text:
The scene in this cozy Atlanta living room would -- at first glance -- warm an early feminist's heart. Gathered by the fireplace one recent evening, sipping wine and nibbling cheese, are the members of a book club, each of them a beneficiary of all that feminists of 30-odd years ago held dear.
The eight women in the room have each earned a degree from Princeton, which was a citadel of everything male until the first co-educated class entered in 1969. And after Princeton, the women of this book club went on to do other things that women once were not expected to do. They received law degrees from Harvard and Columbia. They chose husbands who could keep up with them, not simply support them. They waited to have children because work was too exciting. They put on power suits and marched off to take on the world.
Yes, if an early feminist could peer into this scene, she would feel triumphant about the future. Until, of course, any one of these polished and purposeful women opened her mouth.
''I don't want to be on the fast track leading to a partnership at a prestigious law firm,'' says Katherine Brokaw, who left that track in order to stay home with her three children. ''Some people define that as success. I don't.''
''I don't want to be famous; I don't want to conquer the world; I don't want that kind of life,'' says Sarah McArthur Amsbary, who was a theater artist and teacher and earned her master's degree in English, then stepped out of the work force when her daughter was born. ''Maternity provides an escape hatch that paternity does not. Having a baby provides a graceful and convenient exit.''
Wander into any Starbucks in any Starbucks kind of neighborhood in the hours after the commuters are gone. See all those mothers drinking coffee and watching over toddlers at play? If you look past the Lycra gym clothes and the Internet-access cellphones, the scene could be the 50's, but for the fact that the coffee is more expensive and the mothers have M.B.A.'s.
We've gotten so used to the sight that we've lost track of the fact that this was not the way it was supposed to be. Women -- specifically, educated professional women -- were supposed to achieve like men. Once the barriers came down, once the playing field was leveled, they were supposed to march toward the future and take rightful ownership of the universe, or at the very least, ownership of their half. The women's movement was largely about grabbing a fair share of power -- making equal money, standing at the helm in the macho realms of business and government and law. It was about running the world.
''We thought there would be a woman president by now,'' says Marie Wilson, director of the Ms. Foundation for Women and president of the White House Project, who has been fighting to increase the representation of women in work and politics since 1975. ''We expected that women would be leading half the companies in this country, that there would be parity on boards.'' Instead, Wilson has just finished a book that includes an examination, in her words, of ''how far we haven't come,'' titled ''Closing the Leadership Gap: Why Women Can and Must Help Run the World.''
Arguably, the barriers of 40 years ago are down. Fifty percent of the undergraduate class of 2003 at Yale was female; this year's graduating class at Berkeley Law School was 63 percent women; Harvard was 46 percent; Columbia was 51. Nearly 47 percent of medical students are women, as are 50percent of undergraduate business majors (though, interestingly, about 30percent of M.B.A. candidates). They are recruited by top firms in all fields. They start strong out of the gate.
And then, suddenly, they stop. Despite all those women graduating from law school, they comprise only 16 percent of partners in law firms. Although men and women enter corporate training programs in equal numbers, just 16 percent of corporate officers are women, and only eight companies in the Fortune 500 have female C.E.O.'s. Of 435 members of the House of Representatives, 62 are women; there are 14 women in the 100-member Senate.
Measured against the way things once were, this is certainly progress. But measured against the way things were expected to be, this is a revolution stalled. During the 90's, the talk was about the glass ceiling, about women who were turned away at the threshold of power simply because they were women. The talk of this new decade is less about the obstacles faced by women than it is about the obstacles faced by mothers. As Joan C. Williams, director of the Program on WorkLife Law at American University, wrote in the Harvard Women's Law Journal last spring, ''Many women never get near'' that glass ceiling, because ''they are stopped long before by the maternal wall.''
Look, for example, at the Stanford class of '81. Fifty-seven percent of mothers in that class spent at least a year at home caring for their infant children in the first decade after graduation. One out of four have stayed home three or more years. Look at Harvard Business School. A survey of women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 found that only 38 percent were working full time. Look at professional women in surveys across the board. Between one-quarter and one-third are out of the work force, depending on the study and the profession. Look at the United States Census, which shows that the number of children being cared for by stay-at-home moms has increased nearly 13 percent in less than a decade. At the same time, the percentage of new mothers who go back to work fell from 59 percent in 1998 to 55 percent in 2000.
Look, too, at the mothers who have not left completely but have scaled down or redefined their roles in the crucial career-building years (25 to 44). Two-thirds of those mothers work fewer than 40 hours a week -- in other words, part time. Only 5 percent work 50 or more hours weekly. Women leave the workplace to strike out on their own at equally telling rates; the number of businesses owned or co-owned by women jumped 11 percent since 1997, nearly twice the rate of businesses in general.
Look at how all these numbers compare with those of men. Of white men with M.B.A.'s, 95 percent are working full time, but for white women with M.B.A.'s, that number drops to 67 percent. (Interestingly, the numbers for African-American women are closer to those for white men than to those for white women.)
And look at the women of this Atlanta book club. A roomful of Princeton women each trained as well as any man. Of the 10 members, half are not working at all; one is in business with her husband; one works part time; two freelance; and the only one with a full-time job has no children.
Social scientists -- most of them women -- have made a specialty in recent years of studying why all this is so. Joan Williams (''Unbending Gender''), Sylvia Ann Hewlett (''Creating a Life''), Arlie Russell Hochschild (who coined the phrase ''the second shift'') and Felice N. Schwartz (who made popular the phrase ''the mommy track''), to name just a few, have done important work about how the workplace has failed women.
But to talk to the women of the book club -- or to the women of a San Francisco mothers' group with whom I also spent time, or the dozens of other women I interviewed, or the countless women I have come to know during the four years I have reported on the intersection of life and work -- is to sense that something more is happening here. It's not just that the workplace has failed women. It is also that women are rejecting the workplace.
I say this with the full understanding that there are ambitious, achieving women out there who are the emotional and professional equals of any man, and that there are also women who stayed the course, climbed the work ladder without pause and were thwarted by lingering double standards and chauvinism. I also say this knowing that to suggest that women work differently than men -- that they leave more easily and find other parts of life more fulfilling -- is a dangerous and loaded statement.
And lastly, I am very aware that, for the moment, this is true mostly of elite, successful women who can afford real choice -- who have partners with substantial salaries and health insurance -- making it easy to dismiss them as exceptions. To that I would argue that these are the very women who were supposed to be the professional equals of men right now, so the fact that so many are choosing otherwise is explosive.
As these women look up at the ''top,'' they are increasingly deciding that they don't want to do what it takes to get there. Women today have the equal right to make the same bargain that men have made for centuries -- to take time from their family in pursuit of success. Instead, women are redefining success. And in doing so, they are redefining work.
Time was when a woman's definition of success was said to be her apple-pie recipe. Or her husband's promotion. Or her well-turned-out children. Next, being successful required becoming a man. Remember those awful padded-shoulder suits and floppy ties? Success was about the male definition of money and power.
There is nothing wrong with money or power. But they come at a high price. And lately when women talk about success they use words like satisfaction, balance and sanity.
That's why a recent survey by the research firm Catalyst found that 26percent of women at the cusp of the most senior levels of management don't want the promotion. And it's why Fortune magazine found that of the 108 women who have appeared on its list of the top 50 most powerful women over the years, at least 20 have chosen to leave their high-powered jobs, most voluntarily, for lives that are less intense and more fulfilling.
It's why President Bush's adviser Karen Hughes left the White House, saying her family was homesick and wanted to go back to Austin. It's why Brenda C. Barnes, who was the president and C.E.O. of Pepsi-Cola North America, left that job to move back to Illinois with her family. And it's why Wendy Chamberlin, who was ambassador to Pakistan, resigned, because security concerns meant she never saw her two young daughters.
Why don't women run the world?
Maybe it's because they don't want to.
Attitudes cluster in place and time. This is particularly true of a college campus, where one-quarter of the student population turns over every year. Undergraduates tend to think that the school they find is the one that always was, with no knowledge of the worldview of those even a few short years before. Looked at that way, the women of the Atlanta book club are a panoramic snapshot of change.
Sally Sears, the oldest of the group, entered Princeton in the fall of 1971. Women had been fully admitted two years earlier, and the school was still very much a boys club. Sears had gone to a small public school in Alabama and entered college ''very conscious of being a representative of women and a representative of the South.'' As she describes it, the air was electric with feminism. ''Margaret Mead came to talk one night, and I was stunned by how penetrating her questions were about what it was like to be the first women,'' she says. ''I thought, my God, she's thinking of us as Samoans.''
Upon graduation in 1975, Sears felt both entitled and obligated to make good. ''The clear message was, 'You've been given the key to a kingdom that used to be denied to people like you,''' she says. ''It never occurred to me that my choices would be proscribed. I could have anything I wanted.''
What she wanted, at first, was to be ''a confirmed single person, childless, a world traveler.'' She spent a couple of years running The Childersburg Star, a small Alabama newspaper owned by her family, and then, in 1978, she took a job on the air at a television station in Birmingham. That led to a job in Memphis, followed by a yearlong trip around the world, then another TV job in Dallas. By 1984 she was on the air in Atlanta, where she became a local celebrity and where she met Richard Belcher, a fellow reporter and now a local anchor. They were married in 1988, when Sears was 35.
Three years later, their son, Will, was born. Soldiers of feminism take only the shortest of maternity leaves, and as soon as Sears recovered from her C-section she was back at work. The O.J. Simpson trial was the first real test of what she calls ''work plus love plus a child,'' because both she and her husband were sent out to California for the duration. ''I got my mom and dad to bring Will out, and we all camped out at the New Otani Hotel for a few weeks,'' she says. ''I was determined not to blink.''
By the time Katherine Brokaw arrived on campus, seven years after Sears got there, women were no longer a curiosity. ''I guess I knew I was a significant minority,'' Brokaw says, ''but I never felt like I didn't belong there.''
Clearly she belonged there. She'd been scoring off the charts on tests since she started taking them, and by seventh grade she was a serious student of Latin and French. In high school she added ancient Greek and slam-dunked her SAT's. Two of the best classics departments in the country were at Princeton and Harvard; she was accepted to both and chose Princeton.
When Brokaw and her classmates spoke of the future, it was not about blazing paths, as Sears's generation had done, but it was certainly not about fitting work around motherhood either. ''I always knew I wanted to get married and have children,'' she says, ''but I was looking at careers in terms of what would I find intellectually stimulating and personally fulfilling.''
Brokaw thought briefly about pursuing a Ph.D. in classics. Worried that she would chafe within the ivory tower, she opted for law school instead. Because she would be paying for her law degree herself, she worked for several years -- first as the principal speechwriter for Gov. Thomas Kean of New Jersey and then as the speechwriter for the March of Dimes Foundation. She began Columbia Law School in the fall of 1987. There she met a student at the business school, and they were married in 1990.
Success followed her to Columbia, in the form of a spot on a prestigious law journal, internships at New York's top law firms and a job offer from every firm to which she applied. She also nabbed a clerkship with a federal judge and then went on to become an associate at the firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell.
After Brokaw had been at Davis Polk for a year, her husband was offered a position in Atlanta that was worth the move. The change was particularly appealing to Brokaw, because Atlanta offered her something that Manhattan could not -- an easy commute. ''I could practice law in a top firm and still be only 10 minutes from home,'' she says. ''It seemed like an ideal way to have children and a career.''
Three years later she became pregnant for the first time and went into labor at the office at 9:30 one November night. During her three-month maternity leave she had access to the firm's e-mail system through her laptop and then went back to work full time, ''which was always my intention.''
At first, she says, her new equation was ''more manageable'' than she had expected. She had a ''wonderful nanny,'' and for a couple of months, her workload was relatively light. Her hours were regular; she took her breast pump to the office. But that didn't last. In mid-May she learned that a major case, on which she was the lead associate, had been moved up on the calendar by the presiding judge and would go to trial in mid-August.
For the next three months Brokaw worked a crushing schedule, up to 15-hour days, seven days a week, while still nursing her daughter, who was not sleeping through the night. When the trial date came, she was exhausted but prepared. That morning, though, the judge postponed the case, and by the end of the week he announced that he had taken it off his calendar indefinitely. Later Brokaw would learn that he had decided to go fishing for two weeks.
That Sears and Brokaw were schooled in different generations is made clear by the different ways they gave up their jobs. Sears took nine years to quit. And she did so with great regret. ''I would have hung in there, except the days kept getting longer and longer,'' she explains. ''My five-day 50-hour week was becoming a 60-hour week.'' As news reports could be transmitted farther and farther from the ''mother ship,'' she found herself an hour or two from home when the nightly news was done. ''Will was growing up, and I was driving home from a fire,'' she says. ''I knew there would always be wrecks and fires, but there wouldn't always be his childhood.''
First she tried to reduce her schedule. ''The station would not give me a part-time contract,'' she says. ''They said it was all or nothing.'' So in August 2000, she walked away from her six-figure income and became a homeroom mom at her son's school.
''It was wrenching for me to leave Channel 2,'' she says. ''I miss being the lioness in the newsroom -- to walk through and have the interns say, 'There she goes.' It kills me that I'm not contributing to my 401(k) anymore. I do feel somehow that I let the cause down.''
Brokaw, while torn about leaving, did so without nearly as much guilt or angst as Sears. She did not think for a moment that she had failed the movement, though she did wonder whether she had failed herself. Even while she was preparing for her trial she raised the possibility of a part-time schedule. She wrote a proposal that was circulated among the partners, and some back-and-forth had begun about, among other things, whether reduced hours would count as time toward partnership.
''Every once in a while I would raise my head from the grind of getting this case ready and I would say, 'Where are we with my proposal?''' she remembers. ''Finally, when the case was pulled from the calendar, I did a lot of soul-searching. My life, my home life and my new family life were at the mercy of other people's whims. The judge had chosen to go fishing. My partners had chosen not to place my request on high-enough priority.''
One night she and her husband sat down, and he asked, ''What is the ultimate goal?''
''In theory,'' she answered, ''the goal is to become a partner.''
''Does your life get better or worse if you become a partner?''
''Well, financially it gets better, but in terms of my actual life, it gets worse.''
And that is when Brokaw quit. She now cares full time for that eldest daughter, as well as the two children who followed. ''I wish it had been possible to be the kind of parent I want to be and continue with my legal career,'' she says, ''but I wore myself out trying to do both jobs well.''
Fast-forward a decade, and compare the decision that Brokaw, class of '82, made with that of Vicky McElhaney Benedict, class of '91. ''Even before I became a mother, I suspected I wouldn't go back to work,'' she says.
The Princeton Benedict entered was on its way to complete coeducation, and, she says, ''I never felt discriminated against in any way.'' From there she went to Duke University School of Law, where she met her future husband, who was there earning his M.B.A. A native of Dallas, she ''had fabulous offers from firms back home, but I didn't take them,'' she says. Though not yet engaged, she decided to follow Charlie Benedict to Atlanta instead, ''where I joined a law firm that was not as high-profile.'' She made the choice, she says, looking back on it, ''because I knew that the long-term career was going to be his.''
The couple were married in 1995. Benedict quit her law job after nine months and began working in the development office of Emory University. Her daughter was born in 1998, and she quit that job while on maternity leave. Her son was born three years later, and she says she is secure with her decision.
''This is what I was meant to do,'' she says. ''I hate to say that because it sounds like I could have skipped college. But I mean this is what I was meant to do at this time. I know that's very un-p.c., but I like life's rhythms when I'm nurturing a child.
''I've had people tell me that it's women like me that are ruining the workplace because it makes employers suspicious,'' she continues. ''I don't want to take on the mantle of all womanhood and fight a fight for some sister who isn't really my sister because I don't even know her.''
These are fighting words of a most retro sort, and, no doubt, a 70's feminist peering in the window would be confused at best and depressed at worst. But unmapped roads are not, de facto, dead ends. Is this a movement that failed, or one reborn? What does this evolving spectrum of demands and choices tell us about women? And what does it mean for the future?
Katherine Brokaw and I were classmates. We did not know one another well at school, but the Princeton she describes was the one that I knew too. We were told we could be anything then, which we took to mean we could do everything, and all of it at the same time. We felt powerful and privileged when it came to being women (and, let's face it, only during freshman year did we learn to actually call ourselves women). Any generalization is dangerous, but for the most part we didn't feel the same obligation to succeed as the women before us, nor were we bordering on blasé, like those who would follow.
I rarely thought about combining life and work while I was at Princeton. In fact I never remember using the two words together in the same sentence. The only choice I thought I had to make was between journalism and law. Having chosen the former, I set my sights on the highest goal I could think of -- becoming editor of this newspaper, perhaps, or at least editor of this magazine -- and figured the path would be upward and linear. Then I got down to work.
I enjoyed the work -- loved the work -- but life got in the way. My first readjustments were practical; while a national correspondent in Houston I learned you can't hop on a plane every morning to explore the wilds of Texas while leaving a nursing baby back home.
Quickly, though, my choices became more philosophical. My second son was born while I was back in New York, working as a metro reporter. I decided to leave that full-time job in the newsroom for a more flexible freelance life writing from home, and I must admit that it was not a change I made only because my children needed me. It's more accurate to say I was no longer willing to work as hard -- commuting, navigating office politics, having my schedule be at the whim of the news, balancing all that with the needs of a family -- for a prize I was learning I didn't really want.
