a bit of a tiger trap set out for us to fall into. We have the option of developing the skills and expertise of self-certifying. We also have the option of developing our own test facilities and protocols. The regulators then simply require that we take responsibility upon ourselves to produce a product that meets regulatory minimums.
It's really a very reasonable and economic system. This way the regulatory agencies don't need excessive funds or personnel to police our every decision and we don't have them camped out in our design centers telling us how to do design or otherwise ordering our business. The trap is, if we make a mistake, we now have only ourselves with whom to share blame and the regulatory agency is free to exact vengeance on behalf of the industry and the public. Our customers can either be drawn into the trap because they trusted us, or part of the vengeance force, or both, depending on the relationship.
It's not as adversarial as I make it sound. In my experience the various regulatory agencies are reasonably compassionate about our needs to do business, and are very helpful in terms of interpreting the regulations, even if they don't give an inch in those interpretations. Such is their prerogative.
So, let's say we are one of these businesses and our method to prove our design of very expensive-to-test equipment is to test one sample. Let's look at that scenario.
The Tribulation
We have to have some sort of proof that our product is good, but we don't have the resources, data, or expertise to possess the sophisticated models. We also don't have the resources to test a large number of our product systems.
The Temptation
The obvious solution is to test one sample. If it fails, then we know we have some more work to do, and it will cost us both time and money to re-design and re-test. If it passes, we go into production. To avoid the former and ensure the ladder, instead of sophisticated models, our best bet is, to carefully and deliberately design as much safety factor as our performance requirements and cost targets will allow.
The Gamble
If we test one and it fails we know we have a poor design. If we test one and it passes, we really don't know anything except that we might have a good design. We don't even know if we were to test a second one if it would pass. All we know is that one sample passed.
I'll caveat the above statement by acknowledging that it is best suited to scenarios where destructive testing yields a simple pass/fail data point. In cases where we can measure some form of stress or other input or output and it significantly exceeds the requirement, we can speak with some more confidence, but still, with only one data point, we don't really know. The next one could go a little more, or it could go a lot less.
The Truthfulness Problem
We know that one sample passed. We don't know for certain that a second one would. The best thing we can do to ensure the integrity of our claim that our product is good is to never, ever, test it again. If a second test takes place and it fails, we now have a business problem of addressing our mistake for certifying a product that should not have been so (possibly losing our self-certification privilege) and also dealing with product in the field that might be unsafe.
The Solution Problem
Unfortunately, the various solutions to the whole scenario all cost money. So, we either invest our money to avoid the possibility of going out of business because of a mistake, or we gamble that such a discovery will never be made. If we stay in business long enough, eventually the gamble will bite us. We must be prepared.
The right solution for one business might be right for another, but there are options. Let's discuss a few, briefly.
Perhaps the least popular option is to estimate how much it would cost our business to correct an issue where we discover that our product line in the field must be recalled, and then either pay an insurance company or carry a cash reserve to cover it. A few businesses will do this. For some environments, such as the automotive industry, this strategy is unavoidable, even with robust testing methods. It's not easy though to keep that cash reserve. For smaller businesses it may not be realistic.
The most popular answer is the one I'm trying to advise us against. That is to do nothing and to pray that a problem is never discovered, or that if it is, our business is healthy enough to take the lumps. Please, for the sake of your business, your customers, and your industry in general, don't do this.
If your business can't insure itself against the eventual problem, or if safety is a significant concern and you aren't willing to risk someone's life on uncertainty, then I offer a solution that is often difficult to swallow at first, but in the long run is likely to pay off in multiple ways. Actually, it's a combined strategy.
The first part of the strategy is to endeavor to replace what mathematicians and scientists call "discrete" data with "continuous" data. Discrete data is unquantifiable information such as a pass or fail result. Continuous data is measurable, such as pounds-force, degrees Celsius, or hours of operation.
If you a destructively testing your systems to a pass/fail result, take a small bit of time and investment and apply sensors or equipment to your system and collect data during the test. For example, we can apply load cells to specific attachment points, accelerometers to monitor vibration and modes of deflection, temperature sensors, or any number of other devices to give us measurable readings of our systems' stresses or responses during the test. There are three advantages to doing so.
The first is that we can begin to construct a sense of what actually happens during the test, and how close or far from minimum performance requirements our system is. This can increase our confidence in our product's ability to meet regulations or requirements, to some degree. If we are well within our performance envelope all of our products are more likely to be inside than if our test sample is on the edge. We still don't really know for sure where they will all fall.
The second advantage to continuous data is that it enables us compare actual performance to our engineering predictions based on analysis and calculation. Doing so can increase our confidence that reality matches our design intent and we can be a little more confident. It also, if we are willing to invest the time and expertise, enables us to start constructing those more sophisticated models that I mentioned earlier. These models and associated data often take a great deal of guesswork out of the design process, further increasing our probability of avoiding and preventing problems.
The third advantage is that if we are willing to adopt part two of the two-part strategy, we can make much more accurate estimates of risk with continuous data than we can with discrete data, which can allow us to reduce our reserves against problems or otherwise lower our insurance if need be.
The best part about adding sensors or modifying tests to produce measurable, continuous data is that, relatively speaking, it's inexpensive. I say relatively because, although the data collection equipment, training, and the sensors can be costly, they are generally re-usable and they are less expensive than performing more tests.
Now for part two of the strategy I recommend. You guessed it already. Take more than one data point! Yes, test several. Now I need to explain one more thing before I explain what to do with more than one data point. Even if you are already taking 30 data points, if all you do is pass or fail your design without any further analysis than a count of results, your risk really isn't much different than taking one data point.
Don't just test a few and count the passes and fails. Unless you are testing every product unit before it ships, you aren't really improving what you know by testing more than one. It's easiest to see when we consider the example of testing 30 units (because we have all heard that most statistical distributions tend to reveal themselves after about 30 samples and so 30 has become a rule of thumb) and then we declare after all 30 pass that our product is good. If we are producing hundreds of thousands of those products a year, how demonstrative is that sample set of 30 really?
Thirty might be more than enough. The best way to use your test samples is to calculate your risk based on the results. One sample will never be enough to do this, though. The calculations to estimate risk, or probability of a failure, are relatively simple. The hard part is making some decisions and facing the answers.
It's a funny phenomenon, but it seems easier to take a risk when we don't know precisely what it is, than it is to deal with a risk when we know exactly what it is.
Case in point, it's often easier to look at a set of 5 samples that all passed and decide that the product is good to launch, than it is to look at the calculation of risk from those same five test samples and decide what to do when the data tells you there is a 73 percent chance of a test result outside of acceptable limits. Aesop summed it up with the moral, "ignorance is bliss."
Quickly, let's discuss what we need to decide and to face when we examine the results of multiple test samples. I won't torture us with math. If you want to understand the specific calculations, look up "Power and Sample Size" calculations in your favorite resource on statistics.
Whether you are dealing with discrete data or continuous data, the parameters of the equations are the same. However, as I mentioned, we can usually converge on an accurate answer with many fewer data points when the data is continuous. The parameters are as follows.
- Sample size.
- Standard deviation (variation in results between samples) or proportion of samples defective for discrete data.
- Precision (how sensitively we can tell the difference between one outcome and another).
- Confidence level (our risk of being wrong).
To solve the equation we must know at least 3 of the 4 parameters and so we solve for the last one. Unfortunately, we don't always know three and so we must assume one of them. Usually, we decide on a confidence level, typically 95%, meaning that the next data point is 95% likely to fit our model, or we are allowing a 5% chance of being wrong. Our precision is usually determined by our measurement capabilities, and we can fill it in if we know. Standard deviation must come from our test results or from experience testing similar items similarly.
There are two ways to use this equation. The one the statisticians tell us to do, is to assume a precision, confidence level, or standard deviation based on our best guess from experience and then calculate how many samples we need to test. I've done this many times, and usually the recommendation is for more samples than we can afford to test.
I've reverted to the opposite strategy and I suggest that you give it a try too. Determine how many samples you can afford to test, using your best abilities to capture continuous data instead of discrete data. Also, it is worth the investment to improve your ability to tell the difference between results. By improving your ability to measure continuous results, we reduce the likelihood of measurement method driving us to test more samples or rob us of confidence.
Let's say that when we evaluate the risk of having a positive test trick us into launching a non-compliant product or the possibility of a retest leading to more design work and testing, we can afford to test six samples for greater confidence. Now we go ahead and test six and, rather than guessing at our precision and standard deviation, we know them precisely. What we solve for is the confidence level.
If all six samples are tightly grouped with very little variation in measurable results, and our precision is much less than the standard deviation, we might find that six samples gives us a very high confidence. I've seen six samples give a confidence of 89 percent. If 89 percent isn't enough for us, we can play games, using actual numbers for standard deviation and precision, and decide if one or two more samples tested would significantly increase our confidence or if we should skip them.
As I mentioned, when we use this method and we get a confidence number that we don't like is when we run into problems. If our confidence turns out to be only 57 percent it's not so easy to decide to launch. Now it's difficult decision time, but we have options.
We can try to identify some relatively easy design improvements that are both expedient and economical. If beefing up the hardware at an attachment point, or lengthening a welded gusset will improve our safety factor or eliminate a failure mode, we can probably make that change in a day or two and run another very small test to prove it made the difference needed. Another mathematical formula can tell us how likely the second results are to be part of the same population as the first results.
We can have an intelligent conversation about how likely we are to have a problem in the field and whether design work is better or setting aside a contingency reserve is the right thing to do. We can also look at the nature of the failure modes observed and decide if they are unique to the test scenario or if they are indeed going to happen in the field.
At least, armed with more information than a single test sample can provide, or more information than any arbitrary test sample set will provide without understanding the variation of the results, we can move forward intelligently and with some understanding of our risk. It's not as comfortable as ignorant bliss, but it's smarter.
When we adopt this routine, something inevitably happens in our design process as well. We begin to pay more attention to reducing the variation between our units and to predicting the outcomes and performances. This is a very good habit to get into. Our designs and our design methods become much more elegant as we seek to improve our probability of supply, manufacture, and assembly, producing a product that is always in the performance envelope.
Take a look at your test methods. If you are not doing enough analysis to predict the likelihood of a test sample producing an unfavorable result, then you are not using your test information as intelligently as you could, or you are not collecting enough information to know what the truth might be.
Move away from testing an arbitrary sample size and launching if they pass, especially if that arbitrary number is one. Move toward a mindset of collecting as much information as you can afford. That means maximizing samples tested as well as implementing ways of collecting relevant continuous, measurable data instead of pass/fail results.
Make the uncomfortable shift of addressing the risk your limited information indicates instead of gambling on the utter lack of knowledge a few passed samples, or one sample, provides without an analysis of the variance of the output.
Don't gamble your business, your customers' trust, or people's safety on a hope and a prayer. Instead maximize the information available from the limits of your tests, hedge your bets, and work intelligently toward ensuring the integrity of your products and your business.
Stay wise, friends.
Find more of Alan's thoughts at www.bizwizwithin.com.


