text:
I have recently begun to study algebraic geometry, coming from a differential geometry background. It seems that there is a deep link between complex manifolds and complex varieties. For example, one often hears that they are two different ways of looking at the same thing. Can anybody give a precise statement of this relationship?
The Wikipedia article is more technical than it should be, and for the reader in a hurry not all that well written. Here is a summary of the main points as best I understand them:
Complex manifolds are analogous to smooth complex algebraic varieties, not to the singular ones. But that discrepancy is surmountable, because you can also have complex analytic varieties which can have similar singularities. Then the first and most important relation is that every complex algebraic variety is a complex analytic variety. Every Zariski open set is analytically open; analytic gluing maps are more general than algebraic ones; and the allowed analytic charts are more general than the allowed algebraic charts. Also every algebraic morphism is an analytic morphism, so you get a morphism between categories.
But the connection is better than that because of the GAGA principle (globally analytic implies globally algebraic). My understanding of GAGA is very sketchy, but I think that the following is correct. Among other consequences of GAGA, a closed analytic subvariety of a proper (equivalent to compact) algebraic variety is algebraic. An analytic isomorphism between two proper algebraic varieties is algebraic. I would suppose that there is a similar principle for compact fibrations as well.
Contrast all this with real algebraic vs real analytic. It is still true that (the real points of) a smooth real algebraic variety is a real analytic manifold. More strongly than in the complex case, although it is highly non-trivial, every compact real analytic manifold is real algebraic. But the real algebraic structure is massively not unique, even for a circle, and that makes all the difference.
The other answerers in this thread, who are more expert in this topic than I am, had more information about why a compact complex manifold might not be a smooth projective variety. Just for clarity, I will restrict attention to the compact, smooth case. Also, you say "proper" rather than "compact" in the algebraic category because every algebraic variety is "compact" in the extremely coarse Zariski topology. An algebraic variety is proper if and only if it is analytically compact. The main use of the word proper is to emphasize that it is more general than projective, which means given by polynomial equations in complex projective space.
There are two very different initial reasons that an analytic complex manifold might not be projective. It might not be Moishezon: A complex $n$-manifold is Moishezon if it has $n$ algebraically independent meromorphic functions. (The number of algebraically independent elements or the transcendence degree of a field is called the Krull dimension. The meromorphic Krull dimension of a compact complex $n$-manifold is at most $n$.) Or it might not be Kähler: A complex $n$-manifold is Kähler if it has a Riemannian metric such that the covariant derivative of the complex structure vanishes. So to summarize what people said about compact complex manifolds (much of which is in the back of Hartshorne's book):
projective ⇒ algebraic ⇒ Moishezon ⟺ bimeromorphically projective
In addition, projective and algebraic structure and the Moishezon property are all unstable with respect to analytic deformation. And bimeromorphic equivalence preserves $\pi_1$. Taubes found compact complex manifolds that have the wrong $\pi_1$ to be Kähler; indeed they can have any $\pi_1$. Voisin found compact Kähler manifolds with the wrong homotopy type to be projective, disproving Kodaira's conjecture that every compact Kähler manifold can be deformed to projective. And, way out in left field, a left-invariant complex structure (LICS) on a compact simple Lie group is a compact complex manifold that has no $H^2$ and can be simply connected too.
Still, despite these beautiful non-projective compact complex manifolds, it's generally easier to study projective examples. It's generally easier to sidestep analysis and do algebra instead.
No one seems to have mentioned that if a complex manifold is an algebraic variety, then it has a nice compactification. More precisely, by Hironaka it can be embedded in a compact manifold such that the boundary is a divisor with normal crossings.
In dimension 1 this is the only condition: a Riemann surface is an algebraic curve if and only if it can be compactified by adding a finite number of points. In particular, bounded holomorphic functions on it are constant (so the complex upper half plane is not an algebraic curve because z-i/z+i is a bounded holomorphic function).
So the two main obstructions to a complex manifold being an algebraic variety (or, at least, an algebraic space) are that it may not have a nice compactification (in the above sense) and it may not have enough meromorphic functions.
To say that a complex manifold is an algebraic variety is a very strong statement.
While every algebraic manifold is complex analytic the converse is far from true.
If $M$ is a compact complex manifold then $a(M)$, the algebraic dimension of $M$, is defined as the transcendence degree of $\mathbb C(M)$ over $\mathbb C$, where $\mathbb C(M)$ is the field of meromorphic functions on $M$.
The algebraic dimension is at most the dimension of $M$ and when the equality holds $M$ is called a Moishezon space. In general what one has is a variety $\hat M$ with $\dim \hat M = \dim M$, a projective variety $N$ with $\dim N = a(M)$, and analytic morphisms $\pi : \hat M \to M$ and $\varphi : \hat M \to N$ such that
It also has to be noted that from a topological point of view there are many more compact complex manifolds than compact algebraic manifolds. To be more precise, there are strong restrictions on the fundamental group of compact Kähler manifolds, while there is a deep result of Taubes that implies that every finitely generated group is the fundamental group of a compact complex $3$-fold.
Motivated by comments on Kuperberg's answwer, let me also mention that there were a conjecture by Kodaira claiming that any compact Kähler manifold is deformation equivalent to projective manifolds. While the conjecture is true in dimension two, as Kodaira has himself shown, it has been recently disproved by Claire Voisin.
Compact complex manifolds which are not algebraic are not artificial beasts. Let me recall a very natural example of algebraic nature. Consider the quotient $X=SL(2,\mathbb C)/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a discrete cocompact subgroup. I think it was Mostow who proved that $X$ has no analytic hypersurfaces, which implies in particular $a(X)=0$. To see that $X$ is far from an algebraic variety, despite being algebraically defined, notice that there are $1$-forms on $SL(2,\mathbb C)$ which are invariant by right translations and which are not closed. So they induce global holomorphic $1$-forms on the quotient $X$ which are not closed. But on compact Kähler manifolds, and more generally on compact manifolds bimeromorphic to them, every holomorphic $1$-form is closed.
The Kodaira embedding theorem states that a compact complex manifold is projective -- and thus algebraic by Chow's theorem -- if and only if it has a Kaehler structure with integral Kaehler class. Kaehler manifolds are symplectic, and integral Kaehler class means that the cohomology class of the corresponding symplectic form $\omega$ lives in the second cohomology with $\mathbb{Z}$ coefficients. Note that the Kaehler class of a Kaehler manifold must be nonzero, because the symplectic volume $\int_X \omega^{n}$ must be nonzero.
So maybe one way to find compact things that are non-Kaehler and non-projective is to look for things with zero second cohomology, because then they wouldn't even be symplectic. Perhaps there are examples of compact toric varieties that satisfy this?
There is no enough room here to write the answer to your question. However, you can take a look at the appendix of Hartshorne and if you have time, a classical reference is Griffiths and Harris: Principles in algebraic geometry. However roughly speaking, the concept of positivity will tell you when a compact Kahler complex manifold is algebraic.