I will never run this paper. But I will write for it, into old age, I hope, and that piece of the work is enough for me. Much of the writing I do now is in the form of a biweekly column for The Times about life and work. Over the years I have written more than 100,000 words and received more than 10,000 e-mail messages from readers on the subject. It's not a scientific sample, but it is a continuing conversation, and a surprising amount of the talk is not about how the workplace is unfair to women, but about how the relationship between work and life is different for women than for men.
''Sometimes I worry that we're really just a little bit lazier,'' Sears says. ''But in my heart of hearts, I think it's really because we're smarter. Maybe evolution has endowed us with the ability to turn back our rheostat faster, to not always charge ahead after one all-consuming thing. To prefer a life not with one pot boiling but with a lot of pots simmering; to prefer the patchwork quilt, not the down comforter. Oh, God, would you listen to these domestic analogies? Are they really coming out of my mouth?''
Sarah Amsbary also raises the question of biology. ''It's all in the M.R.I.,'' she says, of studies that show the brains of men and women ''light up'' differently when they think or feel. And those different brains, she argues, inevitably make different choices. Amsbary graduated with a degree in English, not science, in 1988, and while at Princeton she was one of the first women in the University Cottage Club, which, when I was there, was still an all-male eating club known for attracting preppy good ol' boys. I can only imagine that being the first woman in such a place was its own kind of Darwinian experience.
When I talk to Jeannie Tarkenton, another member of the book club, biology comes up yet again. ''I think some of us are swinging to a place where we enjoy, and can admit we enjoy, the stereotypical role of female/mother/caregiver,'' Tarkenton says. ''I think we were born with those feelings.''
Tarkenton graduated in 1992 and worked first in publishing and then on the start-up of the Atlanta Girls' School, until she had her first child in 2000. She went back and worked three days a week, until her second child was born last year. ''I didn't want to work that hard,'' she says of her decision to quit completely. ''Women today, if we think about feminism at all, we see it as a battle fought for 'the choice.' For us, the freedom to choose work if we want to work is the feminist strain in our lives.''
When these women blame biology, they do so apologetically, and I find the tone as interesting as the words. Any parent can tell you that children are hard-wired from birth: this one is shy, this one is outgoing; this one is laid-back; this one is intense. They were born that way. And any student of the animal kingdom will tell you that males and females of a species act differently. Male baboons leave their mothers; female baboons stay close for life. The female kangaroo is oblivious to her young; the male seahorse carries fertilized eggs to term. Susan Allport, a naturalist, writes in her book ''A Natural History of Parenting,'' ''Males provide direct childcare in less than 5 percent of mammalian species, but in over 90 percent of bird species both male and female tend to their young.''
In other words, we accept that humans are born with certain traits, and we accept that other species have innate differences between the sexes. What we are loath to do is extend that acceptance to humans. Partly that's because absolute scientific evidence one way or the other is impossible to collect. But mostly it is because so much of recent history (the civil rights movement, the women's movement) is an attempt to prove that biology is not destiny. To suggest otherwise is to resurrect an argument that can be -- and has been -- dangerously misused.
''I am so conflicted on this,'' says Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, an anthropologist and author of ''Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants and Natural Selection.'' Female primates, she says, are ''competitive'' in that they seek status within their social order. So it would follow that women strive for status too.
But there is an important qualifier. When primates compete, they do so in ways that increase the survival chances of their offspring. In other words, they do it for their children. ''At this moment in Western civilization,'' Hrdy says, ''seeking clout in a male world does not correlate with child well-being. Today, striving for status usually means leaving your children with an au pair who's just there for a year, or in inadequate day care. So it's not that women aren't competitive; it's just that they don't want to compete along the lines that are not compatible with their other goals.
''I'm very interested in my family and my environment and my work, not in forging ahead and climbing a power structure,'' Hrdy explains by way of personal illustration. ''That is one of the inherent differences between the sexes.'' Then she warns, ''But to turn that into dogma -- women are caring, men are not, or men should have power, women should not, that's dangerous and false.''
In a loftlike apartment in San Francisco, a weekly play group is meeting over lunch. Lisa Tafuri Krim is ''hands down'' the best cook in the group, the other mothers all agree, as they grab bites of her crepes with goat cheese and tomato while chasing their toddlers. The conversation, mostly about food allergies and baby music classes and coming birthday parties, occasionally drifts toward the faraway world of work.
''I got a call from a guy that I hired,'' says Krim (University of Michigan '93; Harvard Business School '98), who is working part time now at a brand-consulting firm she joined before she became pregnant. ''Now he's way ahead of me on the ladder. He calls and says, 'Hi, stay-at-home mom.'''
The women of this play group did not know each other when they were matched, purely on the basis of their children's ages, by the Golden Gate Mothers Group, an organization designed to make it easier to be a mom in San Francisco. But when they made their introductions at their first gathering more than a year ago, they saw themselves reflected in the capsule descriptions of one another's lives.
''Everyone had an M.B.A.,'' says Tracey Liao Van Hooser, the only one in the present group without one, though she does have a degree from Brown University and a decade of work in advertising and marketing to add to the cumulative résumé. ''It was wonderful to find a group of women who had made the same decisions I had. This play group is the reason I feel so happy with my choice.''
Since that first meeting, and even in the months since I first spent an afternoon with them this summer, those capsule descriptions have changed. Van Hooser, still home full time with Jack, is now pregnant with her second child. Anne Kresse (Stanford '91, U.C.L.A. '98), who had been working four days a week as a senior marketing manager and spending one day with Jackson, switched to three days, then just last month, quit completely. She's pregnant again, too. Courtney Klinge, on the other hand (Colgate '88, Harvard '95), had stayed home for a year and a half with her daughters, Eliana and Paulina, but last month she went back to work three days a week.
All that coming and going, they say, is the entire point. ''This is not permanent,'' Kresse says. ''It's not black and white; it's gray. You're working. Then you're not working. Then maybe you're working part time or consulting. Then you go back. This is a chapter, not the whole book.''
Van Hooser says: ''I am not a housewife. Is there still any such thing? I am doing what is right for me at the moment, not necessarily what is right for me forever.''
Talk to any professional woman who made this choice, and this is what she will say. She is not her mother or her grandmother. She has made a temporary decision for just a few years, not a permanent decision for the rest of her life. She has not lost her skills, just put them on hold.
''I'm calling this my 'maternity leave,''' Sears says. ''As long as I have the chit on the table that says 'This is not forever,' then I feel O.K. about it.''
Brokaw agrees, protesting, ''Don't make me look like some 1950's Stepford wife.'' In the years since she left her law firm, she has helped found the Atlanta Girls' School (the same place where Tarkenton once worked) and also raised a successful challenge to a bridge that was to have spilled its traffic into her residential neighborhood. ''I use my legal skills every day.''
Don't look at her as something out of ''The Bell Jar'' either. She is not trapped. This is a choice. And don't worry for her that she will have no resources should something happen to her spouse, his career or their marriage, she insists. ''My degree is my insurance policy.''
But is it enough insurance? Not only in the event that she needs to go back to work, but also when the time comes, that she wants to. Because at the moment, it is unclear what women like these will be able to go back to. This is the hot button of the work-life debate at the moment, a question on which the future of women and work might well hinge. For all the change happening in the office, the challenge of returning workers -- those who opted out completely, and those who ratcheted back -- is barely even starting to be addressed.
If that workplace can reabsorb those who left into a career they find fulfilling, then stepping out may in fact be the answer to the frustrations of this generation. If not, then their ability to balance life and work will be no different than their mothers', after all.
On the one hand, there are examples out there of successful women whose careers were not linear. Shirley Tilghman, president of Princeton and the first woman to run the university, spent years deflecting administrative jobs -- exactly the sort of jobs that traditionally lead to becoming university president. And Ann Fudge, now chairman and C.E.O. of Young & Rubicam, left the fast track for two years to travel the world with her husband and help start a tutoring program for African-American children.
There are also trends working in these women's favor. One legacy of the dot-com era is that nonlinear career tracks are more accepted and employers are less put off by a résumé with gaps and zigzags. Second, a labor shortage is looming in the coming decade, just as this cohort of women may well be planning to re-enter the work force.
On the other hand, the current economy is hardly welcoming to re-entrants, and the traditional workplace structure does not include a Welcome Back mat. ''As a society we have become very good at building offramps,'' says Sylvia Ann Hewlett, who caused a stir last year with her book, ''Creating a Life,'' which postulated that the more successful the woman the less likely she was to marry or have children. ''But we are seriously lacking onramps.''
Hewlett has recently founded the Center for Work-Life Policy and, along with Cornel West, a Princeton professor, and Carolyn Buck Luce, a senior partner at Ernst & Young, has created a task force to study what she calls the ''hidden brain drain'' of women and minorities from the work force. (I have been invited to join that group.) Task-force members include representatives from a wide range of power bases -- large law firms, accounting firms, investment banks and universities -- who are coming to recognize that it is not enough to promote and retain talent. You have to acknowledge that talented workers will leave, and you have to find a way to help them come back.
The task force begins its work this winter. But Hewlett's preliminary research makes her pessimistic about what today's women will face when they want to return to work. At any given time, she says, ''two-thirds of all women who quit their career to raise children'' are ''seeking to re-enter professional life and finding it exceedingly difficult. These women may think they can get back in,'' she said, when I told her of what I had been hearing in San Francisco and Atlanta and on my own suburban street, where half the women with children at home are not working and where the jobs they quit include law partner and investment banker. ''But my data show that it's harder than they anticipate. Are they going to live to the age of 83 and realize that they opted out of a career?''
If so, they say they are braced for the trade-off. ''I don't know how you just step out for three to five years until your kids are in kindergarten and then announce to the world that you're ready to pull out your résumé and take on the challenging, fulfilling job that you deserve,'' Kresse says. ''If and when I go back, it may never be full time. So given that I'm going to be a part-time person, is it also a given that my male colleagues are going to get ahead of me? Or is it going to be a meritocracy where talent really does matter most? I can't know that now.''
Some are already preparing for re-entry by working part time. Sally Sears is one. The same television station that refused to give her a part-time contract in 2000 has started calling her in for periodic projects: a week of work during the summer while her son was at camp; five days straight when the Legislature opened its session. ''The benefit to them is they get a seasoned, savvy reporter to grab the ball and run,'' she says. ''And the benefit to me -- I get to say no.''
Brokaw was asked back, too, but she declined -- for now. In the years since she left, her law firm has allowed several litigators to work a shorter week, and she has watched them struggle. One of those litigators, a member of the book club who would not let me use her name, asks: ''How do you litigate part time? It's supposed to be 10 to 5 -- at a law firm, that's part time -- but lately I've been working until 4 a.m. because I have a project due. It's the type of job where if something's due, you work until it's done.''
For the moment, therefore, the future is a question mark. ''I assume my daughter will work,'' Jeannie Tarkenton says, ''and I want to give her some example of working women as she grows up. I plan for this example to come from me, somehow. Maybe it will be part-time work, maybe full time, or maybe just through stories about the 10 years I worked before she arrived.''
There is a powerful institution run largely by women: Princeton University. Shirley Tilghman is a molecular biologist who took the top job more than two years ago. Her provost, Amy Gutmann, is a professor of politics and was dean of the faculty before being appointed to the post by Tilghman.
Of the five academic deans who report to Gutmann, three are women: Nancy Weiss Malkiel, a historian, is dean of the college; Maria M. Klawe is dean of the school of engineering; Anne-Marie Slaughter, a lawyer, is dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. On top of that, Janet Lavin Rapelye is the new dean of admissions.
This has not gone unnoticed. One member of the class of '41 wrote to the Princeton Alumni Weekly magazine that since ''we now have a lady president and a lady second in command, to save time I recommend that the trustees promptly convert Princeton to a single-sex female university and be done with it.'' Another wrote to suggest that the name of the school be changed to ''Princesstonia.''
Tilghman says she was not really surprised by this old-guard crankiness. These were the same alums, she says, who objected to coeducation in the first place, arguing that women would not donate large amounts to their alma mater after they graduated. Meg Whitman, class of 1977 and president and C.E.O. of ebay Inc. seems to have silenced that objection with her recent $30 million gift.
What did surprise Tilghman, though, was the reaction -- or lack of reaction -- from current female students. Last spring, after one of these new deans was appointed, The Daily Princetonian ran an editorial suggesting that the president was practicing ''gender-based affirmative action.'' Tilghman waited for the women on campus to ''rise up in protest'' at the implication that ''the only way you can possibly justify appointing a woman is in the interest of affirmative action, because, after all, it couldn't possibly be because they were the best person for the job.''
But nothing of the sort happened. ''Have these young women internalized the idea that women really do not lead?'' she asks sadly. ''There was a time when that kind of thinking would have inspired outrage.''
One such time was in 1968, when Tilghman graduated from Queens University in Kingston, Ontario. ''I am very much a child of that revolution,'' she says of the early years of the women's movement. ''I came of age at the time when Betty Friedan set things in motion, and it had a tremendous impact on my life. It opened doors for me,'' as a woman in the sciences, ''beyond a shadow of a doubt.''
Now Tilghman finds herself presiding over a new generation, one that is, arguably, more accomplished and more qualified than any that has come before, but one that is not at all sure what to do with all that talent. She raised her son and daughter on her own (she was divorced when her children were young), and she is more than aware of the compromises made both at work and at home. She sees the effect those compromises have had, particularly on her daughter, a 2003 Princeton graduate.
''A life in science, combined with motherhood, meant leaving undone a lot of things I might have wanted to do,'' she says. ''There were books I wished I had read, courses I wished I had taken, community service I wished I had done, places I wished I had seen, friends I wished I had made -- but time constraints made this impossible.'' Her daughter, she says, ''is not as ambitious as I was. I think she saw the trade-offs that I made as ones she might not be prepared to make herself. She is looking for more balance in her life.''
Other members of that generation seem to feel the same way, Tilghman says. She and I had dinner one night in a dining room of Prospect House, where university presidents, including Woodrow Wilson, used to live. We were joined there by Gutmann and Slaughter. Pointing at them, Tilghman said, ''I think that for every one person who looks at an Amy or an Ann-Marie and says, 'I want to be like her,' there are three who say, 'I want to be anything but her.'''
Tilghman is now a leader. In that role she wonders how to educate women to enter this shades-of-gray world and how to create an environment for her own staff that encourages a balanced life. But Tilghman is also a scientist, and she suspects that policies and committees, while crucially important, cannot change everything. And she wonders whether evolution has done both men and women a disservice.
''My fantasy is a world where there are two kinds of people -- ones who like to stay home and care for children and ones who like to go out and have a career,'' she says. ''In this fantasy, one of these kinds can only marry the other.'' But the way it seems to work now is that ambitious women seem to be attracted to ambitious men. Then when they have children together, ''someone has to become less ambitious.'' And right now, it tends to be the woman who makes that choice.
Sarah McArthur Amsbary of the Atlanta group leads a much-examined life. Back in college, she says, she gave no thought to melding life and work, but now, ''I think about it almost constantly.''
And what she has concluded, after all this thinking, is that the exodus of professional women from the workplace isn't really about motherhood at all. It is really about work. ''There's a misconception that it's mostly a pull toward motherhood and her precious baby that drives a woman to quit her job, or apparently, her entire career,'' she says. ''Not that the precious baby doesn't magnetize many of us. Mine certainly did. As often as not, though, a woman would have loved to maintain some version of a career, but that job wasn't cutting it anymore. Among women I know, quitting is driven as much from the job-dissatisfaction side as from the pull-to-motherhood side.''
She compares all this to a romance gone sour. ''Timing one's quitting to coincide with a baby is like timing a breakup to coincide with graduation,'' she says. ''It's just a whole lot easier than breaking up in the middle of senior year.''
That is the gift biology gives women, she says. It provides pauses, in the form of pregnancy and childbirth, that men do not have. And as the workplace becomes more stressful and all-consuming, the exit door is more attractive. ''Women get to look around every few years and say, 'Is this still what I want to be doing?''' she says. ''Maybe they have higher standards for job satisfaction because there is always the option of being their child's primary caregiver. When a man gets that dissatisfied with his job, he has to stick it out.''
This, I would argue, is why the workplace needs women. Not just because they are 50 percent of the talent pool, but for the very fact that they are more willing to leave than men. That, in turn, makes employers work harder to keep them. It is why the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche has more than doubled the number of employees on flexible work schedules over the past decade and more than quintupled the number of female partners and directors (to 567, from 97) in the same period. It is why I.B.M. employees can request up to 156 weeks of job-protected family time off. It is why Hamot Medical Center in Erie, Pa., hired a husband and wife to fill one neonatology job, with a shared salary and shared health insurance, then let them decide who stays home and who comes to the hospital on any given day. It is why, everywhere you look, workers are doing their work in untraditional ways.
Women started this conversation about life and work -- a conversation that is slowly coming to include men. Sanity, balance and a new definition of success, it seems, just might be contagious. And instead of women being forced to act like men, men are being freed to act like women. Because women are willing to leave, men are more willing to leave, too -- the number of married men who are full-time caregivers to their children has increased 18 percent. Because women are willing to leave, 46 percent of the employees taking parental leave at Ernst & Young last year were men.
Looked at that way, this is not the failure of a revolution, but the start of a new one. It is about a door opened but a crack by women that could usher in a new environment for us all.
Why don't women run the world?
''In a way,'' Amsbary says, ''we really do.''