text:
Maine's highest court on Thursday ordered the remaining jury selection in a key defendant's trial in the Kennebunk prostitution case to be conducted in public.
The Portland Press Herald had filed a motion with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court challenging the constitutionality of Justice Nancy Mills' decision to close the proceedings to the public.
In closing the proceedings, known as voir dire, Mills said she feared that prospective jurors would not be candid if they were questioned publicly in York County Superior Court.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court first ordered Mills to stop the secret jury selection process. Then, in a 6-1 decision, it ordered her to open the rest of the process to the public and release transcripts of the closed-door sessions that began Tuesday.
"Although the trial court exercises substantial discretion over the mode and conduct of voir dire, a generalized concern that juror candor might be reduced if voir dire is conducted in public is insufficient … to bar the public or media from the entirety of the process," wrote Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.
She was joined in the opinion by all of the other justices except Justice Donald Alexander.
A total of 145 prospective jurors were called for the trial of Mark Strong Sr., 57, of Thomaston, who is accused of being a business partner with Alexis Wright in an alleged prostitution operation run out of Wright's Zumba studio in Kennebunk.
The Supreme Court's decision "may change the way jury selection is done" to ensure that the process is transparent, the Press Herald's lawyer said Thursday.
"This is a precedent-setting decision. I'm not sure it's a practice that's ever been challenged before," said Sigmund Schutz.
"Jury selection is an incredibly important part of a criminal trial," he said. "It's a vital First Amendment value that we have public trials in this country."
The Press Herald argued that First Amendment case law shows that jury selection should be open except in the most extreme circumstances, such as national security.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that "trial courts are required to consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties," or by anyone else, on the principle that court proceedings should be open to the public to protect the innocent and maintain confidence in the criminal justice system.
Mills did not respond directly to the ruling in court Thursday. She did say dryly at one point, "Everything I've done in the past few days has been appealed."
Saufley stopped the jury selection Thursday morning, pending further review. Mills addressed the chief justice's stay at the end of a hearing on several motions in the case.
"There are multiple scenarios I can envision on how the trial will proceed," Mills said, while the full court's ruling was still pending. She did not specify what they could be.
It was unclear whether any jurors have been chosen for the trial.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, multiple groups of prospective jurors were brought to a private room for questioning by the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys, but it's not known publicly who was excused or selected for the trial.
A closed jury selection process "is uncommon, but not unheard of," said E. Jim Burke, a professor at the University of Maine School of Law.
Burke said Mills was likely concerned about finding an impartial jury in a case that has drawn international publicity. That, combined with a court's general sensitivity to the privacy of jurors, likely led Mills to conduct the process behind closed doors.
In fact, Mills said earlier this week, in rejecting a motion by the Press Herald to open the proceedings, that the case had received widespread media attention and she had promised potential jurors confidentiality in an effort to make sure they answered questions honestly.
Each juror was asked to fill out a 10-page questionnaire asking their opinions on issues such as whether prostitution should be legal, their willingness to watch videotapes of sexual encounters and their exposure to publicity about the case.
They also were questioned about their opinions of religion, pornography, prostitution, adultery and government spending, according to a blank questionnaire that Mills distributed to the media.
"I can easily imagine that there is a concern that there isn't a big enough jury pool," Burke said, but selecting a jury openly will give the public more confidence that a correct verdict will be reached.
"They can say, 'Yeah, we saw that,' " he said.
Melvyn Zarr, another professor at the law school, said a quick review of the Supreme Court's ruling suggests that the justices are mindful of the difficulties of the trial.
"It's a situation in which everybody has heard about this, well beyond the confines of York County," Zarr said. "What (Mills) is trying to do is to adopt procedures that would get a fair jury."
Schutz said he, too, is aware that Mills is in charge of a case that has attracted international attention, but the test of a justice system often is "how we handle these high-profile cases."
While Mills has discretion in how to conduct the trial, Schutz said, "in this case, the closure went way too far."
Mills recessed the trial early Thursday afternoon and dismissed the jury pool for the rest of the day after hearing several motions from lawyers for the state and Strong, unrelated to jury selection.
She held a conference call with prosecutors and defense attorneys late Thursday afternoon to decide how to proceed.
The trial is expected to last about three weeks once a jury is chosen.
Strong has pleaded not guilty to 59 counts related to promoting prostitution and invasion of privacy.
Wright, 30, of Wells, is scheduled to stand trial on 106 counts in May. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges, including promotion of prostitution, engaging in prostitution, invasion of privacy, conspiracy, tax offenses and receiving welfare benefits when ineligible.
The case has drawn so much attention in part because Wright reportedly kept a meticulous list of more than 150 names of customers, including prominent figures.
Affidavits filed by police indicate that Strong may have helped Wright videotape encounters with her customers.
So far, 66 people have been charged with being prostitution clients in the case. Eighteen men who have pleaded guilty or been found guilty of engaging Wright for prostitution are on the prosecution's witness list for Strong's trial.
Staff Writer Edward D. Murphy can be contacted at 791-6465 or at:
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here's why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.
Send questions/comments to the editors.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Well I did see spots of marshmallow here and there, but their flavor, and that of the chocolate covered marshmallows, is very much muted by the graham. Oh sure, if you get a couple of chocolates on your spoon, you will think about marshmallow briefly, but overall this was a graham blizzard more than a s'mores blizzard. Granted this may vary from store to store, but for me, I could have easily gone with double the marshmallow that it currently had.
So the short story is that I absolutely inhaled this thing. I love my gritty blizzards and this worked really well for me. At some point I may go back and try it with a chocolate base, or maybe some chocolate chips... or maybe some Reese's peanut butter cups, but you get the idea. Graham lovers need to try this one right now.
Verdict? Love it
Buy Again? Yup!