text:
First we had this
And now its
And now its
Originally Posted by .AnG3L.yup yup b-) I'm good.
Hope you like my new logo my friend. hope will stay there for the next 4 years )
Originally Posted by shabbirYes it will for some time if not for 4 Years.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How should Democrats in Congress respond to Hobby Lobby?
In response to the Hobby Lobby decision, democrats in Congress are planning to prioritize a bill that overrides the Supreme Court's expansion of rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). According to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), "The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act reinstates the ACA's contraceptive coverage and protects the right of all Americans, men and women alike, to make decisions about their medical care in consultation with their doctor, not their boss."
With no Republican supporters as of yet and vigorous opposition from major religious entities, the bill has very little chance of passing. It is likely intended rather to bolster voter turnout for Senate Democrats in tough races (e.g., Colorado and Alaska).
A different legislative response might have better chance of success. Instead of trying to overturn the specific decision, what if Congress worked together to make sure some of the "parade of horribles" potentially unleashed by Hobby Lobby can't happen?
For example, it is probable that in the near future a corporate RFRA claim will be brought challenging required vaccines and other immunizations. (At the state level, an individual case has already happened: Phillips v. New York.) Since the Court's majority assured us that these kinds of claims are not going to win because of Hobby Lobby, Congress could hold them to that. With the highest rate of measles outbreak in decades (presumably thanks to anti-vaxxers), now would be an opportune time to clarify that corporations cannot use RFRA to reject laws of general applicability executed by the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC).
One can also imagine a resource-extractive corporation bringing a RFRA claim challenging environmental regulations. Biblically-based principles of human dominion over the earth are certainly sincerely held by some companies that use mountaintop removal as a method. Now would be an opportune time to codify that corporations cannot use RFRA to reject laws of general applicability executed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Not every federal agency would be as easy to get majority votes on. Labor, Education, and others would probably not be worth the effort. And maybe it's naive to think that Republicans would support even a bill that says corporations can't bring a RFRA claim against the CDC. But it would at least be an attempt with a legislative chance of success at marking up the slippery slope.
About the Author
Michael Peppard is associate professor of theology at Fordham University, author of The World's Oldest Church and The Son of God in the Roman World, and on Twitter @MichaelPeppard.
43 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Any number of options for congress. Solve the problem and don't play games. Stupid lawsuits against the president, idiotic and meaningless legislation that is a waste of time, energy, and money. These people really deserve to be fired. Anyway, I digress but one thing Commonweal and the media can do is not to take their bait. Insist on serious, reasonable, policy postions. And attend rallies, meeting and community events (assuming these self-important politicians even hold them) and call them out on their shenanigans publicly and clearly. Articulate reasonable solutions and hammer away at them in an organized, consistent, and credible manner.
One is to:
- Establish fully funded, fedral, public health clinics which would provide flu and other vaccines, other preventative type medication, including contraception and emergency contraception. Included in this could be a clean needle exchange program.
This way you address the access issue. Schools could, if they wish, invite public health officials to come in an provide immunizations for children who so desire. That way, if there are anti-vacc people then that is fine, they have their choice as to whether accept this but the point is that access is made available.
But this is one component. Overall health promotion is also important.
Another thing is to vigrously promote health. Put warning labels on any product that contains more than "x" mg of refined sugar. Build and maintain clean, well lit, and safe, walking areas and encourage people to get out and move. Promote raw foods, greens, and vegetables. Promote and encourage phsyical education in schools and provide different types of activities for those who do not like group activity.( I say this as someone who does need to lose some weight!)
How can anyone pretend/presume to know what beliefs are "sincerely held" by anyone else? How can a Supreme Court decision or a law passed by Congress be based on unprovable claims?
Since the Court's majority assured us that these kinds of claims are not going to win because of Hobby Lobby.
Actually, what they said is that Hobby Lobby doesn't mean that those kinds of claims will necessarily win. That won't be resolved until someone brings such a claim to the Supreme Court.
How can anyone pretend/presume to know what beliefs are "sincerely held" by anyone else? How can a Supreme Court decision or a law passed by Congress be based on unprovable claims
We've done that for years when a board has to decide if someone is a conscientious objector who qualifies to be excused from military service.
In the HHS mandate cases so far, the government has stipulated that it it accepts that the plaintiff's beliefs are "sincerely held"
Vaccines prevent communicable diseases. Pregnancy cannot be rationally compared to any disease, communicable or otherwise.
Conscientious objectors is one of the few exceptions where the government considers the sincerity of the belief. It was also an exception created by Congress. The courts usually accept the assertions about the person's religion move directly to substantial burdens, compelling interests, and least restrictive means.
Sincerely held beliefs:
- Polygamy.
- No interracial marriage.
- One black is equal to ¾ of a white.
- Women should not vote.
- Blacks should not vote.
- Separate but equal.
- Prohibition.
- No medical treatments for any illnesses or diseases.
Guess what? Just because beliefs are sincerely held does not mean that the law cannot and has not ruled them inadmissible as a matter of law.
I hope you mean what I think you do, namely, that pregnancy is not a disease. It is the a human life, a human being. My God, have we now arrived at the point where practicing Catholics regard pregnancy as a disease? And why are Catholics looking for ways to help Democrats circumvent the Supremes' decision?
Bruce and Bob Schwartz,
I've not heard anyone say that pregnancy and childbirth are diseases, but in our modern American society each of these are seen to require professional medical care. It seems that contraception is "preventative healthcare" in that a person using it avoids a condition that is not without some, though minimal, risk to health and avoids expensive medical care (an $8,802 tab for childbirth and an additional $2,000 for a prenatal regimen, according to a Thomson Healthcare study for March of Dimes).
Of course none of these things have happened yet, they all seem unlikely to happen, and corporations would be shot down if they tried to claim a religous exemption in these cases, since the Court ruling called for religous exemptions to be considered on a case to case basis.
But of course that only matters if we want to consider how the Democratic party can best serve the public. If we want to think ofways for them toearn political points and pander to their base, then yes, knocking down some boogeymen of their own invention would certainly serve that goal admirably.
The two contraceptives Hobby Lobby took exception to are considered abortifacients because of their their effects within a woman's body. There were about twelve other contraceptives that HL did not oppose.
The RFRA was a feel-good law that passed almost unanimously (97-3 in the Senate; without objection in the House). Such agreement within the Washington clown act is almost a certain indicator that something is amiss. The Act's first appearance on the public stage came when the Archdiocese of San Antonio wanted to remodel a landmark church in Boerne. The city objected, saying you can't mess with history. The archdiocese said we sure can under the RFRA. The Supreme Court, in a cheese-paring mood (Justice Kennedy wrote the decision) said the RFRA doesn't apply to the states, only to the federal government.
Hmm. I am not a lawyer, but does that mean Florida can make Hobby Lobby cover the two drugs here? (Not that it would.)
Anyhow, a new feel-good law -- or a feel-bad law designed to mobilize the Democrats' base -- is hardly the answer to having a feel-good law rattling around producing unanticipated results (A diocese can't enlarge a church, but closely held companies can make medical decisions). Congress has already banned cities from interfering with diocesesan building projects through a different -- and more Rube Golbergian -- approach. I am sure Congress can do something about Hobby Lobby with another Rube Goldbergian approach. I am also sure it will only make things worse.
Doing nothing in Congress almost guarantees the Supreme Court will be blizzarded with RFRA suits to slice the cheese even thinner. My son works for a company that has been public, then closely held, then public again and now semiprivately owned, although I am not sure it qualifies as closely held. Does that mean a company's religious rights come and go? Calling Justice Kennedy. That's just one unsettled e.g. Settling them all may keep the Supremes away from other mischief, so maybe it's best to let things work themselves out a little more.
Anyway, the problem is not with religious freedom but with the Supreme Court's discovery that Dr. Frankenstein succeeded in his efforts to create life when he had Igor hook up corporations.
The post presumes the existence of a problem without really stating what it is. I confess that I don't see that there is a problem here that Democrats nor anyone else in Congress needs to address. Could someone please provide a problem statement?
Jim, It's not a case of an absence of problems but of a plethora of problems. You've been reading these threads, so you can sort the problems out into various categories as well as I. My problem, as I just implied, is that if you prick a a corporation it does not bleed. If you tickle it it does not laugh. If you poison it it does not die. (And if it commits a crime, it does not go to prison.) But if it chooses a candidate, it can spend as much as it wishes to elect him, and if it develops religious scruples (and is small enough) it can make everyone else bow to them.
Others might say the problem is that it is scientifically wrong in its analysis of the two pills but its corporate "feelings" trump science. Others might say trhe problem is that Hobby Lobby is a false front for a political party that doesn't want Obama to succeed -- and, if so, that is because the party is racist or because it is a nearly wholly owned subsidiary of rhe Koch brothers or because it is deluded by Foxy reporting. Others might say that the problem is that employers should have no control over employees medical decisions. Others might say the problem is that Sam Alito's embarrassing opinion for the court makes no sense. The possibilities are endless.
But with so many possibilities, I don't think anyone could boil it down to a single statement. (Which is another reason for my previously expressed opinion that the Ds should let it be there where it is at.)
JP - you say: "Could someone please provide a problem statement?"
Okay, admit - love Tom's response. Can't wait until a *corporation* is pregnant or is getting married?
Congress often responds to the Court's decisions through legislation. RFRA was itself a response to Smith. The democrats clearly want to respond to Hobby Lobby in some way. But while their proposal will satisfy "the base" and may be "good politics" (ugh), it almost certainly won't become law.
So the problems presumed by the post are (1) the fact that legislators often perform political stunts instead of proposing potentially successful legislation, and (2) the fact that the Court's majority provided so little in the way of guiding principles for future decisions about RFRA claims.
The Court simply declared the slope not slippery without providing reasons why it isn't. If I plug in "these immunizations are against my sincerely held religious beliefs" for "these contraceptives are abortifacient," then how does the current ruling decide against the anti-vaxxer? Since Kennedy granted compelling interest, it's only about least restrictive means. It seems like the result would be the same.
Some of the comments say that the scenarios I describe are unlikely to happen (even though Phillips v. New York already happened). I hope I'm wrong about lots of future RFRA claims by corporations against CDC, EPA, Labor, etc. But at least with respect to vaccines, I think it's inevitable. The growth and intensity of anti-vaxxers in the last few years is alarming. Why not have a bipartisan bill that simply eliminates the possibility of RFRA claims against immunizations required by the CDC?
There is imbedded within the US Constitution an infrequently used method for Congress to correct SCOTUS when it is determined that they have overstepped their bounds. It is called jurisdiction stripping or court stripping.
No less than Framers Alexander Hamilton and Connecticut's Roger Sherman commented on powers assigned to the Congress in Article I and III to limit and confine the purview of the federal judiciary when the Congress determines that constitutional errors were made or that SCOTUS had gone too far.
By exercising these powers in concert, Congress may effectively eliminate any judicial review of certain federal legislative or executive actions and of certain state actions, or alternatively transfer the judicial review responsibility to state courts by "knocking [federal courts]...out of the game."
Bauman, Richard and Kahana, Tsvi. The Least Examined Branch: the Role of Legislatures in the Constitutional State, p. 442 (2006).
It seems that SCOTUS [at least the 5 Catholic Supremes] has crossed over into establishment of some religions - expressly forbidden in the 1st Amendment.
In other words, Congress should cut-out the kvetching and just act. But of course, the Republicans will never agree as long as the Kenyan socialist is president.
Since Kennedy granted compelling interest, it's only about least restrictive means. It seems like the result would be the same.
Hmm, so then HHS will have to create a vaccine "accomodation"? Maybe the Obama administration has found a way to kill the American system of employer-subsidized benefits after all: death by a thousand religious objections and bureaucratic accommodations ...
Jim Jenkins,
They don't need to try a novel Constitutional strategy. The ruling was based on an act of Congress, so repealing or ammending that act would make the ruling irrelevant.
Jim Pauwels,
The Court could rule that creating novel accomodations for every objection is impractical. The ruling partly depended on the existence of a pre-existing accomodation.
Jim J
I did not know that the US had that provision in the constitution. It is indeed the nuclear option. It is similar to the Canadian "notwithstanding clause" which can nullify Supreme Court rulings. (Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
It is off topic but it would be interesting history. I thought FDR threatened to appoint more judges rather than invoke that provision when he was being threatened with overturn of the new deal by his political enemies. Is this really an actual possibility in the US system? At any rate, it has been invoked in Canada when Quebec resorted to it.
Quebec resorted to the notwithstanding clause after the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Ford and Devine cases on the language of commercial signs, ruled that an outright prohibition of the use of languages other than French was an unreasonable limitation on the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter. The Quebec government thereupon introduced an amendment to the language law that would maintain unilingual French signs outside premises while permitting the use of bilingual signs inside. To ensure that the amendment would not become the object of another legal challenge, the amending legislation invoked the legislative override authority of section 33 and the similar provision in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This marked the first time that the override had been used in direct response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, rather than in anticipation of litigation.
George D,
I believe so. The Constitution doesn't specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court, only that there is a supreme Court and which cases it has jurisdiction over.
Jim Jenkins, your suggestion is just as offensive as if someone criticized the dissenters in Hobby Lobby for being secular Jews trying to impose their own values, etc.
As for the delusional Tom Harkin (see http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/02/senator-tom-harkin-pulls-a-... ), if he thinks that women should make healthcare decisions without their boss's involvement, maybe he would author a bill allowing Hobby Lobby to cancel health insurance without severe financial penalties? That would mean no more Hobby Lobby involvement in healthcare decisions.
I would echo Tom Blackburn's concerns here about the extent to which religious employers might use the ruling to leverage exemptions, but it's hard for me to imagine a deluge of such cases. My guess is that most employers love birth control and abortion coverage because they reduce those pesky pregnancy leaves. Dealing with pregnancy and childcare leave is a pain in the neck. And who wants to forego vaccinations for employees who might have to stay home for two weeks to deal with a kid with measles?
I'm not sure I understand Jim Pauwel's assertion that the Obama administration has uncovered a way of eliminating employer-provided health care. It seems to me that employers themselves are the ones who want to get out of the health benefits biz. Why else would they be slashing full-time positions and hiring part-timers to whom they need not pay benefits?