text:
FUSION ™ Mineral Paint Q. and A.'s
PREP..is not a bad 4 letter word!
Fusion™ Workshops
Find It, Paint It, Love It!
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Jeanne d'Arc Living Magazine-August 2013 Preview
Late Summer.........
You can pre-order your copy on-line at
1 comment:
August 26, 2013 at 4:56 AM
Post a Comment
Newer Post
Older Post
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello Bonjour....
Well this is my first attempt at blogging! It's been quite a year and a half for me. I retired from the Federal Government after 34 years and in October 2006, I started a new retail store called "French Vanilla Home and Garden". In July 2007 I launched my store's e-commerce website and now this....blogging! Who would have thought! Has it been challenging?....a bit, stressful?.... some days, rewarding?....most definitely! I love owning my own retail store, filling it with things I love and helping my customers find that perfect item or gift! I am enjoying this new phase of my life and look forward to learning new things, having new adventures and making new friends along the way!
(established July/2008)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
From inside the book
54 pages matching temple in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 54
What people are saying - Write a review
LibraryThing ReviewUser Review - ruric - LibraryThing
Retelling of many of the Greekl heroic myths in accessible and easy language. Read full review
Kadmos and Harmonia
Danaos and his Daughters
Pelops and Hippodameia
13 other sections not shown
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
According Achilles Agamemnon Aias Aietes Aigeus Akrisios Alkmene allegedly Amazons Amphitryon Antiope Aphrodite Apollo Argonauts Argos Ariadne Artemis Athenians Atreus beast Bellerophontes bore brother brought called Centaur child cult daughter dead death Deianeira Delphi Dionysos Dioskuroi divine Elektryon Euripides Eurystheus Eurytos famous father fell goddess gods golden Greeks Hades hand Harmonia Hektor Helen Hera Herakles Hermes hero Hesperides Hippodameia honour Iolaos Iolkos Iphigeneia island Jason journey Kadmos Kekrops killed king Klytaimnestra Laios later marriage Medeia Meleagros Menelaos mother Mycenae narrators Odysseus Oidipus Oineus Oinomaos oracle Orpheus palace Pallas Athene Peleus Pelias Pelops Persephone Perseus Phrixos poets Poseidon primaeval Proitos queen sacrifice sent Sisyphos sons story tale Tantalos Telephos temple Theban Thebes Theseus Thetis Thracian Thyestes Tiryns told took tragedy Trojans Troy underworld vase-painting wife young Zeus