text:
The Art Of Growing Up
John Marsden
When I hear parents say 'I want my children to enjoy their childhood there'll be time when they're older to learn about those things', I hear the voices of those who are scared of the vastness of the universe. These adults have a view of childhood as some kind of discrete interval, rather than just a few years from the continuum of life. How fortunate that the spirit, courage and curiosity of many young people remain largely undefeated by such adults.John Marsden has spent his adult life engaging with young minds - through both his award-winning, internationally bestselling young adult fiction and his work as one of Australia's most esteemed and experienced educators. As the founder and principal of two schools, John is at the coalface of education and daily witness to the inevitable and yet still mysterious process of growing up. Now, in this astonishing, insightful and hugely ambitious manifesto, John pulls together all he has learned from over thirty years' experience working with and writing for young people. He shares his insights into everything - from the role of schools and the importance of education, to problem parents and problem children, and the conundrum of what it means to grow up and be 'happy' in the 21st century.


text:
My love for eggplant! It is a never-ending love affair. I even have a childhood "trauma" associated with it. I remember that day clearly, now after so many years. I was probably about 7 or 8, or maybe even a little older. This happened back in Baku. My mom made stuffed eggplant dish for dinner. We were sitting around the table. Mom served everybody. I glanced at my sister's plate, then at mine, and, to my utter "shock", noticed that the stuffed eggplant on hers was just a little bigger!
I was enraged, voicing my strong disapproval, ignoring all the household-established rules of good manners. "I would not eat a smaller eggplant," I said. I don't remember the bits of conversation that followed after that, but what I clearly remember is that shortly after my revolt, I was sitting alone in our front yard (we had a small house with a gated front yard), sulking over the lost opportunity to enjoy that delicious stuffed eggplant, albeit its size. I do not remember if I was allowed to come back and finish my dinner. That doesn't matter much.
What matters, my friends, is that I still do glance at other people's plates comparing the eggplants on theirs to those on mine. Just kidding:)


text:
Q&A: Does a Multiverse Negate Biblical Truth?
From Ethan in Nashville, Tennessee
First, I want to thank you so much for all that you do. You've certainly stretched my brain in ways I didn't really think were possible. I guess my question is a testament to that. My question involves the concept of multiple, or rather, infinite histories within the frame of the multiverse. I think I remember reading in one of the many multiverse articles that Jeff wrote that an infinite universe…is purely physical or something along those lines. So, from that I concluded that things like Scripture are unaffected since they talk about spiritual things and truth is a non-physical thing. However, I've begun to wonder, if there are indeed infinite histories, is it not possible that in the reaches of the infinite universe there is another planet just like ours, with humans like us, with a Bible just like ours, with a savior just like Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God, except that this Jesus died by some other method or taught some other truth? So, from this how can we really know if spirituality, or the human soul, exists, or even if truth exists, if it's all just a product of the multiverse? I hope to hear from you all and God bless.
Good question, Ethan. To start, I would argue that humans on planet Earth are unique regardless of the existence/size of our universe/multiverse. And, no, Jesus does not take on another human nature as savior on some other planet. But a couple of things need clarification.
First, the reason that more scientists think an infinitely large multiverse exists ultimately derives from inflation. Recent evidence strongly argues for an inflationary epoch early in our universe's history. As scientists seek to understand how inflation works they repeatedly encounter the situation that the very process driving inflation produces an extremely large (if not infinite) universe—a universe that is one member of a vast multiverse.
Second, in this scenario, the size of our universe (extremely large and possibly infinite) raises the question of whether everything we can see actually occurs repeatedly in other parts of the universe. To clarify, consider a five-card hand dealt from a standard deck (no jokers). Each new five-card hand will likely differ from the others because more than two million—2,598,960 to be exact—possible hands exist. However, dealing the 2,598,961st hand guarantees at least two identical hands. The same situation arises when considering our observable universe. Although it is extremely large, the number of arrangements of all the space, time, matter, and energy is finite and our observable universe is much smaller than the whole inflationary universe. Thus, it would appear that the whole history visible to humanity would repeat in distant regions of the universe.
Why, then, do I argue for the uniqueness of humanity? Because the scenario described above occurs only for the physical stuff (like atoms, photons, electrons, etc.). Yet, the Bible describes humanity as being made in God's image, which seems to include an inherently non-physical component. Even leading atheistic thinkers to acknowledge that consciousness does not reduce to physical components. If humans possess an inherently non-physical component, then no amount of rearranging the matter of the cosmos will reproduce humanity somewhere else (although a planet similar to Earth will happen). So, we are the only humans in the universe.
One powerful way to determine truth is to test claims against reality. Time and time again, the claims of the Bible match the data derived from studying this universe. Given that record, we can trust what it says about the uniqueness of humanity with confidence that future tests will continue to affirm its truthfulness.


text:
For an eight year old I was tiny. Walking in the front door of the Palm, at the time a venerable New York institution, I was immediately struck by the tight space and the casual atmosphere. The dusty wooden floor, dim lighting and cacophonous conversations immediately transported me to another world. I leaned into my aunt's coat for protection as servers brusquely marched by with platters of food and trays of beverages while my uncle negotiated for a table. We followed the host down a narrow aisle to a table set for three in the downstairs seating area. I settled into my chair, taking in the various strange cartoons on the walls and the myriad display of glamorous and important looking patrons seated at the other tables.
I had waited a long time to go to the Palm. It was a family favorite, the restaurant that the adults went to with out of town guests and to celebrate special occasions. Growing up I was regaled with tales of raucous evenings spent over enormous lobsters and thick steaks. It was promised to me that one day, when I was old enough, I'd be allowed to experience it for myself. It was decided that I would go there for my eighth birthday. This was the beginning of a tradition that lasted well into my teenage years. In those days the Palm was still an icon of the New York restaurant scene. It was known for its clubby atmosphere, caricatured walls, and the generous coating of sawdust on the floors. The noise levels were tremendous and the waiters were older, crusty, career men, with no time for chit-chat and no patience for pretension. The owners had recently opened a second location, the Palm Too, across the street to handle the overflow. Unlike the original, the Palm Too took reservations. This was supposed to make it easier for people to get in. In spite of their reservation policy, or perhaps because of it, it was clearly preferable to eat in the original location.
At the table, martinis were the order of the day, preferably dry and straight up, made with vodka and olives. In those days bottled water meant Perrier, wine lists were mostly French, and Heineken was considered a fancy beer, That particular evening a Shirley Temple was my libation of choice. It's layered effect and cherry garnish always made me feel elegant and grown up in ways that plain Coca Cola never could. I felt stylish and sophisticated as I slowly sipped my drink, absently listening to my Aunt and Uncle discussing their dinner choices as I contemplated the room.
I already knew that there were no menus at the Palm. This made it easy to pick out the tourists, as they were only ones to ask for them. Those who belonged were aware of this quirk and casually discussed their selections with the waiters. In my case there was no need for discussion. I couldn't wait to order my very first lobster, a specialty of the house. The Palm was known for extra large lobsters ranging in size from three pounds to six or seven pounds each. At that time it was much easier to get large lobsters than it is now. Some people would argue that the big ones are tougher and less delicious than the smaller specimens. Those people would be wrong. Properly cooked, large lobsters are delectable and much less work for far more meat than the little ones. They are dramatic in presentation and in my opinion, much more fun to eat. As my Aunt and Uncle discussed our choices with the waiter, the man looked skeptical at my choice. The smallest lobster that evening was three pounds and he felt strongly that it would be far too much for such a small child. I bounced slightly in my seat in an agony of apprehension. Was I going to miss out on my lobster? It was with a sigh of relief that I heard my Aunt gently but firmly disagree with him and insist that I be given the smallest lobster they had. The waiter huffed a bit at her tenacity and then grumpily withdrew.
It wasn't long before my shrimp cocktail arrived. The fat, chilled shrimp with their tangy, spicy sauce were a special treat. I loved squeezing on the lemon and delicately dipping each bite in just the right amount of cocktail sauce. I tasted my Uncle's tomato salad, which seemed more beautiful than flavorful. My Aunt offered me a taste of her salad with blue cheese dressing. There were cool, crisp leaves of lettuce, creamy, salty dressing, and sharp onions. I was instantly converted. Blue cheese dressing was my new favorite flavor.
There is a certain amount of pomp and circumstance that goes along with eating lobster. After the first course was cleared the waiter arrived with crackers, shellfish forks, lemon halves tied in yellow, porous wrapping with a little green bow, and small wooden bowls to catch the empty shells. He presented my aunt and me with white bibs emblazoned with large red lobsters, solemnly tying them on behind our necks. After he left we arranged our equipment and my Uncle explained how to use the crackers and forks.
Next the cottage fries and onion rings were brought to the table on a large platter. The onions were crisp and light, with a deep golden brown coating. They seemed to melt in my mouth leaving behind a sweet onion flavor. The cottage fries were a revelation. They looked like super thick potato chips and somehow managed to be crunchy, chewy and tender all at once. Each salty bite had me reaching for another. My Uncle warned me not to eat too many. My lobster was coming and it was going to be a big one.
Fortunately our entrees soon appeared. To my eyes the lobsters were utterly beautiful, enormous, bright red crustaceans. The edges of the shells were slightly singed from the broiler, with snowy white interiors, huge dangerous looking claws, small side legs, long tails which were split down the middle with three little flaps fanned out at their ends, and various nooks and crannies to play with. My eyes were like saucers as I admired the exotic looking creature. Then I picked up my tools and dove right in.
I began with the claws. The cartilage in the smaller piece and at the tip near the pincers was soft, silky and very salty. I quickly moved to the plump portion that makes up the majority of the claw. The meat was finely textured and juicy, shredding easily beneath my fingers. It tasted of the essence of the ocean, sweet and briny with a little chew to it. I was encouraged to dip the white flesh into the small bowl of melted butter that had arrived with the platter. I tried it once and then scoffed at its needless embellishment. I firmly placed the ramekin of butter to the side and got back to business. It was serious work tearing the beast apart and nudging out each succulent bite. The tail had a completely different texture from the claws. It was meatier and less salty. Once removed from the shell it required a fork and knife to cut it into manageable pieces. For quite some time I was focused on the challenge of taking apart my lobster. Watching the meat pull gently free of its hiding place was indescribable. Every bite tasted sweeter for the effort that had gone into extracting it. The table was an oasis of quiet as we all enjoyed our dinners. The only part of the beast that I didn't appreciate was the innards. My Aunt easily ignored hers and I followed suit, leaving them untouched in the shell. I ate as much of the succulent lobster meat as I could, savoring every bite. Once I was done, my uncle happily consumed what was left, having cannily ordered a steak for his own entree.
After clearing away the carnage, the waiter offered us dessert. At that age I was famous for always keeping a separate compartment in my stomach for sweets. That night was no exception and I carefully pondered my choices. I finally settled upon the fresh strawberries with whipped cream, since I knew that I could count on my Aunt to order the chocolate cake and to give me a taste. When my berries arrived they were garnished with real whipped cream. It was like eating clouds. Every delicately sweetened bite was impossibly thick and still light against my tongue. It was nothing like the stuff from an aerosol can that garnished my hot chocolate at home. It being winter, the strawberries were a bit tough and flavorless. I still happily scarfed them down as a vehicle for the whipped cream. The memory of the chocolate cake escapes me, happily eclipsed by the sweet cream.
The story of my first lobster has grown into legend, told and retold at the various family tables, usually at summer gatherings where we indulge in the delectable crustaceans. Personally I still prefer to eat my lobster unadorned, in order to focus on it's inherent sweet flavor, redolent of sharp, salty ocean breezes. These days I know that lobster is at its best when shared with people who love it as much as I do. As we excavate the shells and crack the claws, the camaraderie of the experience always evokes images of days gone by and tales of lobsters consumed.