Anyhoo, here's a Catholic commentator's very irreverent view of the ruling. Provided me with a much needed laugh as this wrangle continues: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/xivy3m/hobby-lobby-case
Dealing with pregnancy and childcare leave is a pain in the neck.
I am also amazed that the Republican, the so called family values party, routinely opposes extension of unemployment benefits for women who leave the workforce to care for a child for a year. Personally, I think they should be allowed two years and their job held for them upon their return. Granted EI is usually only 70% of your salary up to a certain cap but sometimes companies will offer "top-ups" to augment the salary. These compensations should be tax deductible. There are a raft of family support policies that the government can and should enact including enhancing the family and medical leave act.
Aside from important changes providing leave to military families, initially left without coverage under the act, Congress has made no significant improvements in expanding coverage to workplaces with fewer than 50 employees -- or in extending any protection to the growing millions of temporary and part-time workers who remain without any coverage.
But I also don't think that you will see a deluge of cases like this again before the Supreme Court.
I am also amazed that the Republican, the so called family values party, routinely opposes extension of unemployment benefits for women who leave the workforce to care for a child for a year.
That's because "family values" is the most empty phrase in modern American politics.
Nobody can agree on what it is, though it tends to refer to a romanticized notion of the nuclear family unit of the 1950s--stay-at-home Mom, working Dad, and 2.5 children in a modest ranch in the burbs, girls who "got in trouble" punished by being kicked out of school and their babies put up for adoption, immoderate drinking and other family skeletons kept in the back of the closet, big chummy neighborhood picnics (that provided several weeks worth of backstabbing gossip afterwards), no people of color unless they provided comic relief safely on TV and not next door, everybody dressed up and in pews on Sunday.
Purveyors of this view of "family values" are in the same league with those folks who produced the movies with the little turtle who told us that if we got under our desks with our arms over our heads when we saw the atomic bomb flash it would all be fine.
If you are evaluating the public-health impact of contraception, the statement "pregnancy is not a disease" is fatuous:
1. Pregnancy poses health risks to women (http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/monitoring/maternal-m...).
2. Unplanned pregnancies are particularly risky to the health of both women (Abma J et al., Fertility, family planning, and women's health: new data from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital and Health Statistics, 1997, Series 23, No. 19) and infants (Hummer RA, Hack KA, Raley RK. Retrospective reports of pregnancy wantedness and child well-being in the United States. J Fam Issues 2004, 25(3):404-428).
3. Anything that enables one to carry out a major life activity in a way that minimizes the risk to one's health, and prevents a condition that is particularly risky to the health of women and infants, counts as preventive health care.
I want to emphasize that my use the word <i>fatuous<i/> (Merriam-Webster: "complacently or inanely silly") is not just name-calling; it was carefully chosen to apply to the argument I'm referring to. Denying the tremendous toll of disease and death caused by unintended pregnancies strikes me as complacent (at best); denying the logic of contraception's public-health utility is inane.
Firing a gun, eating a cookie and parachuting from an airplane pose risks to women. None of them are diseases. Neither is pregnancy.
The cynic in me expects companies to develop religious objections to laws prohibiting discrimination against pregnant women. Pregnant women and gays are the ones who are most likely to be fired by religious institutions, and last week people were already expressing interest in using the Hobby Lobby precedent to overturn anti-discrimination laws.
Thanks, Kate - \
JP - you appear to not understand what she has posted in your effort to defend your simplistic statement - pregnancy is not a disease. Nope, but it is so much more than you want to convey by that simplistic statement.
Firing a gun, eating a cookie and parachuting from an airplane pose risks to women. None of them are diseases. Neither is pregnancy.
I agree that pregnancy is not a disease, but it is a medical condition, and one we don't deal with very successfully in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is up to three times higher than most European industrialized nations (see WHO stats), and it seems to be on the rise. Trivializing its risks with eating cookies strikes me as unnecessarily dismissive of these risks at best.
JP - you appear to not understand what she has posted in your effort to defend your simplistic statement
To the contrary - I understand it perfectly, and have already made precisely the same point that Jean made in response: pregnancy is a medical condition that requires medical care. And I managed to make that point without calling anyone inane, either casually or after considerable deliberation.
Kate Baldwin argues from a public-health point of view that pregnancy brings with it personal and public health risks. She is right. Obamacare's process for determining subsidized/free components of health insurance also approaches the question from a personal and public health point of view. For items such as vaccinations against communicable diseases, that is surely the right approach. But pregnancy is not primarily a public-health risk, any more than eating food is primarily a public health risk, even though some consequences of some food consumption, like consumption that results in morbid obesity, arguably is a public health risk.
If the only aspect of pregnancy is the aspect of personal and public health, then there is no reason for Obamacare not to pay completely for all abortions. Nor is there any reason not to adhere to something like China's one child/one family policy; after all, the more pregnancies, the greater the personal and public health risks. Think of the money we could save, and how much women's heatlh would improve.
The whole basis of Hobby Lobby's objection to subsidizing government-mandated abortifacients is that abortion is immoral. That is not a public-health argument. But pregnancy is about so much more than public health. And objecting to doing something immoral, and continuing to object in the face of a government mandate, is not inane, but rather its opposite.
Ryan - While I can think of at least one or two reasons that a company would prefer not to employ a pregnant woman, I don't know of any religious objections to a woman being pregnant. What are the religious objections to a woman being pregnant, that would result in a company terminating her employment?
Btw, I agree that it is conceivable that a for-profit company, under Hobby Lobby, might seek to discriminate against gay employees. We have also discussed here a private company that discriminated against a corporate executive who opposes same sex marriage, even though he stipulated that his personal beliefs wouldn't influence the company's employment policies. That is a real, concrete instance of discrimination against an employee for moral or religious beliefs, even though Hobby Lobby isn't applicable to his case.
I understand it perfectly, and have already made precisely the same point that Jean made in response: pregnancy is a medical condition that requires medical care.
Respectfully, Jim, you didn't make the same point I did. Eating a cookie is not a medical condition. Neither is jumping out of a plane or firing a gun. I'm willing to concede that for many--maybe even most--women, pregnancy is no more dangerous than those things you mentioned. But I think reasonable Catholics, including you, would concede that some women ought not to risk getting pregnant because of some pre-existing condition that would predictably harm their health or lives.
This is why some folks consider contraceptives as "preventive health care" (that's the term used in today's press release supporting the Murray bill from Obama's office as well as the bill backgrounder from Murray). I realize many Catholics reject any use of any contraceptives as "health care"; there's NFP or abstention.
Obama statement for those interested is at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/sa...
Murray's summary of the bill is here: http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/30554052-0f84-485a-babc...
Jim Pauwels,
I suppose some might have objections to pregnant women/women with children working. However, the cases I am thinking of are objections to unmarried women getting pregnant. It is a well known irony that many Catholic schools have an effective get an abortion or be fired policy.
But I think reasonable Catholics, including you, would concede that some women ought not to risk getting pregnant because of some pre-existing condition that would predictably harm their health or lives.
Yes, I agree. But I don't concede that abortion is a remedy for women who find themselves in that plight (nor for any other women). And of course, the Hobby Lobby case wasn't about contracepting to prevent pregnancy; it was about abortion. And there is nothing about Obamacare's contraception mandate that targets at-risk women; it offers free contraception (and, some folks would add, abortifacients) to all women.
And of course, theHobby Lobby case wasn't about contracepting to prevent pregnancy; it was about abortion.
Yes, I understand why you believe Hobby Lobby's case was about abortion. In my view, maintaining the distinction between churches and religious non-profits trumps the company's request to be treated on an equal footing with them. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
And there is nothing about Obamacare's contraception mandate that targets at-risk women; it offers free contraception (and, some folks would add, abortifacients) to all women.
That's interesting. For both personal and humanitarian reasons (even religious convictions, if I can be granted to have any at this late date), I would like to see the Affordable Care Act retained in some form (since I think it's about the best we can hope for at this point in history). So: Would Obamacare garner more support generally if ALL employers were released from the mandate requiring them to cover abortions or any drugs that could not be proved to be abortifacients? I don't know what kind of political gyrations would have to go into this argument (though I never underestimate Congress's ability to gyrate ...). But maybe the argument would go something like this: The Hyde Amendment has long prevented federal government funds to be used for abortions, and, in the spirit of the amendment, which attempts to accommodate the consciences of a wide swath of Americans who abjure abortions in any or some cases, the federal government declines to mandate abortion coverage for any employer.
Contraception is preventative medicine because pregnancy is a temporary disability. It's one that we often react to with joy and sometimes go to great lengths to experience, but it is a disability nonetheless. It is reasonable for even women who lives are not highly threatened by pregnancy to wish to control if and when it occurs.
Contraception is preventative medicine because pregnancy is a temporary disability. It's one that we often react to with joy and sometimes go to great lengths to experience, but it is a disability nonetheless.
I think having external genitalia is a disability, because it is much more prone to injury in accidents and requires special equipment if the afflicted wants to play contact sports. Or maybe I should just not make statements about things I know nothing about.
Legally, pregnancy is often treated as a disability. For example, California has Pregnancy Disability Leave that is distinct from the leave provided for new parents to bond with their child. Calling it a disability just acknowledges that it can reduce a woman's physical capabilities and require some time off to recover before one is back to normal. It shares similarities with breaking a leg and needing time off and work accomodations during recovery.
Hi, Jean, I agree that the Affordable Care Act addresses, at least to some extent, a genuine need. (The need is genuine; the ACA's effectiveness in addressing it is still TBD). There are quite a few problems with the ACA, but the political prospects for tweaking it seem to me to be hopeless. Politically, I think the ACA won't be revisable until the GOP decides that no more hay can be made by bashing it on the campaign trail. Everything I'm reading is that we're not at that point yet (here is one illustration).
I don't think there will be many companies that will want to opt out of providing drugs that may or may not act as abortifacients. This opinion is colored by my own experience working for small companies: the guys I worked for could care less what was on the formulary list, as long as it didn't cost too much and the employees were happy. (Not that happy employees were the be-all and end-all of their management/ownership philosophies, but disgruntled employees are a pain in the kiester and most business execs and owners aren't looking for more problems.)
Via the President's executive order (which he or a successor could rescind at any time), ACA already doesn't directly pay for abortions. I'd definitely support a measure that would enshrine that order into the legislation. But I'd think that Democrats (with the exception of the Bart Stupak types, if there are any left in Congress) wouldn't support it.
Btw, something you mentioned in your comment suggested that you perceive that I think Hobby Lobby is right on the science question of whether or not those particular drugs really do act as abortifacients. Of all the things I don't know much about, science would be at or near the top of the list. But I would side with the scientists on questions of scientific fact. If in fact those drugs aren't abortifacients, then I don't have an abortion objection to their use. (I know that sounds almost like a tautology, but we're constantly told that there are people out there who hold to be true what science holds to be false and vice-versa. I don't know such people, but I don't claim that my circle of acquaintances is broader than average.) I don't think the Hobby Lobby case turned on the scientific merits of the owners' beliefs.
This series of comments was triggered by someone's statement that it is inane to note that pregnancy isn't a disease. Inasmuch as I had claimed that very thing in one of these recent threads, it struck a nerve :-). But beyond my personal hypersensitivity, I really do think the topic of government-policy-treating-pregnancy-as-disease is an important one. I don't want to digress more from the topic at hand, though (pardon me as I scroll back up to the top to figure out what the heck it is we're supposed to be talking about).
Jim, we're talking about what, if anything, should be the response of congressional Democrats to the Hobby Lobby ruling by SCOTUS, and my question is whether it would make sense for that response to be this: Let all employers off the hook re drugs that cannot yet be proven NOT to cause abortions through the kind of lame-o contortions that on congressional representatives can perform.
If these drugs are some kind of sticking point for the majority who oppose Obamacare, I say let it go. Practically speaking, most people who purchase emergency pills are not going to wait the two days it takes to get an appointment to see their doctors, get a scrip, and have it filled because these things need to be taken ASAP to work best. Neither are people going to go to the ER, because the co-pay (or outright payment) for that visit will probably exceed the cost of the pill itself (about $50). Planned Parenthood offices may also give these things out even cheaper.
I suppose some women might ask the doctor to write a scrip for an emergency pill so she can carry one around in her purse just in case, but people who end up needing these things generally aren't the type who plan ahead.
So fighting to keep these pills covered in health insurance policies may make some pro-choice Dems look like their fighting the good fight for a woman's right to control her own bodily functions when, in reality, she's probably going to purchase these OTC.
The other issue is whether it's a good idea to extend the right to religious convictions to companies. No. The rights of business owners should not be conflated with or extended to the business entity they run (although the Amish guy who briefly owned the hardware store downtown here used to keep the lights off all the time because God didn't want him on Consumers Energy's grid; customers got sick of taking screwdrivers to the front window to see if they were flat-heads or phillips and he folded).
I have no inside knowledge of these drugs and, as far as this blog is concerned, I have no opinion about them whatever except to note that I think women should understand that these things work because they are mega doses of female hormones that can make you pretty sick for a couple of days. The package inserts--you can read this stuff online--emphatically say they're not abortifacients. But as others here have asked, how do we know? And Catholics would have to recognize them as contraceptives and a sin in any case.
@ Wasting Time: You should've learned in high school debating that it is dangerous to set-up straw man arguments - especially if you're going to make disparaging ethnic comments about Jews.
You WT and Catholic hierarchs have to decide if you can abide by the limited rights embedded in ALL the provisions of the US Constitution?
Despite what the hierarchs would have us believe, the 1st Amendment religious liberty guarantees are limited by the equal protection and due process requirements of the 14th Amendment. Look it up. They may be "severe financial penalties" to you, but to the vast majority of us Americans that's what justice looks like.
SCOTUS has spoken for now. But, something tells me that these issues are not settled conclusively - nothing has been decided definitively, if it had we wouldn't be having this debate. We'll be contesting these constitutional principles for a long time to come. This is the way democracy works! Very slowly, very slowly ...
With some luck, the composition on SCOTUS could change dramatically in the next few years that could put a dent in the stranglehold the 5 Catholic Supremes have on our constitutional liberties.