text:
"In moments of weakness, you will find your greatest strength."
This series is an interesting mix of mystery, family saga, light historical fiction, and romance. It's really one huge story, chopped up into seven parts, so aside from the first one, The Seven Sisters, which introduces the series as well as features the oldest sister Maia, each book stands alone. The fifth instalment is just coming out in Feb 2019, so this series is very much still in progress. The author has shared that the seventh will wrap up the hidden plot running through all of the books, and the full story will be revealed. Questions will finally be answered, like, "Who is the mysterious Pa Salt and who is the seventh sister we haven't met yet, but has a name?"
The Storm Sister is about Ally, a professional competitive sailor and closet musician. When tragedy strikes, Ally must rally (sorry :)) and her journey of recovery brings her (and us) into the classical music world of Edvard Grieg and Henrik Ibsen in Norway.
I'm really enjoying this series, and will definitely carry on with it, but it is not flawless. It's not great literature and a bit too predictable, despite a few twists and turns, but I've enjoyed the historical aspects and the interesting settings around the world. Things do tend to work out rather amazingly well for all of the characters, who are a bit two-dimensional to be honest, but I cannot deny that this is a lovely easy-to-read modern family saga to get lost in. I am reassured also by the fact that this series was recommended to me by a man in my book club whose reading taste I respect, so it does have wide appeal and is worthwhile enough to chase away those 'guilt about indulging in a cheesy romance' feelings. This series just might help me make it through the winter–just one a month, doled out gradually like left-over Halloween candy…:)