text:
Vegan Banana Bundt Cake
A tasty dairy-free gluten-free banana cake.
Vegan (egg-free) baking is a mega-challenge at high altitude. Throw gluten-free and dairy-free into the equation (not to mention, soy-free, Darling- I can't even rely on tofu yogurt!) and trust me, it can be a major pain in the proverbial butt. I've dumped two previous egg-free incarnations of this recipe lickety-split into the trash. Today, however, I tweaked again. And guess what? We have a winner.
So- this one's for all you lovely celiacs, gluten-free vegans, multi-allergic sweethearts and autism spectrum angels out there (neurodiversity rocks, after all).
Big banana kisses xoxo!
Vegan Banana Bundt® Cake
Updated and tweaked, this fragrant cake is moist but not heavy. Not unlike a pound cake. But there's no butter or eggs in sight. I'm thinking it will be tasty for breakfast. If it was summer, I'd serve it with sliced strawberries.
Wet Ingredients:
3 medium very ripe bananas, cut up and mashed into puree
1/2 cup applesauce
1 tablespoon bourbon vanilla extract
1/3 cup extra light olive oil
2 tablespoons raw agave or maple syrup
1 1/2 cups organic light brown sugar
Dry Ingredients:
2 cups gluten-free flour blend (I used: 1 1/4 cup sorghum flour + 1/2 cup buckwheat flour + 1/2 cup tapioca starch
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1/4 teaspoon sea salt* (if your flour blend has no salt)
2 teaspoons xanthan gum* (if your flour blend has no xanthan or guar gum added)
Add in last:
Egg Replacer for 2 large eggs (I used Ener-G Egg Replacer made with warm vanilla rice milk)
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Prepare a Bundt® cake pan by rubbing a little oil in it.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F. Prepare a Bundt® cake pan by rubbing a little oil in it.
Place the banana puree into a bowl. Add the applesauce, vanilla, olive oil, agave, and light brown sugar. Beat well.
In a separate large bowl, measure and combine your dry ingredients (I use a whisk to do this).
Add the wet ingredients into the dry mix, and beat for two minutes.
Make and froth your Egg Replacer; add it to the batter and beat to combine.
Pour the batter into the prepared Bundt® pan and bake in the center of a preheated oven for 40 to 50 minutes until done. Check the center for doneness with a wooden pick. The cake should be firm, and may appear slightly golden brown at the edge, yet still be moist inside.
Cool the cake on a wire rack before releasing it from the pan (by placing a serving plate on top of the cake pan and turning it upside down onto a plate).
My Bundt® pan is non-stick, so my cake slid right out- but if your pan is not non-stick, be sure the edges of the cake are loosened from the sides before you invert the pan.
Yields 12 to 15 slices. Freeze extra slices.
Recipe Source: glutenfreegoddess.blogspot.com
All images & content are copyright protected, all rights reserved. Please do not use our images or content without prior permission. Thank you.
Karina's Notes:
This cake would be fabulous drizzled with a light lemony glaze.
This kid-friendly allergy-friendly cake is gluten-free, dairy-free, egg-free, soy-free, nut-free.
I anticipate grilling slices for a warm toasty treat with tea.
I plan on trying the recipes as cupcakes.
Enjoy sugary treats in moderation.
Gluten-Free Goddess® advises consuming
no more than 2 tablespoons of sugar a day.
Gluten-Free Goddess® advises consuming
no more than 2 tablespoons of sugar a day.