text:
If your grownup children still live at home, should they share cost of living in the common household?
There are two possible extremes here--demanding rent as soon as they turn 18 years old, or allowing them to stay for free indefinitely regardless of their social, educational, or vocational status. I assume most of us will agree that the best answer is somewhere between these extremes, but determining exactly where isn't easy. And because family and individual situations are different, there is no "best solution" that is best in all cases.
As long as staying at home is not preventing the child from progressing socially, educationally, and/or vocationally, I see no problem with them staying for free. If they just graduated and got a new job or just started going to school, staying at home (for free) can be a great way for them to save up for future financial independence. On the other hand, if they're not taking advantage of that opportunity to save and prepare, staying at home for free is a hindrance to them.
So there is not a set age or social status that defines when a child should be required to pay rent (or even be allowed to stay at home any more). Make sure your child know what you expect of them in terms of their financial independence, and make sure you understand their expectations as well. Set some goals and guidelines and then determine how strict you will need to be with those guidelines. As others have mentioned, a lot of this comes down to communication.
I feel that all adults living in the household need to actively contribute to the maintenance of the household.
This does not necessarily need to be financial, although that is the simplest and most obvious. It could instead include things like taking on more of the cleaning, cooking, and general household maintenance. It may include driving elderly family members around and running regular errands.
The biggest key is communication, sit down with them and discuss their situation and come up with a plan that is fair to all involved.
In the cases where there is a large amount of tension between parties consider bringing in a third party to help come up with the plan.
Remember that eventually the plan would need to be revised as the family situation changes, the adult child's financial state changes, and/or things begin to break down.
As with all things, "it depends."
I think that if the child is an adult then he or she should be paying rent unless there's a good reason not to. (e.g. In college or home on winter/summer breaks, studying for bar exams or similar professional credentials, searching for job, destitute, separating from spouse, etc.)
I've also heard of parents doing this and saving all that money to give back to the child in the future.
My parents made it clear from a young age that when we were done with High School we were only able to stay at home if we were in college. And if we were staying at home we had to either help out with our share of chores or pay rent.
One thing I appreciated was them always being consistant and letting us know well before the time came what to expect.
With my son, if I charged rent would entirely depend on the situation, is he going to school or doing something productive to enhance his future? Then I would just ask for him to help out with chores and let him know that not paying rent is our way of supporting him and helping him to focus on his studies so he doesn't need to work as much which could distract from school.
If he is just being a bum, working a minimum wage job just to get money to hang out with his friends all the time then I would require rent, to start getting him used to the real world where we have expenses and cannot just blow all of our money on fun stuff all the time.
When I was living with my parents, I made the decision on my own to help them with the household expenses particularly with the utility bills and other expenses. My parents have done so much things for me, and I believe it is a way of lending them a hand, so they can also enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I believe that adult children need not be told that they should help or not, one should take their own decision to at least help the parent considering that they are already earning.
Where I live (Australia—Victoria, specifically), this isn't the norm—probably because of how university ("college" in America) is handled here. The government loans money to students (for basically no interest, other than indexing with inflation), which is paid back automatically as part of tax once your income exceeds a certain threshold (i.e. usually after you've got your degree).
Hence, while it's common for university students to have a part-time job, it's not necessary, and because it's not like your parents are paying for your education, the living arrangement often continues as it was in high school.
Of course, it varies wildly from family to family; in my family, I moved out once as soon as I turned 18 (which I'm sure happens commonly elsewhere), while others stayed until they were in their mid-late twenties and got married. I have a 23-year old brother still at home who's just finished his degree, and will probably move out once he has a job.
When we were in more financial difficulty (~10 years ago), the older kids (who were already working part-time) did contribute board (or "rent"), but I wouldn't be surprised if that was just of their own choice and recognition of the times we were in.
(And I'm one of five, which is why I seem to have brothers and sisters coming out my ears.)
I can think of several reasons why an adult would be living with their parents.
With situation 1, provided the adult is making positive steps towards financial independence, I don't see how asking them for rent is going to get them out of the house faster. If they aren't at least trying to take such steps, I don't see why you should let them live in your house. On the other hand, helping out by paying rent and doing chores is probably good for the self esteem, so it might be beneficial as an act of support.
With situation 3, bad things are going on in everyone's life. Situationally, if the adult is dealing with addiction problems or mental illness of some kind, they probably need treatment or therapy. I would not charge rent for a person in this situation, but I would not let them live with me if they were not participating in the treatment/therapy they need.
The goal is to achieve independence. I would charge rent in a situation where charging rent furthered that goal, but not otherwise.
Situations 2 and 4 are probably out of scope for this question.
I think as a child becomes older than 18 and still living at home and working and going to school should probably not have to pay rent unless there are major financial hardships in paying the mortgage.
Having said that, a lot of families went through the housing crisis and need every adult living on the home to contribute in some way or another. Adult children can pay a household bill which helps a great deal and gives them a sense of responsibility. If they pay absolutely nothing and instead just go to the mall and blow their paychecks they will never learn how to save or budget. It's better to train them early or it will be a very depressing wake up call out on their own. Teach them young! Money matters!
You wanted to have kids, now support them. They didn't ask to be born did they? This world is not very safe, financially or other wise. If you chose to have children, take care of them. Kind of immoral to bring someone to the world against their will and then ask them for money.