text:
This website uses cookies. By continuing to browse this website without changing your browser cookie settings, you agree to let us store cookies. Read more about our use of cookies.
The WELL Building Standard is revolutionizing the way people think about buildings. It explores how design, operations and behaviors within the places where we live, work, learn, and play can be optimized to advance human health and well-being. Covering seven core concepts of health and hundreds of features, WELL is a flexible building standard and represents the future of modern design.


text:
The other Nuggets player to undergo an extreme makeover, along with Kenneth Faried, was center Timofey Mozgov. His season was so good, coach Brian Shaw called him a "diamond in the rough" by its end. His season was so good, other teams called the Nuggets, looking to pry him off the roster via trade. His season was so good, many were left wondering: Why couldn't this guy get on the court before?
Mozgov began the 2013-14 season as a backup center with few expectations, but after starter JaVale McGee went down with a stress fracture five games in, Mozgov took advantage of having more playing time and ended the season as the front-runner to be a starter next season. He had career-high averages in points (9.4), rebounds (6.4) and blocked shots (1.2). He shot 52.3 percent from the field and 75.4 percent from the free-throw line.
His ability, and willingness, to run the court is what stood out most on game tape. Time and time again he ran by slow-footed opponents and earned himself a lot of early post-up opportunities, which he was able to convert. He averaged 1.44 points per possession in transition, ranking 10th in the NBA, according to Synergy Sports, and shot 75.9 percent (41-of-54) in those situations, which, save for five attempts, were all layups and dunks.
But the bulk of his offense came from three areas: post-ups, cuts and in pick-and-roll situations. In the half court, he would often set a screen and move, receive a pass, move it and set another screen. He was deft at ducking in from the weakside to get deep position and a good seal in the post. Mozgov was rarely seen standing still.
A number of things could happen when Mozgov had the ball. First, he could be counted on to turn over his right shoulder to take a left-handed hook almost as often as Kenneth Faried could be counted on to take a right-handed hook. But here's the catch: Mozgov is right-handed and shoots right-handed. And yet he was much more comfortable taking that left-handed hook and would pass up opportunities to turn to his right hand in favor of more difficult attempts with his left pretty regularly.
Second, he generally was a good "feel" player. He was more than willing to roll in pick-and-roll situations, diving to the rim for dunks and layups, but understood when popping out was the correct play. And instead of jacking up any jump shot, Mozgov opted to get the ball back into the hands of a ball handler if things didn't look right. With a green light from Shaw, Mozgov started taking jump shots all the way out to the three-point line by the end of the 2013-14 campaign. But in a lost season we'll forgive him for that. He did, however, make four from beyond the arc.
Defensively, Mozgov was one of the Nuggets' best rim protectors. He nearly mastered the NBA's verticality rule, which for a 7-footer makes it almost impossible to get a shot over when they jump up in the air with arms straight up. Mozgov combined that with the ability to block a shot. His 100 blocked shots ranked 16th in the NBA, and among players who averaged at least 20 minutes per game in a minimum of 50 games, Mozgov's opponent field-goal percentage at the rim (.469) was a tenth of a percentage point more than Chicago's Joakim Noah, the NBA's defensive player of the year.
Mozgov has good feet. He can get out to a shooter and can move laterally with driving offensive players. That helped immensely last season. He contested shots well, and was among the most disciplined Nuggets in defending the pick-and-roll, though he would zone out and be late out to the shooter at times. Spotty overall pick-and-roll coverage by the team also didn't help him other times. But he was most consistent at doing what the coaching staff asked him to do on the defensive end.
Mozgov's two biggest areas of improvement are strength and focus. Lower body strength is a glaring need, and it showed often in his inability to back defenders down on post-ups, and, conversely, hold off big men who were backing him down on their post-ups. The lack of strength caused him to have to rely more on finesse with his post moves instead of being able to ride a defender to the rim, turn, drop step and power up for a dunk. This also showed in his struggle to finish through contact, where strong legs and shoulders help players power through it.
His lack of focus showed up most with turnovers. He committed 122 turnovers during the season, and 61 were bad-pass turnovers or lost-ball turnovers (including dropped passes). His passing turnovers were almost always a result of him being nonchalant with his looks, trying cross-court tosses past multiple defenders — which were stolen — or just generally being too fast instead of taking his time to make a good, crisp pass. Teammates were frustrated at his tendency to drop passes, but he improved his hands as the season moved along and those resulted in just seven of his 122 total turnovers.
Mozgov will enter the fall with the starting center job in his grasp, and he's earned it. A productive summer will help to ensure it's his.


text:
Mind control devices
A generic term for many different devices including the most famous popularly referred to (on da streets!) as the Television, Mind control devices include Womens daily magazines, the day time talk show, 'Magic Eye' pictures (you just need to watch someone trying to do one of those and you'll see what I mean)
The general idea behind all these is to limit (with varying degrees of success) a persons ability to control what they think of and their actions.
Ways to free yourself from these devices include taking a widely available drug called alcohol. The effectiveness of this drug can vary from person to person but most report unusual side effects including a slighhtt slurriring of speaach, feelings of being able to do a matrix style flying kick at a lamp post without injury and thinking that all members of the opposite sex are both incredibly fit and feel the same about you.
Subliminal Messages[edit]
Subliminal messages are vocal commands too quiet to be heard, or visual cues too subtle to be seen. Sometimes you have to play a record backwards to hear them or not. Subliminal messages become liminble is you search for them, a lot. Like if you devote your entire life searching for them and sleep less than an hour a day. Soon you will notice the subliminal messages everywhere, many of which will call you a paranoid lunatic.
Classroom Agreement[edit]
In it's original form, the Classroom Agreement is harmless...kind of. But in the hands of a teacher, it can be used to control the minds of any student it comes in contact with.
Mind Control As a Mind Control Device[edit]
The easiest method of mind control is to tell someone that they're being mind controlled by something you oppose. For example, if you tell someone that liberals are trying to control their mind through the media they'll demonstrate their free will by obediently adopting conservative politics and only reading the bible. If you tell them conservatives are trying to control their mind through voodoo rays they'll obediently vote liberal and wear a tiny tin hat.
Disney Channel[edit]
Disney Channel. I will follow your every command.
Your bidding is my life, Disney Channel.
Form an army to destroy Troy Bolton? Your wish is my command, disney channel.
Destroy Troy Bolton. Destroy Troy Bolton. Destroy troy Bolton...
How to free yourself from mind control effects of Disney Channel[edit]
The interesting thing here, readers, is that the only way to stop watching Disney Channel, is to watch more Disney Channel! you will find that you will grow quite weary of the craziness of this obviously mind-controlling channel, then you will revert your attention to more interesting pursuits such as golf or croquet, or say, shark-hunting.
How to free yourself from mind control[edit]
Try the following phrases:
- Can't you see that's what they want you to think?
- I can't believe you fell for that.
- Don't let them tell you what to do!
- Can't you see you're being manipulated?
- Don't be a follower.
Of course, now that you're aware of this you're subject to mind control as a mind control device as a mind control device.


text:
G. Komen for the Cure, under the guidance of its Scientific Advisory
Board, is re-evaluating its training grants mechanisms. While we are
confident this is a positive step that will result in a more robust and
competitive program, we are also aware that you may have concerns and
questions about funding for fellowships that would begin in mid-2009.
to the complexities and time required to examine a program such as
this, the decision has been made to suspend the Interdisciplinary
Breast Fellowship award for at least the current year. Additionally, no
program renewal offers will be extended at this time.
is currently accepting applications for its Post-Baccalaureate Training
in Disparities Research grant and we will be releasing a Postdoctoral
Fellowship RFA early fall 2008.
For the most up-to-date
information on the Komen grants program, please go to
www.komen.org/grants where you can view all current, open
opportunities. If you have additional questions regarding the current
RFA's, feel free to contact Kendall Bergman at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Read more