text:
[On the cb.]
Breaker, one-nine, this here's the Duck again. You got a copy on me Pig Pen, c'mon? Ah, negatory, Pig Pen, there ain't no way out 'cept for that one Atlantic Ocean. Now listen, drop them hogs off in Omaha and get over here in a short, 'cause it definitely looks like we got us a problem.
Bears to the left; bears to the right
We didn't have no place to go.
They had us backed up clean to the shore,
And them cab-over Petes don't float.
I says, "Pig Pen, I got me a good idea.
Them Friends a' Jesus gonna save us!
"So praise the Lord and Mister Ford,
And follow that micra-bus, ten-four.
[Now, imagine a bunch of rowdy pirates -- the buccaneer type, not software -- chanting the Chorus.]
Yo ho ho, and a thousand trucks
Gonna take a bath with a Rubber Duck
Yo ho ho, and a lots a' luck
'Round the world with the Rubber Ducky!
Yeah, we drove on the water like diesel whales
Sank about a hunnert-and-ten of 'em
I says, "Pig Pen, they just didn't have no faith
"They definitely gone ten-seven."
By the time we got into that Piccadilly Town,
'Bout half of 'em was lost at sea
I says, "Break one-nine for a ten-thirty-three"
What we got was the cotton-pickin' bbc
[Spoken, in a sorta British accent]
I say, Fabersham. Looks likes the Americans have got themselves another bloody Convoy.
Yo ho ho, and a thousand trucks
Gonna take a bath with a Rubber Duck
Yo ho ho, and a lots a' luck
'Round the world with the Rubber Ducky!
[Spoken, in the same sorta British accent]
Good heavens! Look at them all! Half of them are sinking in the Thames! Hello! Some of our truck chaps are assisting them. Good show, actually. Oh, well, ten-four and all that rubbish.
Well, we crossed that Channel like snakes on glass
And stormed the beach about dawn
I says, "Grab your shifters and punch 13
"We all goin' truckin' on the Autobahn.
"Now, Pig Pen, this here's the ultimate slab
"'Cause there goes a Mercedes truck."
He says, "Break one-three for the Strudel Machine
"Ya just blew the doors off'n the Duck. How 'bout it?"
[Spoken, in a sorta German accent. A really bad German accent.]
Oh, zehn-vier, Rubber Duck. Ve are receiving you vall-to-vall, but the schpeed limit on za Autobahn is triple-nickels. You travel too schlow, Rubber Duck. We gonna see you around. We gone. Wiedersehen.
[If you know the song, then you can skip this note. If you don't, then a bit of explanation is necessary. During the next verse, the chorus (the singers, not the words) is heard in the background. What they're singing is what's printed in the tiny little letters. No, I am not making this up. That's what they're singing.]
Well, we stopped for a coffee in West Berlin
Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is
The British had hundred-mile tea
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
I says, "Pig Pen, from here on it's wall-to-wall bears."
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,
Says, "Bash the Wall; we gonna see."
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Well, them big red bears must'a been in the bush
Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is
'Cause we didn't see a one all day
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,
So we raked up the leaves and we shook out the tree
Dumb, dumb, dumb. This is
'Til they finally had something to say
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
You got it..
[Spoken in a bad Russian accent. A really bad... You know the rest.]
Comrade Duck: you have been given until daybreak in Murmansk to get your cotton-pickin' trucks out of the you. S. S. Of are. You will copy!
[That 'dumb' chorus continues.]
Well, we shot them rigs through salt-mine city
Dumb, dumb
With a hammer and a sickle on down
Dumb, dumb
Then we hit the fan through the Sea of Japan
Dumb, dumb
Tooled into Transistor Town
Dumb, dumb
I says, "Pig Pen, this here must be the place,
Dumb, dumb
"'Cause everybody's eatin' with sticks."
Dumb, dumb
He says, "Ten-Four, this here is cb land
Dumb, dumb
"'Cause my channel knob just went crick."
Dumb, dumb
[Spoken in a really bad Japanese (fill in the blank)]
Ah so, Lubba Duck. You have a nice day today, betta day tomollow. We catch you on frip-frop. This one Kamikaze Ozzie; we gone. Sayonara.
Yo ho ho, and a thousand trucks
Gonna take a bath with a Lubba Duck
Yo ho ho, and a rots a' ruck
'Round the world with a Lubba Ducky!
[Obviously, poritical collectness hadn't yet permeated the you. S. Of A. :)]
[On the cb.]
Ah, ten-four, Pig Pen, what's your twenty? Australia? Mercy sakes, ain't nothin' down there but Tasmanian devils and them Q-alla bears. What's that? No double-nickel limit? We gonna be there in a short, Pig Pen. This here's the Rubber Duck, ten-ten and doin' it to it like Pruitt used'ta do it to it. We gone. 'Bye-'bye.


text:
In the midst of a tense bilateral dispute between the U.S. and Pakistan over the case of Raymond Davis—an American Embassy employee who shot and killed two armed Pakistanis in what he claims was self-defense—civil society leaders from both countries met in Lahore, Pakistan, February 17-19. The initiative, dubbed the U.S.-Pakistan Leaders Forum, was convened by the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Initiative (a non-governmental, non-partisan collaboration of four U.S.-based organizations) and hosted by the Lahore University of Management Sciences, a world-class educational institute started in 1985 by Pakistani industrialist Syed Babar Ali.
During the meetings, in which I had the honor to participate, think tank experts, NGO activists, educational leaders, and agricultural experts sat down, rolled up their sleeves, and generated ideas for closer collaboration between the two countries in areas such as media education, scaling up community peace-building efforts, increasing academic collaboration at the university, primary, and secondary levels, and developing agriculture partnerships that would bring farmers together in hands-on collaborative endeavors.
One outcome of the engagement was to highlight the immediate need to recalibrate the U.S.-Pakistan aid relationship. The U.S. has provided more than $6 billion in economic assistance to Pakistan over the last nine years, but representatives from both countries complained that there was very little to show for it. For instance, a $75 million U.S. grant for teacher training was badly mismanaged and virtually wasted. All agreed there were serious structural problems in the way U.S. aid is delivered that need immediate attention.
A recent GAO report on U.S. civilian assistance to Pakistan recommends several steps to improve the monitoring and accountability of U.S. aid to Pakistan, including requiring Pakistani organizations that receive contracts or grants to implement a conflict of interest policy, recruit more qualified internal audit and procurement staff, embed approved CPA staff, and participate in a capacity-building program.
Some Pakistani youth called for more job-generating public-private partnerships, saying "send us your skilled people, not just your money." They viewed the public-private Punjab Rural Support Program as a potential model for future U.S. aid programming.
Role of Media
Much of the discussion also centered on the role of the media —both in the U.S. and Pakistan—in shaping perceptions (and misperceptions) about the other side. Most participants agreed that the Pakistani media were increasingly biased in reporting on the U.S. and guilty of churning out a steady diet of anti-American conspiracy theories and rhetoric. While some journalists and editors admitted they sometimes "self-censored" because of unspecified pressures, they also said their newspapers and satellite TV stations were largely responding to the public mood.
Participants also criticized U.S. media coverage of Pakistan, indicating that the U.S. tended to cover only negative news in Pakistan and that the coverage was often shallow and one-dimensional. Furthermore, American media tended to show a general lack of understanding of the local drivers of conflict in Pakistan and a mischaracterization of the role of religion in the conflict. U.S. audiences generally see a secular-religious divide as driving the conflict in Pakistan, when the ground realities are much more complex.
Davis Case Looms Large
The Pakistan media frenzy over the Davis case has driven anti-American sentiment to dangerously high levels. The Jamaat-i-Islami organized a rally last week in which protesters shouted down America and burned effigies of Davis. The Davis case has the potential to severely damage ties, if not handled carefully.
The U.S. is adamant that Davis has diplomatic immunity and was acting in self-defense, but the Zardari government is weak and feels it has little choice but to follow the public mood. Further complicating the case is the high level of tension between the countries' intelligence services. Several media reports indicate Davis may have been involved in a clandestine operational act and that the Pakistanis killed may have been ISI surveillants.
The Davis incident has proved to be a watershed in the complicated U.S.-Pakistan relationship. It may take time for tempers to cool and a decision to free him to come. In the meantime, hopefully initiatives like the U.S.-Pakistan Leaders Forum will help build greater understanding and trust at the societal level that will eventually form the foundation for a strong and lasting, mutually beneficial partnership between Pakistan and the U.S.
Source material can be found at this site.


text:
Japan finds radiation in rice, more tests planned
(AP) -- Japan is ordering more tests on rice growing near a crippled nuclear plant after finding elevated levels of radiation, government officials said Saturday.
A sample of unharvested rice contained 500 becquerels of cesium per kilogram, they said. Radioactive cesium was spewed from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant after it was damaged by a massive earthquake and tsunami on March 11.
Under Japanese regulations, rice with up to 500 becquerels of cesium per kilogram is considered safe for consumption.
Officials have tested rice from more than 400 spots in Fukushima prefecture. The highest level of cesium previously found was 136 becquerels per kilogram, prefectural official Kazuhiko Kanno said.
News of the elevated radiation level in rice from Nihonmatsu city, 55 kilometers (35 miles) west of the nuclear plant, set off alarm in the Japanese media.
The government has been testing vegetables and fish for radiation since the disaster, in which backup generators and cooling systems failed at the plant and the cores of three reactors melted.
Some nations have stopped importing some food products from Japan. Japanese consumers are nervous about radiation, but campaigns to buy from Fukushima have drawn support around the nation.
©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


text:
KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) - Malaysian authorities on Tuesday released the full transcript of communications between the pilots of missing Flight MH370 and air traffic controllers, saying the exchanges showed nothing unusual.
"There is no indication of anything abnormal in the transcript," a statement by Defence and Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said.
The 43 separate transmissions over nearly 54 minutes are thick with air-traffic and navigational jargon and give no hint of trouble aboard the ill-fated plane, which disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8 with 239 people aboard.
The transcript concludes with Malaysian air traffic control first bidding MH370 "good night", as it instructs the pilots next to contact controllers in Vietnam, over which the plane was due to fly.
The final entry from just after 1:19 am comes from one of the two MH370 pilots, who says "good night, Malaysian three seven zero".
The plane disappeared from radar shortly thereafter and is yet to be found, though Malaysia now believes it was deliberately diverted and flew on for hours to the Indian Ocean, where it is presumed to have crashed.
The transcript - and particularly the final words from MH370 - have been the subject of much speculation following earlier statements by authorities and the airline that the last transmission from the plane was a casual "All right, good night".
That apparent non-standard sign-off fuelled speculation that one of the pilots - either Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, or First Officer Fariq Abdul Hamid, 27 - diverted the plane on purpose.
Under pressure to clarify the matter, the government corrected the final words late on Monday but until now had not released a full transcript.
Tuesday's statement said the transcript was "initially held as part of the police investigation", but gave no other reason for the delay.
Malaysia Airlines had said previously that the last words were believed uttered by First Officer Fariq, but the statement said the ongoing investigation was yet to confirm that.