text:
I have already looked at the Documentation on there Website, but the code provieded to create a shape out of an Texture is outdated for the newest version. The body is very simple so maybe i can do it with just 2 rectange but i have no idea how to do, because I just started with Farseer. Here my texture: Texture
First, you need to get the color data as uint's in an array, so:
After, you can use Farseer's
Finally, you want to decompose those Vertices into something usable so they can be used to create polygons, using one of the many Farseer Decomposers
There are many different methods under
You might need to scale your vertices appropriately (since the result is in pixels and Farseer uses "meters") so you can do something like this


text:
What would you do in a situation where a team member tries to take responsibilities are not initially assigned to him but to the Scrum Master?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
migrated from stackoverflow.com May 17 '11 at 12:16
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
The Scrum team is self organized so there can be somebody who is little bit more dominant and other ask him for his ideas about tasks they are working on but that dominance must be under control. What you can do:
If dominant team member don't want to lose his dominance and passive team members don't want to be more active you will definitely need support from their boss and HR. This can be a problem if Scrum is not advocated by the management.
Presumably, the reason for this question is because you feel that the team is somehow under-performing because of this dominant person. Perhaps because the rest of the team aren't contributing 100% because, well, what's the point?
As a manager, if you are, it's your responsibility to make sure that all of your employees understand what their roles are. Specifically, what's expected of them and how they are going to be evaluated. As a team member in a Scrum team, each person is personally responsible for the success of the team. So this dominating team member needs to know that they're failing in that responsibility, and will be evaluated accordingly.
Feedback is a key point. If there's a team meeting and this person dominates the discussion, forces his designs and approach on the rest of the team and pushes the rest of them into passive roles then he needs to be told, bluntly and privately, that he's failing to meet the requirements of the role. If you spot him sneakily highlighting only his own personal achievements, then he needs to be called on it, and made to understand that personal achievements are valued far, far less than helping the team to have a group achievement.
All of which is tough, but that's what managers and Scrum Masters are for.
There's one other possible way to go about this. Make it a team problem. Call them together and tell them they are under-achieving and here's why. Ask them to come up with a solution. You might be surprised.
Why not ask the alpha developer his opinion. It's entirely possible he has no idea of the effect he's having. Take him aside and tell him what you think. You could even couch the discussion of "hey you're our lead developer, but we need to bring these people up to your level, I need your help in working out how can we do it?". Turn his dominance into an asset. See if he can see ways of doing that.
If he's measured on how well he supports his team and brings them up to his level then he'll have more motivation to do just that.
You imply he's actually not working in the interest of the team (my guess), ie he's evil in some way, then yes, remove him. But a wise man once said to me: Don't assume ill will, when incompetance or simple ignorance are more likely.
Looks like he tries to be the Scrum Master.
Clarify your positions, and act accordingly.
The role of the Scrum Master is to enable team spirit. If you are unable to make this one and only person be a team player, remove him from the team.
Quick note: Your dominant developer is no more problematic than your passive developer.
Sprint planning should involve the entire team, not be handed to one person at a time. Unless there is a good reason for this I see this as a severe problem.
If what you are saying is true and objective then you have a major problem at your hands: people who do not participate and the "Dominator" who prevents a truly agile process. As the srum master it is up to you to take action. Maybe you would like to take your project manager into confidence about this situation.
Perhaps the "dominant" dev is rewarded by his individual performance rather than team achievements?
In the past I have made sure that people that are very vocal and have clear ideas are also rewarded (via their objectives) by fostering others contributions.
In general, I think it is a bad idea to reward scrum members solidly on their individual contribution rather than on team achievements.
You could also try doing a 360 feedback round in your team for all team members, only if you think the other team members will be truthful in their comments.
Many teams strays from the core of agile, and it is your job to bring them back. You need to teach and re-embed agile values into the the team. In fact, you should constantly be teaching agile values. Hold out your vision of agile, make it clear and powerful. Show them your commitment to "agile done well".
To do this, walk them through the agile manifesto and Scrum values. Ask them what collaboration means for them and why it is important. Ask them about the role of trust in agile. This is a great time to talk about why there is no team lead role and no project manager role in Scrum and that it is the whole team's responsibility to make great software, not the individual.
Plan an entire retrospective session around this. Get them to commit to some values and follow up during the next retrospective. Don't point fingers, use neutral methods.
Introduce methods that forces the other members to state their opinions safely. Something simple as fist-of-five is great for getting the silent voices in the team heard. It makes it painfully obvious that the team disagrees with the dominant guy. Planning Poker works well but the key is don't allowing any discussions before the cards are shown. Anything that helps getting the others heard without starting conflicts is helpful.
If that goes well, you're all set. Otherwise, talk to him about the problem. Use coaching and ask powerful questions that can help him realize the problem clearly. Try to get to the root cause why he has taken on the dominant role. Maybe he lacks trust in the team (why?) and maybe he feel he is responsible for success (why?). I suspect this role is not something he wants and quite possible he would like it to change. He may come around and realize it.
Propose that he becomes the Scrum Master for the following sprint.
People willing to take on responsibilities is not a problem (as long as they don't want monopoly over them), it's precisely what we're looking to achieve with self-organization.
Teams with a rotating scrum master role aren't uncommon, by the way.
Embrace individualism and individual performance, but also try to empower passive individuals to become more participative.
My experience says that although they might seem similar at first sight, communism and agile are not the same. Agile doesn't aim for a classless society (team) but for software that works.
Try to make your alpha developer understand that he could help you develop others skills by asking and coaching, rather than answering always first, and achieving individual accomplishments. Surely your alpha developer is one that cares about good software, and that's something you cannot allow yourself to lose.