text:
After the grim reality of the past weeks' Appropriate Adult, TV One's Sunday night drama slot reverts to British murder tales of escapist fiction.
This one stars Scottish star Ashley Jensen in a marked departure from her memorable supporting roles in Ricky Gervais' Extras and the United States sitcom Ugly Betty.
She plays Sally Wilson, a former nurse and single mother to a teenager who has a brain tumour. Called into a law office one day, Sally finds she has been bequeathed £5 million - but only if she kills someone her anonymous benefactor says deserves to die.
But she can't but help consider the offer as her daughter's only chance is a lifesaving and very expensive operation.
She then confides in her boyfriend, Mark (Max Beesley), a former policeman now working as a security guard.
"I decided I wanted to do a drama about finding the truth in a situation, rather than a truth and a joke and a laugh in a situation," says Jensen of her role in the thriller.
"It is a very high concept drama as the idea of the story is two very ordinary people in an extraordinary situation. Hopefully part of the suspense will be with the audience, who will be thinking: 'Oh no. What would I do in that situation?'
After getting the offer Sally and Mark decide to investigate the man she's meant to kill as well as trying to uncover who has targeted her with the offer and why he's picked her - is it something in her own past? All of which she has to balance with caring for her ailing child.
"Her daughter, Amanda, is the reason Sally is even remotely tempted to become involved in this," Jensen says.
"Some of the scenes were quite painful to do because, as an actor, you do use your imagination and put yourself into these situations.
"I don't know how differently I would have played it if I had not been a mum."
"Sally is a person who, probably like most people in Britain, has never held a gun before. She has never been given £5 million before, she has never been on the run from anyone, she has never had to chase anyone, and neither has she ever been in a life-or-death situation in that manner before."
"It's two little people in this big world having to make this massive choice. They appear to be insignificant people with massive problems to deal with. It's all about feeling isolated and lonely within their own little bubble."
The Reckoning received mixed reviews when broadcast on ITV in Britain but many singled out the show's lead performance. The Independent said: "Jensen, better known to most of us for playing comedy, did the rest, turning what could have been an exercise in unadulterated daftness into a pretty gripping thriller."
When: 8.30pm, Sunday
Where: TV One
What: Deadly proposal
Comedy pick: Underemployed
With a premise similar to HBO's successful series Girls, comedy-drama Underemployed follows the fortunes of five college graduates as they try to get their lives on track.
There's wannabe writer Sofia (played by New Zealander Michelle Ang, from Outrageous Fortune), budding lawyer Lou, music industry hopeful Raviva, aspiring model Miles, and ambitious Daphne.
They all reckon they have potential for greatness in their chosen fields but reality sets in as they struggle their way through working odd jobs, romantic misfortunes and the other stuff that life unexpectedly throws at them.
In the first episode Sofia goes from thinking she can change the world - at least that's what she tells everyone - to working in a fast food joint, and Raviva's music dream is put on hold.
When: Monday, 9.30pm
Where: MTV
What: Life and other catastrophes
Documentary pick: Ewan McGregor: Cold Chain Mission
Just as he's appearing in The Impossible, a film about the Boxing Day tsunami, Ewan McGregor is also fronting this worthy two-part documentary.
In Cold Chain Mission, McGregor works with Unicef, following the complicated networks that have to be put in place for the distribution of vaccines in order to immunise children in hard to reach parts of the planet. Because vaccines must be kept cold the distribution routes must shift them from freezer to freezer - hence the title - which can be tricky in countries with fragile infrastructures.
In the first part, McGregor heads to the Himalayas. In the second, he's in the hinterland of the Republic of Congo. Through McGregor's warm and empathetic delivery, the documentary delivers an intriguing picture of helping half the world's children.
When: Sunday, 8.30pm
Where: Living Channel
What: Getting vaccines to those who need them
Finale pick: Private Practice
It's been a turbulent year for the staff at the Santa Monica clinic, and this final in the show's penultimate season delivers yet more ethical dilemmas.
Amelia goes into labour, and despite having consulted with Jake about donating her baby's organs to other children (as her child will be, in effect, born without a brain), the rest of the team find themselves in a tricky legal position - they can't declare brain death in a baby without one, but if they wait for the baby to die naturally the organs will no longer be viable.
Meanwhile, Pete is in jail without parole after his hearing for taking a patient off life support; and Addison finds herself juggling the needs of Amelia, her newly adopted son, and Sam and Jake. Is Sam finally ready to have a family with her, or is Jake the one she needs?
When: Monday, 9.30pm
Where: TV2
What: Difficult decisions for the team at Seaside Health
Finale pick: CSI: Miami
After 10 seasons and countless murders it's time for Horatio (David Caruso) and his team to hang up their holsters for good. The final episode opens with CSI recruit Ryan Wolfe (Jonathan Togo) lying bloodied and unconscious. When he comes to, he sees the dead body of assistant state attorney Joshua Avery (Ryan McPartlin) and soon becomes the prime suspect in his murder.
"Horatio and Co follow the evidence, regardless of where it leads - even if it's a painful place," says executive producer Barry O'Brien. "There's a chance one of our own has crossed the uncrossable line."
Inspired by original series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the Miami version, which follows a South Florida team of forensic investigators, is the first of the CSI franchise shows to be cancelled because of poor ratings.
When: Saturday, 9.25pm
Where: TV3
What: The final ever episode
- TimeOut


text:
Please provide questions, feedback, and comments on Supporting Relational Databases in LabVIEW Real-Time in this thread.
Many thanks, Christian!
It looks interesting. Last week I made an attempt to translate SQLite with the tool and makefile from http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5694. But I got a lo of errors from the compiler. For example that time.h will not be found.
Next week I will see into your zip at http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/epd/p/id/6287
Maybe it will work with some steps.
In this case your SQL-VIs which call the SQLIte library can be interesting. The I could spare time to implement these VIs by myself.
Comments from me will com into this thread.
That sounds great. If you want to look at the source code it is in the SQLite\SQLite Source\VxWorks directory. It includes the makefile for the GCC compiler. The code includes the sqlite3.lib, sqlitewrapper.c, and headers. I'm trying to track down the C files for the .lib. The wrapper implements the most basic API calls.
09-24-2009 07:16 AM - edited 09-24-2009 07:21 AM
Hi Christian!
Today I had some time to try. At first I wanted to fathom the compiling process so I can compile newer sqlite versions at the same way in the future. I prepared all what we need and what the comments in the readme file says. At first I'm interested only in VxWORKS. So I used the VxWORKS folder of the zip file download lv_sqlite.zip at http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/epd/p/id/6287 and the vxworks63gccdist.zip at http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5694
1. With the make file from lv_sqlite.zip I could compile the sqlitewrapper successful.
2. But this containing make file compiles only this.
3. To compile the sqlite.c I changed the following rows in the make file:
Row 23 from "OBJECTS := $(OBJ_DIR)/sqlitewrapper.o" to "OBJECTS := $(OBJ_DIR)/sqlite3.o"
Row 25 from "PROJECT_TARGETS := $(OBJ_DIR)/sqlitewrapper.out" to "PROJECT_TARGETS := $(OBJ_DIR)/sqlite3.out"
4. I made a copy of sqlite3.c and .h from CVI RT folder. This includes Version 3.6.3 of sqlite3
5. I looked for "fd = open("/dev/urandom", ORDONLY);" in row 24653 (the README said it) and found this in row 24537. But I found "fd = open("/dev/urandom", O_RDONLY, 2);". But, this has already 3 paramaters the last is not NULL!
6. I started my changed make file.
The result was a lot of errors.
At the same way I used the actual distribution of sqlite with the same result: A lot of errors and no .out file.
It would be great somewhere would find or bind a running packet of gcc for VxWorks and sqlite. So we could use always the actual version of sqlite.
The wrapper-VI's are good for beginning and I will try these with the sqlite3.out file from Christian up next. Probable I will enhance the VIs because the wrapper works only with strings (the charakter | is the column divider).
If you would like to post the additions to the wrapper VI that would be great. The wrapper only takes care of the most basic operations, and I would like to expand upon them when I get a chance.
As forthe building prcess, it is definitly tedious. In the future I will try to make it more dynamic like you said earlier.
The example with the included source and out-files from Christian doesn't work. I prepared all thinks like in the README. But during deployment I get always an error.
I tryed it also with a own wrapper. My wrapperfunction works so long as no sqlite3-function is called. If I inlcude a sqlite3 function like sqlite3_open() the deployment makes an error like with Christians LV project. I didn't forget to copy the line "sqlitewrapper.out=sqlite3.out" how the reade describes.
I tryed my wrapper test with LV 8.6.1 and 2009.
And it is not clear how Christian could compile the sqlite3.c file. I get a lot of errors during the compilation. Maybe the sqlite3.out from Christian is from former VxWorks versions. I don't know.
Best regards,
Hi Brian!
I'm looking for the deep reason that my sqlite comilation not works. So I tryed a very simple test function in sqlitewrapper which not use sqlite3. But I copyed my sqlite3.out into the system folder and added the "sqlitewrapper.out=sqlite3.out" to the ini-file.
Result: With my sqlite3 compilation it doesn't work. But
If I copy your compilation into the system folder, so it works. I could say "great". But what ist the different between my sqlite3.out and yours?
Did you use an other makefile than I? Or do you have a special sqlite.c source file?
The sqlite3.out and sqlite3.lib were two things that I found while going through a summer interns work (looking for nuggets). The amount of work that was needed to make them for VxWorks was significant enough that I decided to clean them up and make the examples and share them with the community.
I don't have the source and makefile for how he built sqlite3.out, but I'll try to track it down.
In the mean time I am going to update the example online to reflect the different .out files.
Some success!
The last two days I developed some wrapper functions for the sqlite3.out from Brian for VxWorks. And it works. Great! Maybe the data transfer rate will be lower than TDMS, but additional to all database functions: SQLite ist very stable against power off problems during data writing. It's a realy database.
Very intersting: SQLite knows databases in main memory. So it is possible to collect some data in main memory before these can be saved into the flash. This can saves the flash EEPROM memory because in normal use each atomic commit of date into the database create a journal file for roll back to get consistant date in case of a power off event. Maybe we can lose the last data but we get always a right database file. Enough room for optimization. But better than some own solutions of data writing with simple file commands.
In the next time I will complete the wrapper and develop a messaging database system for small automation devices with cRIO and sbRIO. I want to give the results into the community.
For interest in the meantime: Somebody can contact me at herbrand.#-gmx.de. (change ".#-" to @ because these signgs help my to save me against spam).
But this thread is not closed because we need the information how we can compile future sqlite sources so that LV has no problems.
And many thanks to Brian and Christian!


text: Two of the appeals relate to the maritime concession and the third to the onshore grid connection, according to Enertrag France. The company had hoped to install the first of the 21 Multibrid 5 MW turbines next year, but this now looks unlikely as everything, including onshore works, is on hold. The uncertainty has also impacted the financing, as no backers are willing to close a deal until the issue is resolved. Enertrag France says that, while it would like to retain sole ownership with Prokon Nord, the credit squeeze means it may have to consider taking on a big industrial partner to help finance the project. In the meantime the company is not twiddling its thumbs, nor giving up on offshore projects. Enertrag France says it is developing two more projects of around 400 MW each off the Atlantic coast, though declines to give further details.