text:
The battery in my late-2008 model aluminium 13" MacBook became extremely swollen in early to mid-2012 after only 283 cycles (as per Cycle count
under Hardware
→ Power
), and the button on the multi-touch trackpad stopped working due to the expansion of the battery. I have since had to remove the battery to get the button working again, but the battery itself hasn't leaked, just expanded very heavily to nearly 1.5× the height (perhaps ≈0.2 each on top and bottom). After removing it, it's basically nearly impossible to put it back in and still close the cover.
I'm convinced that this is a fault in Apple's design, because it seemingly started after there were a couple of times that I had a browser open with too many windows, and it busy-looped during the night, getting quite hot and with the fan kicking in. However, during such occasions, the MacBook itself sat on a rather clear desk in an air-conditioned room, so I find it unacceptable that plain-use self-overheating on the machine's part could possibly cause any such problems. (I only ever ran OS X on the machine, and it was very far away from any other heat sources or direct sunlight.)
I'm disappointed that now I not only can't use the MacBook as a portable with any kind of battery life at all, but also that it is now subject to resets during power outages and cannot be transported (e.g. in sleep mode) without having to be shutdown first.
Shouldn't extremely swollen and expanded batteries that completely obstruct trackpad button usage be covered by a warranty? This never happens with any other single brand-name manufacturer of computer batteries! What are my options? Do I have to buy another battery at full price, only to have it become pregnant and start obstructing my button again right after the warranty is out? I tried going to an Apple Store in NorCal, and they said they can't do anything about it, since it's out of warranty. They said that even at 1.5× the width, it is still supposedly safe to use!
My perspective here is that the battery has not been consumed, but instead became damaged through no fault of my own. It was either defective outright (either through design or manufacturing), or it has become damaged through hardware/firmware/software bugs related to charging and/or overheating. I wouldn't have cared if it simply stopped holding the charge for more than a dozen of minutes or so; that's clearly something that is very well documented everywhere and is to be expected.


text:
Knowledge Platform
Implementation of the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration: A Whole-of-Society Approach
The GCM stresses the need for member states to adopt and understand the importance of a whole-of-society approach in implementation of the Compact. As such, states should view societal actors as partners in a shared goal, not as critics or adversaries. This article from the Journal on Migration and Human Security is free to access.


text:
Sorry, there are no calling cards to this destination.
"Master Cent: great card. I have used this one a lot in the last couple years to call from USA to Canada. A lot of minutes for the price."
"The representative was very efficient and lovely to deal with!"
More testimonials


text:
05/15/08 Procter & Gamble Test on Animals
Animal Friends participates in the Global Boycott Procter & Gamble Day, inviting citizens not to buy products that are tested on animals
Despite many alternative methods already used for testing of 8,000 cosmetics ingredients that are already proved safe and freely enter the market, Procter & Gamble (P&G) continues with the horrible tests on animals for the sake of profit. P&G, with more than 250 brands, is responsible for tormenting and death of thousands of animals per year, victims of painful, old-fashioned and completely unnecesary experiments.
P&G admit conducting poisoning tests on animals to assess chemicals in their brands which include Ariel, Dreft, Lenor, Olay, Max Factor, Fairy, Pantene, and Herbal Essences. If hundreds of other companies are able to produce cosmetics and household products without animal testing, why cannot P&G?
To draw attention to the unethical pratice of this multinational company, Animal Friends will join the 12th annual Global Boycott Procter & Gamble Day, led by the international animal protection group Uncaged and in partnership with dozens of animal protection groups around the world. Over 140 events will take place across the world, from Sydney to Stockholm. The campaign is supported by stars such as Sir Paul McCartney, Pretenders lead-singer Chrissie Hynde, poet and musician Benjamin Zephaniah, and singer Morrissey.
The events against P&G in Croatia will take place in Rijeka and Zagreb.
Event in Rijeka will take place on Thursday, May 15, at 12 noon on Korzo near Republic of Croatia Square. "Immobilized" activists with visible "wounds" on their faces will represent so-called Draize test of eye irritancy, in which chemicals are applied to the eyes of the rabbits. During a period of several weeks, reactions in the eyes are monitored – bleeding, damaged cornea, and blindness.
On Friday, May 16, and Saturday, May 17, on King Tomislav Square besides the info stall a video footage of animal experiments will be shown. Also the leaflets with the White and Black List of companies whose products can be bought in Croatia and which are not/tested on animals will be handed out.
Typically, each animal toxicity test involves force-feeding chemicals via a tube inserted down the animal's throats. This can easily damage the throat and organs of the animals, as well as cause suffering due to the toxic effects of the chemical. Those animals that survive to the end of the test are then killed for tissue analysis.
Luka Oman, Animal Friends president says: "These days we are appealing the public to the suffering behind famous brands such as Ariel, Max Factor, Olay, Head & Shoulders and even IAMS "pet" food. Once the public is aware of these facts, the huge majority of the public will not want to have anything do deal with such brands and change their shopping lists. The more people join the boycott we are getting closer to saving thousands of animals from P&G's painful and deadly tests. Each person can make a difference by avoiding P&G."
On the 12th annual Global Boycott Procter & Gamble Day, Animal Friends invites citizens to become more conscient consumers and by choosing products that are not tested on animals and boycotting those who conduct horrible animal experiments show P&G and other unethical companies what they think about torture and slaughter of animals for profit.
In the same way Animal Friends also invites the chain stores to think about their reputation by not cooperating with this notorious company.