text:
Hey everyone !
i'm selling my nodal ninja 5 i have no used for it anymore... i was going to do CGI ended up in the film industry ..
anyways everything works great i barely used it to begin with ... imim selling it for $400 obo ii'm more interested in a local buying i live in California, los angeles area please email me if interested. If someone would like to purchase that is not local to me i am willing to put it on ebay.
thanks everything


text:
Assistant Chief Keith Mefford, with the Bowling Green Fire Department says, "In this instance they were apparently using two electrical heating units out of one outlet. And that put such a load on the electrical system that it resulted in a spark and eventually a fire."
That's what fire officials say happened at this house on 11th Avenue Tuesday night. They got the call around 10:30.
Chief Mefford says, "Found a one-story duplex with fire venting from the front door and from the side windows."
T.J. Frye says, "We saw that house up in flames. Last night we were playing X-Box and watching TV."
Frye was at his brother's house when they heard the sirens
Frye says, "We ran outside came out front and there were flames licking up the porch over there. They were way past the top of the porch."
When firefighters first arrived on the scene they searched the house for seven month old Juan Pablo Estrada. It was on their second search they found the infant in the fire.
Chief Mefford says, "After they went in and made the attack and did a search there were apparently three people there. The mother and five-year-old boy got out. And they did find an infant that was a fatality as a result of the fire."
The two boys' mother, Nelly Estrada, was not injured in the fire. The Bowling Green Fire Department has a burn victim fund to benefit the five-year-old boy. He is now at Vanderbilt Hospital. His name and condition are not being released.


text:
Raquel Allegra
"Painter Stripe" Long-sleeve T-shirt
Product Actions
- Jewel neckline
- Availble in Grey
- Cotton/polyester
- Hand wash
- Made in U.S.
Experimentation is the name of the game in California-born designer Raquel Allegra's approach to fashion. In 2009, she grabbed headlines with her debut collection featuring hand-shredded T-shirts repurposed from Los Angeles County Jail inmate uniforms. Since then, the art of shredding, which allows fabric to drape effortlessly across the back and shoulders, has become synonymous with her label. Today, Allegra still favors a deconstructed look and roomy, casual cuts for a laid-back West Coast style.
Need Help? Have Questions? Contact Us.
Please call 1.888.222.7639 to speak with a Customer Service Representative.
We're here to help you:
Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday - Sunday, 10:30 AM - 7 PM (ET)
If you prefer email, we can be reached anytime at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Free Shipping & Returns on all U.S. Orders. See Details.


text:
The Mosques, Churches, and Synagogues of Spain
August 29- September 13, 2012
While on your Field Museum journey through Spain, led by Dr. James Phillips, you will observe remnants of the Roman Empire at every turn, as well as reminders of a time when different faiths coexisted in harmony. See walled cities and imposing cathedrals that have endured through the centuries. View a number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites and stay in paradores that were once monasteries, castles or palaces.
To learn more contact us at:
email@example.com or (312) 665-7789.


text:
From Noisebridge
Who is a member?
- Full Members
- Applicants
Full members should add the [[Category:Members]] tag to their user page. Associate members should use the [[Category:Associate Members]] tag. Applicants should use the [[Category:Applicant]] tag so their user page appears below. If you are here in error, and are actually a replicant, please add yourself to the Replicant [[Category:Replicant]] page.
Pages in category "Applicant"
The following 72 pages are in this category, out of 72 total.