text:
Last week, the flashbulb explosion met the population explosion, as news cameras clicked at several newborns identified as the seventh billion humans in the world. Now that the global birthday party is over, it's time for new thinking about preparing food for a party of seven billion.
As our population continues to grow, improving urban policies are key to ensure food security in cities. (Photo credit: Bernard Pollack)
Any amount of food multiplied by seven billion is going to be a big number. Resources required will be almost seven times higher than when Thomas Malthus wrote his famous essay on human population, with its doomsday prediction that food production could never expand as rapidly as population growth, thereby condemning large numbers to hunger and want. And there's little doubt the number will get larger, likely nine billion by 2050.
Human numbers have climbed from about 200 million in Christ's time, to about a billion at the time of the American and French Revolutions, to some 3.5 billion during the 1960s era of birth control pills and "sexual revolution"—the term "population bomb" was coined in that decade—and then started hitting new growth plateaus every decade, not every other century or millennia. Nine billion people are expected for the birthday party in 2050.
Many see that pace of population growth as a forerunner to doomsday scenarios of some kind, especially if there's a "perfect storm" of overpopulation, resource depletion (fossil fuels in particular), collapse of bio-diversity and climate chaos. How now brown cow, many prominent scientists and food analysts ask. Be afraid, be very afraid.
But food and population numbers may be one more example that size isn't everything. While recognizing the need for deep-seated changes, there's good reason to suspect fear-mongering about some of the food estimates. First, the predicted scale of demand for food production increases could well be way off. Equally important, the assumed location of the disaster and the presumed key actors in avoiding disaster may be different than commonly assumed.
My counter-scenario has two elements: first, that we can nourish as many as nine billion people without breakthroughs in food production technology; and second that cities and not some impersonal "world" have the tools at hand to address the challenges. Development of human agency and civic capacity will tell the tale, not technology.
Vanessa Baird, author of The No Nonsense Guide to World Population, argues in the November 2011 New Internationalist that the "population frenzy" is whipped up by biotech, high-input agriculture and nuclear interest groups that stand to benefit if people are numbed by numbers into accepting that there's no alternative to high-risk technologies.
Likewise, the United Kingdom's Soil Association, highly respected among organic advocates, matches solid investigative reporting with a far-out title in its publication Telling porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production. Double or nothing scenarios presented by well-positioned British scientists, as well as by the United Nations's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are based on assumptions that will likely be proven dead wrong, it's argued. The scare scenario, for example, assumes consumption of meat and milk products will continue to rise to Western norms and be raised on Western animal feeds (grains and soybeans instead of grass), without anyone taking action to prevent the epidemic levels of chronic disease or wholesale expansion of grain and soy crops associated with diets delivering so much animal fat.
The doubling scenario also assumes no-one will bring food waste—estimated by authorities such as University of Manitoba geographer Vaclav Smil to be half the food that's produced—under control by conserving food instead of producing more waste.
In other words, the mind-numbing numbers rely on an assumption of zero human agency capable of managing problems.
Neglect of cities as both locations of need and places of agency is also notable in the doomsday scenarios. This reflects the conventional biases of an impersonal and placeless globalized food system, which treats one face to feed somewhere the same as one face anywhere.
Cities, where people are now almost totally dependent on food that's brought to them from outside, have many reasons to take this challenge up, albeit with less resources and coordination than nation states and international organizations command. But since nation states and international organizations don't use their power, city residents may well conclude that a tool in the hand is better than two in the imaginary bushes.
Making do with the power at hand is likely, given the vulnerability of city residents to the new kid on the block of food security—speculators—a more threatening kid than increases in human population, and one that's not offset by increases in agricultural productivity.
Speculation in food is similar to that long associated with penny stocks, land, housing bubbles, dot com crazes and currencies.
Short-term speculative trades in food-related commodities, quite distinct from both long-term investment and short-term rises and falls in food supply, came to $376 billion in 2010—a 50-fold increase over ten years—according to Hazel Healey, writing in this November's issue of New Internationalist. In 2011, spending on food derivatives, one speculative device made infamous by the wreckage of the punctured housing bubble in 2008, came to $126 billion, Healey says.
Speculation in food staples was initiated by investment bankers Goldman Sachs in 1991, according to Food First executive director Eric Holt Gimenez in the Huffington Post, and deregulated by US president Bill Clinton nine years later. Several analysts, most notably Peter Wahl of the German NGO, WEED (World Economy, Ecology and Development) blame speculation for the food price crisis of 2008, the first instance of runaway food prices in over 50 years.
To protect their citizens from such predation in the future, cities will likely revert to their role prior to the late 1800s, when their historic role as protectors of local food access came to an end.
Historian Carolyn Steel, author of The Hungry City, says today's city planners (the same could be said for public health professionals) came on the scene just as fast ships on the ocean and extensive railways on the land ensured, for the first time in history, ready supplies of urban food—without deliberate planning by local governments. The invisible hand of the market morphed with the invisible land of food production, the punful food historian shows.
Planning without regard to local food supply may have worked a century ago, when the world's population was three billion, mostly rural people, and when cities of a million were considered huge. But in today's world, there are almost 4 billion urban people's worth of reasons to classify such thinking as stale, well beyond its best-before date.
Although municipal food planning capacity has, with few exceptions, become scarcer than hen's teeth, organizations such as the American Planning Association are now stepping up to the plate and food policy councils, such as the one I staffed for Toronto over the past decade, are growing quickly – with about 150 such organizations across North America now.
Greenbelts, such as the relatively new one surrounding the Greater Toronto Area (now the world's largest) will become the norm, as will other devices such as land trusts and covenants in deeds preventing future sale of farm land for non-farm purposes . Since farmer protection is as essential as farmland protection, there will also be more efforts to support local farmers, such as the farmers markets that have exploded in the food retail scene faster than any other retail trend in the industry. City government purchases of local and sustainable food – perhaps best practiced by Markham, Ontario – will also ensure farmers can make a living on land near to cities.
As city populations without direct access to food face speculators controlling food staples from afar, expect some four billion pressure points on city planners and others to find nearby and loyal sources of food.
It's not speculation to say that is the big food trend to watch for, as the world moves from seven to nine billion people.


text:
Bose SoundSport Free wireless headphones Bright Orange
$199.95 $249.95
Headphones 1 25 H x 1 W x 1 2 D 0 5 oz each Case 1 5 H x 4 W x 1 9 D 2 8 oz Rechargeable lithium ion battery Charging time 2 hours Battery life 5 hours per full charge SoundSport Free wireless headphones Portable charging case 3 sizes of StayHear Sport tips USB cable
Browse all deals at Bose
See more in Cell Phone Accessories
See more from Bose
* This offer may contain time-sensitive information and offers. Please check with Bose to confirm actual price & availability.
Please enter your name
- Be the first to comment!


text:
A FAMILY DINNER — Sheriff Forbes (Marguerite MacIntyre) delivers some disturbing news to Alaric (Matt Davis) and Elena (Nina Dobrev) about the weapon used in a recent murder. In the Salvatore brothers' escalating quest to kill Klaus (Jospeh Morgan), Stefan (Paul Wesley) turns to Bonnie (Kat Graham) and Abby (guest star Persia White), while Damon (Ian Somerhalder) reaches out to an old acquaintance for help in setting up an elaborate plan. Intent on a plan of his own, Klaus hosts a strange dinner party, where he reveals another story from his family's violent past until an unexpected guest brings the party to an end. Meanwhile, Caroline (Candice Accola) is heartbroken when she is unable to stop a tragedy from unfolding. Zach Roerig also stars. Jeffrey Hunt directed the episode written by Turi Meyer & Al Septien (#313).
Source: CW
Source: CW
LG angelinchains
Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 2 mal editiert, zuletzt von black pearl ()


text:
Of all the anxiety and mixed feelings of being almost 30, the one I did not foresee was the marriage one. It seems that I can't talk to a majority of my family and random people, without them asking "When are you getting married?"
I remember being younger and reading in magazines and online articles young woman wanting advice about what to say when people ask them when they were getting married. And I'm not sure why I thought that would never apply to me. At a very young age I decided not to get married or have kids in my 20s. I had a lot of things I wanted to do before I made any major life commitments.
I noticed around the time I turned 28, this question started coming up more and more. Oh, and strangers will say the same shit to me. At work, of course. The last time (and I mean that in every sense of the word) was about a year ago, when a regular came in. I was bartending and he was just making conversation until he asked "Are you married?"
Me: "No."
Asswipe: "Oh, you must not have a boyfriend."
Me (slightly annoyed): "Actually I do."
Asswipe: "Oh, well then he must not be the right guy."
Me (absolutely annoyed): "That's not it. Did it ever occur to you that I'm not in a hurry to ruin my life?"
I don't think this but I had to say something to shut his ass up. And it did; he sputtered that he had been with his wife for 30 years. I told him wonderful but I had only been with my boyfriend for a year (at the time) and I wasn't going to rush anything.
And it's the truth; boyfriend and I are about to celebrate our two year anniversary. He is my longest and most serious relationship so of course it's something I think about. Right now he's living in a city that neither one of us cares for and I'm living in San Diego and I am not moving.
But the relationship is a great one, ideal for me. I've mentioned it before but we don't fight, we fit, we click, and sometimes I'm scared about how easy it is. In the past, long before now, I'd find out my boyfriend cheated on me or was gay, so sometimes I catch myself waiting for the other shoe to drop. However, the more rational side of me is screaming "Bitch, ENJOY YOURSELF! Finally! You're in a healthy AND happy relationship!!"
So that's what I'm doing! We're still over a year away before he can transfer back and as time gets closer, we'll talk about it the next step. That's the back story. So why the fuck is everyone asking me about marriage?
Because they're fucking rude. Seriously. I'll admit I'm conservative about some shit, but holy hell, this is not the 1930s, I'm not a spinster (though I do have cats) and there's not a book of divine secrets that says marriage will complete my life, but only by a certain age if I want forever happiness.
With certain members of my family, it's somewhat understandable:
My grandparents have literally known each other since they were two (53 years married.)
My uncle and aunt: High school sweethearts.
That's it. Everyone else is married-divorced-married. My dad (bless him) doesn't ever ask me. I don't know if it's because he doesn't feel that he can or if it's because he's better than that (let's go with the latter.)
Complete strangers ask me about marriage. And some of it is my fault because I always befriend the old people that come into my job. I like them, they have the best stories, and they don't give a fuck about anything. Except marriage. (It's different for them, because they probably got married after five months of being pinned or courting) However, old or not so old, there's certain questions in conversations that you don't ask people you don't know. You do not know the circumstances in someone's life! What if I grew up in a turbulent household, saw my parents fight and nearly kill each other and decided marriage wasn't for me (like a friend of mine)? Or what if I'm getting over my boyfriend's death and still refer to him in the present tense because I don't want to get into the story with strangers (like another friend of mine)? Or, what if marriage isn't in the vicinity of my thoughts because I'm happy with how my current relationship is going and I've got ten papers to write by next Friday (like me!!)?
Why is there still a stigma on not being married by a certain age? Huffington Post did an article last fall about reasons to get married young and it kind of made me want to barf. Saying that I'm going to have less sex being married at 3o as opposed to 20 is a reason?! How about because at 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and even at 29, I was not the same person as the year before. At 21, I discovered the world of high-quality alcohol. At 23-26, you could not find me without my head bent over a glass plate with a rolled up $2 bill. At 25, I said "Fuck you, tornadoes, hail, snow, ice, and hour-changing weather" and moved to California. And 27, I realized that I knew nothing about my ethnicity and wanted to get a degree in Black Studies and at 28 I figured out what I want to do with my life.
Of course, this is just me and no disrespect to those of you who married young. It just wouldn't have worked in my life. Look how long it took me to sort out things! (Plus cocaine does nothing for your patience and understanding.) And now you want me to hurry up and get married because I'm almost 30?!
I know I sound like I'm contradicting myself so let me be clear: I don't think marriage is horrible, I just wish people would quit making it sound like since I'm not getting married right now, my life's horrible. My life's getting to where I want it to be and I'm doing great.