text:
Our Responsibility to the Transgressor
My dear brethren, I stand before you this evening in all humility and humbly pray that the Spirit and blessings of the Lord will continue to be with us as I speak to you. What a glorious privilege it is to hold the priesthood of God—from the newest deacon in the smallest and most distant branch of the Church, to the high priest holding the highest office in the Church. As such we have made certain covenants with the Lord and are entitled to his many promised blessings as we keep those covenants and walk uprightly before him.
The other day I was talking to an enthusiastic returned missionary who had been a member of the Church for only five years, and this is the story he told me, which I found most interesting.
He said he was raised in a good home by fine parents with high ideals; but he had never thought of, let alone been told, many of the things which the Church teaches, such as a prophet of God being on the earth today, of a literal resurrection where the body and soul will be reunited after death and continue on throughout eternity, and particularly of the beautiful and most important concept that he was literally a spirit child of God. He had never been taught of the restoration of the gospel, that there was a living personal God, and that Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, lives; that he was literally the Son of God in the flesh.
While working at a summer resort where a number of young people were employed, and where all seemed to be having a good time, this boy's attention was drawn to three young men who seemed to be living apart from the others and not participating in the smoking, drinking of alcoholic beverages, and using drugs, etc. They were living very high standards in every way and seemed to be morally clean.
He said, "I became attracted to them and engaged in conversation with them to find out why they were different. They told me they were Mormons, that they observed a Word of Wisdom, which they explained to me, and that the Lord had said, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' (Ex. 20:14), and that sexual transgression was considered by the Church as one of the most grievous sins."
He said further, "I became very close to these young men and liked what they taught and the way they lived. They were very free in telling me about the Church. They seemed to be proud of it and were not ashamed of the fact that they were not living as other young men were living. They did point out, however, that some of the young men who were members of the Church and living in the camp were not living the principles of the gospel."
I thought how sad it was that these other members were not living as they should, had succumbed to temptation, and were not strong enough to stand up for what they knew was right. If they had been converted and not ashamed of the gospel of Christ and its teachings, they too could have been influencing some others for good and changing their lives in preparation for ultimate blessings promised to the faithful.
My friend continued, "One of the three young men was a returned missionary, and as I became more interested, he taught me the gospel as he had taught it in the mission field. I corresponded with my parents and told them what I had found. They were very disappointed and unhappy; but when I returned home and told them all about it, and they saw the good effect all this had on my life and the change in habits, they gave me permission to be baptized, for which I was most thankful."
He was just 19 when he joined the Church. He went on to say what a great privilege it was when he was given the Aaronic Priesthood and he was able to administer and pass the sacrament in remembrance of the Lord's crucifixion. He said it made him very humble as he felt the sacredness of this ordinance, and he always tried to be worthy and well-groomed and to act as the Lord would have him do were he standing by his side.
He felt greatly blessed when as a priest he was given the privilege of baptizing new members, realizing that this gave him the same privilege and authority that was given to John the Baptist who baptized the Savior. And as he talked, I wished that every young man could feel and realize just how important that is and what a great privilege it is to be able to perform these ordinances and know that the Lord depends on all of us to live worthy of and magnify the priesthood which we hold.
Then this young man said how pleased he was a year later as he was interviewed to go on a mission to be able to tell his bishop and stake president that he was keeping the Word of Wisdom strictly, keeping the Sabbath day holy, paying his tithes and offerings, and keeping himself morally clean in every way, and that he really honored womanhood and had never treated a girl friend differently from the way he would want a young man to treat his sister. He felt so good about this and was so very glad that he could go into the mission field as an ambassador of the Lord, feeling that the Lord would approve his going as his representative. He told of the glorious feeling he had as he baptized and confirmed his first convert.
These were humbling experiences for him, he said, as was also his being called upon to confer the Melchizedek Priesthood upon a man and ordain him an elder. He realized how important it is that a man be worthy of these privileges to act in the name of the Lord and that the man he ordained was just as much an elder as if the president of the Church had ordained him. He felt most humble and grateful to the Lord.
He concluded by telling me that he was going to be married soon, and his countenance beamed as he expressed his gratitude and happiness that he and his sweetheart were clean and worthy to go to the temple where they could be sealed for time and all eternity.
Then I said to him: "No greater privilege or responsibility can be placed upon any young man than for him to be given the priesthood of God, which is the power of God to act in his name. And now you will enjoy all the added blessings and privileges that will come from being sealed by the holy priesthood in the temple of God."
Too many young men today who have been raised in the Church seem to take the priesthood for granted and feel that it is a right rather than a privilege for them to hold the priesthood. Many seem to think it is smart to break the Word of Wisdom and be loose in their morals. I want to emphasize that the Lord is not pleased with this. It is most important that a young man live worthy of that priesthood and that he not be advanced until he is worthy.
He must also be prepared and worthy before receiving a call to go into the mission field. I cannot imagine an executive of any great corporation choosing and authorizing a person to represent the company and making any kind of contract unless that person has proven himself knowledgeable, capable, and worthy—one on whom the executive can depend entirely.
It is even more important that one representing the Lord, speaking in his name, be equally worthy. I am sure the Lord is greatly pleased with all those who are prepared to do the things that make them worthy and who are prepared to stand up and be counted and defend the Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ by bearing testimony of the truth and denouncing evil and unrighteousness. He is equally disappointed and grieved when those who have made covenants with him fail to keep them, just as he grieves for any of his children who fall by the wayside.
I want to assure every young man that as we keep our covenants we will be happy, more successful, loved, and respected even by those who do not believe as we do and who may ridicule us. They expect us to keep our covenants and our commitments, to stand up for our beliefs, and to be different. This fact has been evident so often when a member of the Church is found guilty of any crime. It is pointed out that he is a Mormon or a member of the Mormon Church while the religious affiliation of others who may be involved with him is never mentioned.
Let me emphasize to our leaders that it is our responsibility and privilege to work closely with these priesthood holders and with prospective priesthood holders. Through our teachings, worthy example, and testimony we must help them to understand the gospel and their responsibilities and the importance of living according to the teachings of the gospel.
Let the boys know that you love them and will do all in your power to help them succeed and be happy; but always remember that no young man should expect to be advanced in the priesthood or given a temple recommend or receive a call to go on a mission unless he is living worthily and is prepared to continue to live worthy of the gospel which he has embraced and magnify the priesthood which he holds. It is no kindness to advance anyone in the priesthood or give him a temple recommend if he is not worthy or to send him on a mission in order for him to repent and adjust. Rather, he should prove himself worthy before he is called. The Lord wants worthy representatives.
Now let me repeat to the young men that it is most important that they be honest in every way. Some have lied to their bishops and to their stake presidents in order to go into the mission field or to go to the temple. Such are certainly not worthy of these privileges. The Lord will not be mocked.
Leaders, find out from the prospective missionary what he thinks the Lord wants of him as a representative. Never hesitate to make a searching interview so that you will know if he is worthy or is guilty of any transgression and how he feels about a mission call. Then together consider how the Lord would feel about it and then act accordingly.
It is just not fair to anyone to send a young man into the mission field who is not qualified or worthy. He cannot get the spirit of his calling. And while he is in the mission field he is a burden to the mission president and a deterrent to the missionary work. I know how heartrending it is for a mission president to have to excommunicate and send a missionary home because of transgression.
If a young man is guilty of transgression, let him know that you love him and that you are prepared to help in every way possible to get him back on the track. Remember that Satan is on the loose and his cohorts are striving with all their might to lead these young men and women astray. Always be prepared to encourage, guide, and help direct these young people to live according to the principles of the gospel. Be determined that no boy or girl is going to be lost because of your neglect.
Now, regarding the transgressor: Every mission president, stake president, and bishop is directed and instructed how to investigate and handle all cases of transgression. A person who is guilty of a serious transgression cannot progress, and he is not happy while the guilt is upon him. Until he has confessed and repented he is in bondage. The transgressor who is dealt with as he should be, with love and with proper discipline, will later express his appreciation for your concern, your interest, and your leadership. As he is properly dealt with, he is in a position to repent and come back to full activity. But he must be dealt with.
Be aware of those who are not active in the Church, and if you feel that something is wrong or that someone is guilty of transgression, it is your responsibility to go to him with love and find out about it. He will appreciate it, and by moving promptly you may be able to prevent further transgression. Save the person who is having a problem and bring him back into the fold.
It has been reported to me that some bishops and even stake presidents have said that they never have excommunicated or disciplined anyone and that they do not intend to. This attitude is entirely wrong. Judges in Israel have the responsibility to sit in righteous judgment where it becomes necessary. Let me read from the twentieth section of the Doctrine and Covenants an important reminder to those who have the responsibility of judging: "Any member of the Church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct." (D&C 20:80.)
Brethren, study the scriptures and the handbook and do as they direct and discipline the members of the Church when necessary. Remember that it is no kindness to a transgressor for his local authority to ignore or overlook or try to cover up his iniquity.
Let me read a quotation from President John Taylor wherein he discussed this subject: "Furthermore, I have heard of some Bishops who have been seeking to cover up the iniquities of men; I tell them, in the name of God, they will have to bear … that iniquity, and if any of you want to partake of the sins of men, or uphold them, you will have to bear them. Do you hear it, you Bishops and you Presidents? God will require it at your hands. You are not placed in position to tamper with the principles of righteousness, nor to cover up the infamies and corruptions of men." (Conference Report, Apr. 1880, p. 78.)
These are very strong words, brethren, and they were spoken by a president of the Church, a prophet of God. Also, George Q. Cannon makes this significant statement: "The Spirit of God would undoubtedly be so grieved that it would forsake not only those who are guilty of these acts, but it would withdraw itself from those who would suffer them to be done in our midst unchecked and unrebuked."
We must live in the world but we must not become a part of it. We are different from the world. We cannot accept their modes or standards of living. We have had revealed to us the gospel of Jesus Christ, which sets out clearly what our standards should be. We have had the priesthood restored and conferred upon us. We must be exemplary in every respect. There are many scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants that tell us how to handle the transgressor and what our responsibilities as priesthood holders are. This one especially I call to your attention:
"Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence.
"He that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand, and he that learns not his duty and shows himself not approved shall not be counted worthy to stand." (D&C 107:99–100.)
In the scriptures it is abundantly clear that the cases which are to be handled by the Church include, but are not limited to, fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, abortion, or other infractions of the moral code; criminal acts involving moral turpitude such as burglary, dishonesty, theft, murder, apostasy; open opposition to and deliberate disobedience to the rules and regulations of the Church; cruelty to spouse or children; advocating or practicing so-called plural marriage; or any unchristianlike conduct in violation of the law and order of the Church.
If you leaders do as the Lord admonishes, he will bless you, strengthen you, and direct you, and you will find great joy in his service. It is most important, however, that when a person is disfellowshipped or excommunicated you show great love and concern and put forth every effort to help him clear up his life and return to full fellowship in the Church.
We read in the Doctrine and Covenants:
"Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
"By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them." (D&C 58:42–43.)
Let me emphasize to all assembled, wherever you may be this evening, it is our responsibility to save souls. We as leaders must do all within our power to lead our members in the right paths, to keep them strong in the faith, to let them know that we love them, that every soul is great in the sight of God, that we are spirit children of our Heavenly Father, and he stands ready to bless us. We have the responsibility to work closely with parents and with their children to see that they keep themselves morally clean and worthy members of the kingdom of God and prepare themselves for the kingdom of heaven. But never become unnecessarily intimate with any of the opposite sex.
In a few minutes we will be instructed by the president of the Church, a prophet of God. I bear witness that he is a prophet of God, and that God actually lives, and that his Son Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world who came and gave his life that we might be resurrected and enjoy immortality and eternal life. We are led today by the Lord through a prophet of God, President Spencer W. Kimball, with whom it is a great privilege and honor and blessing to work. If we will follow him, we cannot go astray.
May we magnify our priesthood and enjoy the blessings of the Lord, and as President Romney said, "Prove our integrity," I humbly pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.