text: Peter, thanks! By the way, congratulations on your new baby boy! Honestly, I had tried to search these lists to find something appropriate on the topic. I couldn't find anything. Being on a site that is offering a search program, it's ironic, eh? On 12/19/06, Peter Karman wrote: > > > > James scribbled on 12/19/06 2:27 PM: > > Peter, thanks for your reply! Honestly, I had not noticed this in the > > docs. Would you be so kind as to provide the link (with anchor, if > > appropriate)? > > http://swish-e.org/docs/swish-config.html#document_contents_directives > > It will depend largely on how you aggregate your documents. If you use the > spider.pl or fs methods, or write your own program. > > But I expect you could use ExtractPath to do the magic. > > > > > Also, can this: > > > > site=mydomain.com > > > > Be changed to this: > > > > site:mydomain.com > > > > somehow, or is that not possible? I imagine it is possible, if it is > > changed in the right place(s) in some kind of configuration file. Am I > > right? If so, where? > > you can edit the source, if you'd like, but it is not currently > configurable. > iirc, there was a posting on the list in the last year or so about how to > do > that. Try searching the mail list archive. > > If you build your own search application, using the API, then you can make > the > field indicator anything you want. But the default is '='. > ********************************************************************* Due to deletion of content types excluded from this list by policy, this multipart message was reduced to a single part, and from there to a plain text message. *********************************************************************Received on Tue Dec 19 12:39:59 2006


text:
7 Creepy Urban Legends That Happen to Be True (Part 6)
Well, it's that time of year again. Specifically, the time of year when we make you shit your pants with stories that sound like they must have been made up, but are actually terrifyingly true. We have done this five times before, and somehow humanity keeps topping itself ...
#7. The Homemade Self-Decapitation Machine
The Legend:
As humans, we're pretty emotionally attached to our heads, which probably explains why there are so many urban legends that incorporate accidental or intentional decapitation ("Then the man fell out of the elevator ... WITHOUT HIS HEAD!"). But if some guy around the water cooler were to insist that he once heard about a guy who TOTALLY committed suicide by BEHEADING HIMSELF with a COMPLICATED SAW-LIKE BOOBY TRAP DEVICE and that he TOTALLY SAW IT ON THE NEWS, DUDE, you'd tag him as one of those people who can't separate reality from low-budget torture porn.
Well, buckle up.
Don't let the picture fool you -- there's nothing wacky or cute about what you're about to read.
The Truth:
Usually, when cops get a call about a domestic disturbance, it's just another day at the office. You show up, make Cletus put his pants back on, confiscate the bath salts, the usual. Not for the poor guys who responded to a disturbance in Yorktown, Virginia, in 2011. For one thing, the guy they were there to help was sitting in a car with a trailer attached. A flaming trailer. For another, the guy in the car attached to the burning trailer refused to get out, not for the police or for the firemen or for the promise of a Big Gulp, a trick that usually works with these types.
"Come on out so we can have sex with you. We love arsonists, and we're totally not cops."
And that's when one of the firefighters noticed the wire around the driver's neck ... the wire that went out the back window and was snugly tied to a tree 10 feet away. This was no ordinary domestic disturbance. This dude wasn't just a troubled soul having a freakout at the trailer park; he was going out like the shiniest star in the crazysphere.
Before anyone could stop him, the driver stepped on the gas, the car zoomed forward and the wire snapped. The unnamed victim was whipped out the rear window and his head was removed. And the whole ordeal wasn't even over -- the trailer detached from the truck and kept rolling, flames sky high in the air, head and body both left behind. Here's the ABC News link if you don't believe us. Welcome to the goddamned Cracked Halloween Real Urban Legends list, baby.
Fuck off, buddy. Nothing you do can ever top the horrors of reality.
#6. The Engagement Ring and the Grave
The Legend:
Getting buried alive happens so much in fiction that it has its own TV Tropes page and comes up even more frequently in spooky campfire stories ("And when they finally dug her up, they found SCRATCH MARKS ON THE COFFIN LID, and her dead face was FROZEN IN A SCREAM!"). The only things more implausible are the stories where the victims dig their way out (like in the second Kill Bill). Hell, Ryan Reynolds starred in an entire movie with that exact premise. That's Hollywood for you.
Via Movieposterhut.com
If you picture him as his character from Waiting ..., you find yourself cheering inversely.
The Truth:
A Polish man named Marcin Kasprzak decided that his girlfriend of six years, Michelina Lewandowska, wasn't pretty enough for him. But instead of letting her find him in bed with her sister like most men would do, he took a more terrifying and infinitely more complicated route. He and a buddy shot her with a Taser, taped her hands and feet, stuffed her in an old television box and loaded her up in the trunk of his car. Kasprzak and his friend then buried his fiancee alive in a secluded part of the woods and promptly withdrew 500 pounds with her ATM card, because hey, that wouldn't look suspicious at all.
"It's the perfect crime because these things are totally untraceable!"
Fortunately, Kasprzak was as bad at murder as he was good at buying jewelry. Lewandowska used her engagement ring to cut through the tape binding her and clawed her way to freedom through the dirt and branches that her boyfriend had slipshoddingly buried her under. Ladies, let this be a lesson -- make sure you get a nice, big, sharp diamond out of him. Especially if he has a television box he just doesn't want to get rid of for some reason.
#5. The Very Unhappy Ending
The Legend:
A man falls passionately in love with a beautiful, exciting woman. After a whirlwind romance, he permanently seals the deal with a wedding. It's only then that he discovers that he has married THE DEVIL.
Wait, we're going to say that there is such a thing as marrying a she-devil? Read on.
"Honey, do you have a cold? You sound like the lead singer for Cannibal Corpse."
The Truth:
Newlyweds Shriya and Bimal Patel had spent most of their first year as man and wife with him in Austin and her in Dubai. You'd think that once they were reunited, some freaky sex stuff would get started. That's probably what Mr. Patel pictured when his wife offered to give him a hot oil massage in the bathtub. She even set the scene -- romantic candles, a faint scent of gasoline ...
"Don't worry, it's just diesel!"
The hopeless romantic was already in the tub when he realized that the oil she was pouring wasn't so much oil as it was gas, and the candles weren't there for ambience. For all we know, he didn't figure it out until he found himself bathing in a roaring tub of hellfire.
Shriya fled the scene, jamming the bathroom door on her way out. If Mr. Patel had been paying attention, he would have noticed that the fire alarm was off the wall and the apartment sprinklers were wrapped in plastic bags. In other words, this wasn't a spontaneous "douse my husband in gas and burn him alive" impulse that had hit her in the heat of the moment -- she had planned it out to the last detail, and during the entire process never stopped to think that maybe there were easier ways to break it off. Shriya was, as you can imagine, charged with murder.
Via Kvue.com
And for letting hair that pretty go to waste by not hiring a stylist.
#4. The Milwaukee Mangler
The Legend:
Every day, millions of us put our lives in the hands of skilled physicians, dentists and white van tattoo artists. Whether we're getting wisdom teeth removed or our boobs corrected so they're the same size, we're working under two assumptions: A) The doctor in charge knows what he's doing and B) he's not a psychopath who just went through medical school so he'd have an excuse to mutilate people.
"No, I'm not the devil, don't be silly. Why do you ask?"
The Truth:
Glen Tucker was a terrible plastic surgeon. In fact, he was worse than that -- he was sadistically incompetent and left a trail of mangled patients behind him wherever he went. Like the man who came to see him with arm spasms and ended up having his arm amputated. Or the woman who went in for breast implants and somehow, against all odds and laws of physics, ended up with square breasts, covered in Frankenstein-like scars.
So Tucker's faults went far beyond just being a crappy doctor. Take the story of Jan Lehman, who had nothing more than a broken nose when she came to see Tucker. Midway through surgery, she WOKE UP to find the "doctor" wheeling her into a strangely dark and deserted operating room. She then passed out, but awoke again as Tucker brutally tore tubing from her nose, destroying her stitches. Later, after filing a complaint against Tucker, Lehman reported seeing him following her in his car. He wasn't just inept -- he was Cape Fear crazy.
The complaints and lawsuits mounted, and then one day Tucker tragically drowned in a boating accident. Except of course he didn't actually drown, and even if he did, it probably wouldn't have been that tragic. No, he just flew the coop to Florida, leaving numerous barely stitched together patients in his wake. Years later, a TV producer tracked Tucker to Florida, and the doctor gave this eerie statement: "If I get driven too far into a corner, if it got to the point where life was no longer worth living, then I would not want to go alone."
He didn't. Several years later, Tucker loaded his .45 and killed his wife, himself and, yes, even the cat.
Via Miaminewtimes.com
Jesus, you expect the guy to look like Hannibal Lecter, but it's just every person's grandpa.