text:
Last night it was brought to my attention that my profile on my computer says that I breed my dogs. The problem is I don't and I didn't put it there. But when I tried to pull up my profile and get rid of it it shows me only blank screen. I can't change it and I can't pull up my homepage either to see if it's been messed with. It really has me pissed. Does anyone know a way to fix this short of changing my screen name and starting over?
It really has me upset because all my dogs are rescues and Rox is spayed and Diesel is neutered they were when we brought them home. Sabre isn't yet she was too little when we brought her home, she goes on the 25th I think it is. But I don't want people thinking that I do. If you can help I would really appreciate it. I changed my password first thing this morning just in case, I have let people use my computer before, but I thought I could trust them, guess I won't be doing that ever again.
Thanks for the help.


text:
Setting the Mahmud
RSBS Special Correspondent and Trombonist Extraordinaire, Mr. Johanna Mahmud reports:
"Hello little man, boy, I heard a lot about you."
The news is in the for MLB, and well, there is no news.
But Paula Deen got hit in tha damn head with a ham!!!
Wish I threw it.
But there is a ham fighter (and occasional nude male model) on the loose. The Rangers couldn't keep C.J. Wilson but they sure ponied up to possibly sign Yu Darvish. After the Los Angels signed Alberta de la Pujols, Texas had to do something and they definitely went BIG.
I don't speak Farsi or Japanesy-Chinesey like Jeffy, but I've been all over this kid for a couple years and am eager to see him pitch in the Bigs. I finally have a Middle Eastern brother to watch!
Decision making while tired has happened many times whilst signing Asian ballplayers has been bad, (see Fukudome, Kosuke or K, Dice) but I think this cat has it going on. He's extremely consistent statistically, has a powerful arm and my manometer is blasting! I will make a pilgrimage to Arlington to see him, which means I'll probably have a woman shooting at me eventually. Everybody's packing down there!
Anyway, this was early Xmas for me, (even though the Prince isn't a Cub yet) so I got my reindeer sweater and I'm blastin this bomb.
"Jesus, that's wet."
Have a great whatever you do!
–Johanna Mahmud
Follow Johanna on Twitter!


text:
Videos | May 24, 2010
Space Rock Census
NEOWISE principal investigator Amy Mainzer describes the ongoing tally of space rocks and comets amassed by NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE.
Title - WISE
Amy Mainzer: WISE is taking a census of our solar neighborhood.
Title - Amy Mainzer. NEOWISE Principal Investigator
Mainzer: And no census would be complete without meeting your nearest neighbors.
Title - Mercury. Venus. Earth. Mars. Jupiter.
Mainzer: The video that you're seeing is a progression of the WISE survey as we go around the sun. You can
imagine you're just sort of looking down on the solar system.
Title - near-Earth objects.
Mainzer: The red dots that you see are near-Earth objects. WISE has found several dozen new near-Earth objects.
Title - Numbers reflect tally as of May 10, 2010
Mainzer: And they range in size from about as small as a decent-sized house to as large as a smallish mountain.
There about 150 green dots in the animation.
Title - previously-known near-Earth objects.
Mainzer: And these represent previously-known near-Earth objects that WISE has observed.
Title - comets
Mainzer: The yellow blocks represent comets. WISE has observed several dozen so far. We've also discovered
around a dozen new comets. Most of what you're seeing in the animation are white dots. Asteroids. WISE has observed 50,000 asteroids to date.
Title - Numbers reflect tally as of May 10, 2010
Mainzer: About 9,000 are new discoveries. Most of the white dots are between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.
Title - main-belt asteroids
Mainzer: And these are the main-belt asteroids. But you can also see that there are 2 blobs of white dots that
lie in the orbit of Jupiter.
Title - Jupiter
Mainzer: These are called the Trojan asteroids. One blob is gravitationally anchored to Jupiter ahead of it.
And the other blob is sort of following behind it in its orbit. These always stay 60 degrees away from Jupiter. Why are they there? Are they the same? With the WISE mission we can now not only find new asteroids and comets, but we can characterize them. We can learn more about their sizes, their reflectivities, their compositions and the properties of their surfaces. While this is the end of the animation for today, it's not the end of the story. We expect to continue surveying through at least October. So, stay tuned! Because who knows what we might find?
Title - NASA. Jet Propulsion Laboratory. California Institute of Technology.


text:
I've had more time to play around at NewspaperARCHIVE.com and I'm loving it.
Yesterday I decided to check out their section for Genealogists. It's on the front page in the left side bar.
The Genealogists section has helpful search tips and articles by experienced genealogists. I did find that clicking on the highlighted link "articles by practicing genealogists" just reloaded the page I was on, so I used the links in the left side bar
Search Tips
Find an Obituary
Featured Articles
Phyllis Matthew Ziller
Joe Manning
The articles I read were very helpful and I encourage you to have a visit and take a moment to look around. Then start searching for your ancestors in newspapers on NewspaperARCHIVE.com and have fun!


text:
Australia Man Gets 6 Months In Jail For Posting Nude Photos Of His Ex On Facebook!
"People can now be held accountable for their actions on social media. A jilted boyfriend who put nude pictures of his former lover on Facebook has been sentenced to six months' jail the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history and one of just a handful in the world. Ravshan ''Ronnie'' Usmanov told police: ''I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing [I had] to hurt her. ''The six pictures, according to court documents, showed his ex-girlfriend ''nude in certain positions and clearly showing her breasts and genitalia''. Advertisement: Story continues below Shortly after posting the pictures on his Facebook page in October last year, Usmanov emailed his girlfriend with the message: ''Some of your photos are now on Facebook''. She had ended their relationship and moved out of their shared home less than three months earlier. The woman, who The Sun-Herald has chosen not to identify, ran to Usmanov's flat at Pyrmont, demanding he take down the pictures. When he refused, she called the police. Privacy experts say Usmanov's case has exposed the ''tip of the iceberg'' of online offences that rarely go punished. Sentencing the 20-year-old, the Deputy- Chief Magistrate, Jane Mottley, said she was ''deterring both the offender and the community generally from committing similar crimes''. She said: ''New-age technology through Facebook gives instant access to the world. Facebook as a social networking site has limited boundaries. Incalculable damage can be done to a person's reputation by the irresponsible posting of information through that medium. With its popularity and potential for real harm, there is a genuine need to ensure the use of this medium to commit offences of this type is deterred. ''The harm to the victim is not difficult to contemplate: embarrassment, humiliation and anxiety at not only the viewing of the images by persons who are known to her but also the prospect of viewing by those who are not. It can only be a matter for speculation as to who else may have seen the images, and whether those images have been stored in such a manner which, at a time the complainant least expects, they will again be available for viewing, circulation or distribution.'' ''She should be able to take action for the invasion of her privacy but she can't at the moment. In the online world it is not a Polaroid shared with people at the pub; it's a Polaroid shared with a billion people or more.'' When approached by The Sun-Herald last week, Usmanov declined to comment. In mitigation, Ms Sten said: ''He was upset so he put the photos up on Facebook. He did this to hurt her. He's sorry he did that. It was a spur-of-the-moment thing. It's just not something he would normally do.''" - smh.com.au
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.


text:
Show Filters
Showing 1 - 5 of 5 for
Jurox Dog Supplies
Joint Guard For Dogs & 400 Gm
Buy Jurox from VetSupply.com.au | Cheap Jurox at VetSupply.com.au$138.69Free Shipping
More results from our partner:
Recently Viewed Dog Supplies
Latest Products
(Meaty Chew Bones - Beef & Sweet Potato Recipe, For Small Dogs) - Loving Pets Totally Grainless for Dogs, 180ml
Popular Brands In Dog Supplies
Top Dog Supplies
Related Categories
What to keep an eye out for when shopping for dog supplies Keep your loving companion well-fed, fit and generally healthy with these dog supplies. Whether you're after something to groom your luscious pet, some toys to keep them occupied, or even just some food, you're probably better off avoiding the stores and instead shopping online as there seems to be a significant price disparity between the two. Of course, it helps to samaple a few things from a physical store so you know what to order plenty of down the line, and they can often help out suggesting the right type of bed or dry food to suit your particular breed of dog. It's important to consider the size of your dog when shopping for something like a lead or harness, because if their strength is too much for you, simply attaching a lead to your dog's collar may be harmful for both you and your pet. In this case, a harness is more appropriate.