text:
Washington, DC – John Wall registered 29 points and nine assists and led the Washington Wizards to a 96-87 win over the New Orleans Hornets.
Wall shot 12-of-15 from the field, including a perfect 3-for-3 from behind the arc, for the Wizards, who won their second straight game.
"I just got into a good rhythm. The last couple games I've been feeling pretty good and able to knock down my shot," Wall said.
Martell Webster had 18 points while Garrett Temple, Cartier Martin and Kevin Seraphin scored 10 points apiece in the victory.
Eric Gordon had a team-high 20 points for the Hornets, who have lost five of their last six games. Greivis Vasquez recorded 18 points, nine assists and eight rebounds, and Anthony Davis scored 16 points.
"We as a team didn't play well; we didn't make shots like we should have," Gordon said. "It seemed to be more of a team flow issue."
The game was tied at 50 at the half, but in the third, the Hornets struggled, scoring just 14 points on 28 percent shooting.
Meanwhile, Wall scored 14 points in the period, including the final six for the Wizards, and the team would lead 74-64 entering the fourth.
The Wizards extended their lead by as much as 15 points, 94-79, late in the frame.
Davis and Al-Farouq Aminu combined for an 8-2 spurt in the final 1:19 of the game, but it was too little, too late.
New Orleans had a 30-26 advantage entering the second quarter, but it quickly evaporated as Martin made a jumper with 9:36 left to give Washington a 33-32 lead.
The two teams kept it competitive throughout the rest of the quarter, as they tied four times and had five lead changes. Gordon made the final score of the half, a 3-pointer with 48.9 seconds remaining.
Game Notes
Davis was a perfect 8-for-8 from the foul line ... New Orleans missed all 13 of its 3-point attempts in the second half ... The Wizards defeated the Hornets at home for the first time since March 2, 2008 ... Washington swept the season-series against New Orleans for the first time since the 2007-2008 season.


text:
Web Snob Wrap Up – 7-18-09
Allie is Wired covers Kim Kardashian's new Twilight look.
Bag Bliss adores Michael Kors' Hamilton – everyday chic with a reasonable price.
Bag Snob loves the easy chic of the Easy Studded Tote from YSL!
Beauty Snob takes the Glowelle 30 day challenge!
The Daily Obsession covers Louis Vuitton's tribute to the 40th annivesary of the Lunar Landing and looks forward to the next 40 years of space travel.
eye4style is giving away AmorePacific's luxe Treatment Enzyme Peel.
I'm Not Obsessed did a little digging and found the make for 3 of Lindsay Lohan's favorite shoes.
The Jet Set Girls test drive MySkins Nude Lingerie.
KRISTOPHER DUKES is wanting, wanting, and wanting Jimmyjane Ember Candles On Sale.
Second City Style took some time recently to Party With Poppy in Chicago!
Shopping and Info loves the black strapless dress worn by Angelina Jolie last week.
Stiletto Jungle checks out Project Runway winner Leanne Marshall's Bluefly line.
Vote for your favorite emerging designers at StyleBakery.com and you could win a Hayden-Harnett tote!
Stylehive shows you had to take inspiration from Beyonce's "Sweet Dreams" music video… without looking like a robot.
The Beauty Stop attacks the "toner myth."
The Shoe Goddess chats with shoe designer extraordinaire, Ruthie Davis!


text:
A Modern Garden Wedding at Spanish Point in Sarasota, Florida
Derek and Herman Fusko put a masculine twist on their timeless garden wedding with a color palette of black, white and gold and lots of earthy, natural touches. Wanting the beauty of the venue to be the main focus, the pair hosted the cocktail hour and the reception outdoors in Spanish Point's lush gardens. Convinced it wouldn't be possible to do flowers in a masculine way, the couple originally planned to skip them all together. The florists at the Twisted Twig put their reservations to rest, creating bold bouquets of ivory roses, waxflowers, astilbes, silver brunia and textured greenery arranged in statement gunmetal vases and hollowed driftwood. Black dinnerware and mirrored accents completed the elegantly edgy look. While the venue was the focal point of the fete, Derek and Herman made sure to incorporate a few personalized details, including a "Love you more" cake topper and custom-made suits. "We wanted to have a cohesive look but not look identical—which is sort of a challenge with two grooms," Derek says. "We both wore black and white, but in different ways that reflected our personal style." At the end of the night, the newlyweds made their getaway in a vintage Rolls-Royce. "The only thing I wish we had done was get a videographer," Derek says. "We didn't think we wanted one, but after the day is over and you forget and miss so much—it would have been great to have captured the day in a video."


text:
Popular SciencePopular Science gives our readers the information and tools to improve
their technology and their world. The core belief that Popular
Science and our readers share: The future is going to be better, and
science and technology are the driving forces that will help make it
better. |
Common terms and phrases
alarm battery BELSAW bonding agent Bone Fone build burglar burglar alarm cassette catalog color concrete cost coupon credit card cylinder Dept designed detectors diesel Dodge Charger door electric electrolysis electronic energy engine factory fuel Guardex handling headphones heat hydrogen inches infrared infrared detectors install insulation JS&A K band Kit Car light MasterCard Mercury LN7 microcassette models Name Address Optional P.O. Box panels percent photovoltaic photovoltaic array plans plug Pocket Concert Hall Popular Science Popular Science Book portable problem projects pump radar radio rear resurfacing sales tax says SEPTEMBER 1981 signal slab Smokey Yunick solar cells solar greenhouse SOLAR ROOM sound speed stereo storage stove tape there's tiles tion TOLL-FREE unit Visa wall warranty wood


text:
2013 marks the 10th anniversary of the launch of the Volunteer Ministers Cavalcades, making the help of the Volunteer Minister available to communities the world over.
The Volunteer Minister program was developed in 1976. Observing the rapid decline of morality and ethics of the late 1960s and 1970s and soaring crime and drug abuse, L. Ron Hubbard initiated the program to provide tools anyone could use to improve the quality of life for his family, friends and community.
Volunteer Ministers Cavalcade tents are erected in city centers and at sports events, fairs and festivals. Each is equipped to deliver seminars, courses and workshops to hundreds of people at a time, all free of charge and open to everyone.
Those visiting the Volunteer Ministers Cavalcade tent are invited to learn any of 19 different life skills including how to resolve conflicts, salvage relationships, restore honesty and integrity, overcome drug addiction, and achieve targets and goals.
In 2004 and 2005, this was further expanded with Volunteer Ministers Goodwill Tours that travel off the beaten track in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Siberia, the Pacific Islands, South Asia, Africa, the Australian Outback and along the Amazon River.
By applying what they have learned to their friends and families, Volunteer Ministers carry out the intention of the program as expressed by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard: "Of course, if one is going to find fault with something, it implies that he wishes to do something about it and would if he could. If one does not like the crime, cruelty, injustice and violence of this society, he can do something about it. He can become a Volunteer Minister and help civilize it, bring it conscience and kindness and love and freedom from travail by instilling into it trust, decency, honesty and tolerance."
Transcending all ethnic, cultural and religious boundaries, the Volunteer Minister program is there for anyone in need of help. Volunteer Minister training is available free of charge through the Scientology Volunteer Ministers website to anyone who wishes to help others.