text:
Hmm, how about a few clips from 2008?
Sorting out folders is always beneficial, especially if you have files named like VTS_03_1ghf.VOB in them… I found a few Spring Festival classics again that I recorded earlier from CCTV4, in the good ol' days when the editors still haven't decided to substitute the Chinese Opera program with a cooking show…
Apropos of decisions, today at the CCTV headquarters an intense meeting is going on about the program of Theater in the Air for the next half of the year. Let's cross our fingers for rare plays! More regional operas! Lesser seen troupes!
About the next three snippets:
You surely remember the unforgettable Nü Fuma song of the strikingly beautiful vice-president of the Hubei Huangmei Opera Theater. Now Yang Jun isn't disguised as a man, she appears as Weaving Maid, a popular folk tale character.
The second clip features Zeng Zhaojuan again, who hypnotized Bertrand in the previous post. She was born in 1966, and is appointed as the vice-president of the Tianjin Pingju Theater.
At last, but not at least, a fantastic bangzi aria with Xu Heying from Hebei! Xu was born in 1963, and was honored with the Plum Blossom Award in 1998, together with Li Haiyan, Wang Ping.
黄梅戏《牛郎织女》到底人间欢乐多 Huangmei Opera Cowherd Boy and Weaving Maid – What Earthly Joy – Yang Jun (杨俊)
评剧《绣鞋记》Pingju Tale of the Embroidered Shoe – Zeng Zhaojuan (曾昭娟)
河北梆子《王宝钏·大登殿》Hebei Bangzi Wang Baochuan·The Great Enthronement – Xu Heying (许荷英)
I can't resist adding the same aria performed by a 5 years old cutiepie! Isn't it more appealing than a beauty contest with toddlers on high heels?
Kiddy Bangzi Wang Baochuan – Wang Meng (王萌)
You can download a version of the full opera from CCTV's website in three parts here: [1] [2] [3]. Beware, Hebei Bangzi is infectious! But don't expect the laosheng performers sound like in Beijing Opera. 😉


text:
Recently I purchased and ice cream maker and have been making lots of sorbets with our surplus frozen fruit. Often I will follow a recipe however sometimes not: sometimes the sorbets are icy after just a few hours (even recipes) and sometimes incredibly smooth and creamy (even without recipes). I always churn the sorbet until a soft-serve consistency and always use a sugar syrup. What can I do to ensure a smoother sorbet and furthermore longer lasting?
The general things that can cause icy sorbet:
David Lebovitz has a good blog post about making homemade ice cream softer; most of what I've mentioned is also there, along with more details and some things that apply only to ice cream - for example, fat softens things too.
I bookmarked a blog post long ago that explains how you can make your own invert sugar to improve the texture of sorbet -- you use acid to break the sucrose down into a mix of fructose and glucose, which crystallize more slowly than the sucrose of table sugar does.
The machine will make a difference. I've found that home machines with a spinning bowl with a scraper that sits inside tend to make larger crystals and lose their freezing ability before the sorbet is quite set up enough. It makes good sorbet/icecream for same day use but if you hold it for too long (a day or two) it'll start getting grainy fast.
Commercial grade machines in restaurants will freeze and churn the sorbet more. The texture will be finer and it will keep for maybe a week before it starts to get grainy.
You also might be comparing sherbet to sorbet, which has the same ingredients but typically has the addition of either egg whites or dairy which gives it a much creamier texture without the fattiness of ice-cream.
Store bought sorbets will have additives that stabilize their product as well it gives them the ability to add more air so you get less raw ingredients but more smoothness.
Try using Pectin! It will enhance flavors and minimize the size of ice crystals. If you can't find it in raw form, use peach preserves (2tsp and you won't taste it). Check the ingredients to be sure it contains Pectin. It works well in Ice cream too if your not willing to use eggs (custard)
Food Science Teacher


text:
Hypertext is text displayed on a computer or other electronic device with references (hyperlinks) to other text that the reader can immediately access, usually by a mouse click or keypress sequence. Apart from running text, hypertext may contain tables, images and other presentational devices. Hypertext is the underlying concept defining the structure of the World Wide Web.[1] It is an easy-to-use and flexible format to share information over the Internet.
So any webpage that does not have hyper links is NOT hypertext?
second question:
HTML, which stands for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language for web pages.
So HTML is not hypertext because it is not displayed on an electronic device, but HTML that is displayed on an electronic device like this:
is considered hypertext?
(I was debating whether to post this here or in English.StackExchange but thought probably here is a more appropriate channel)


text:
I have been an aficionado of Edgar Rice Burroughs' writings for some time, enjoying both the Tarzan and the "Land That Time Forgot" series of Pulpy adventure novels. Though I strenuously objected to the critic who suggested that The Land That Time Forgot is more imaginative and generally superior to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, the latter being my favorite novel of all time, I still find Burroughs to have an infinitely breezy and readable style.
Nevertheless, I had never gotten around to reading his Barsoom series beginning with A Princess of Mars. With all the hype surrounding the upcoming Disney adaptation, the perfect opportunity was upon me. A Princess of Mars (1912) begins a discrete trilogy continued in The Gods of Mars and concluding with The Warlord of Mars, both published in 1913. This will be the first in a series of reviews of the trilogy. Burroughs' Barsoom chronicles continue for another ten books, picking up from the heroic John Carter and following the exploits of his son.
Read in rapid succession, the Carter trilogy puts the exclamation on something about Burroughs' writing to which I was previously only dimly aware. I touched on it in my reviews of the Tarzan feature films starring Johnny Weissmuller, but it came out in full force through this cycle. That "something" was Edgar Rice Burroughs' attributes as a manufacturer of pure escapism devolving frequently into outright wish fulfillment.
It is de rigeur to criticize Stephanie Meyer for rendering up a platter of her "Mary Sue" fantasies for public consumption. I have to admit that I am impressed with the Machiavellian studiousness of the Twilight saga. A series of novels about a fairly mundane teenage girl who suddenly gets obsessive attention paid to her by tall, dark and handsome vampires as well as totally ripped wolfboys and later becomes, like, totally the best vampire ever is a licence to print money. Of the two I would certainly rather read Edgar Rice Burroughs, but he shows just the same aplomb with his planetary romances.
Tarzan has aspects of this, but they at least begin in a more subdued manner. Lord Greystoke (a lord!) is at the height of human strength and agility, is brilliant enough to teach himself English, gets to run around a jungle with abandon just being awesome, and is irresistible to women. He even gets to become a superspy. John Carter comes fresh out of the gate. First, you take what would be a fairly average soldier for the Confederacy and transport him to Mars, where decreased gravity and air pressure make him a veritable superman. He is just shy of being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. He is utterly unbeatable, which eventually earns him the regard of all the warriors of Barsoom (Burroughs' name of Mars). Second, you let him and everybody else run around naked. Third, you make every hot, naked Martian woman fall at his feet. Of course Carter opts to claim the most stunningly beautiful woman of any world, Dejah Thoris the Princess of Mars, but he still enjoys the attention of a half-dozen gorgeous paramours.
Being escapism par excellence, Burroughs doesn't tend to clutter up his work with a self-critical or socially critical narrative. In A Princess of Mars this is seen most succinctly in his dealing with the question of race. In order to appreciate literature of the Victorian and Edwardian Eras, one must have a pretty thick skin anyways. However, it is not fair to say that all the literature was uniformly racist. There are degrees and examples which make it easier to choke down. For example, in 1912's greater Scientific Romance - the aforementioned Lost World by Conan Doyle - the worst thing that the haughty Professor George Edward Challenger has to say about the Natives of the dinosaur-riddled plateau is that they're no smarter than the average Londoner.
A Princess of Mars is not one of those books. Burroughs is utterly unconscious about his racial assumptions, to the tune of nearly quoting verbatim from the prevailing attitudes of his day. When Carter arrives on Mars, he falls in with the totally inhuman, four-armed, tusked, green martians. Also sharing Mars are the red-skinned race of perfectly humanoid martians (except that they lay eggs) to which Dejah Thoris belongs, and the races of humanoid black, white and yellow-skinned martians we meet in later books. Some episodes from A Princess of Mars illustrate the problems this arrangement make for issues of race.
The green martians have successfully conquered and driven off an expedition of red martian airships, having captured the incomparable image of feminine loveliness that John Carter fell instantly in love with. Sight unseen, Carter has already expressed feelings of sympathy for their evidently advanced culture: "The scene I had witnessed seemed to mark the defeat and annihilation of the forces of a kindred people, rather than the routing by our green warriors of a horde of similar, though unfriendly, creatures." Then he saw the red martian woman, and his heart was stirred by racial similarities. When the green martians bring her to trial, the following exchange occurs:
"What is your name?" asked Lorquas Ptomel, addressing the prisoner.
"Dejah Thoris, daughter of Mors Kajak of Helium."
"And the nature of your expedition?" he continued.
"It was a purely scientific research party sent out by my father's father, the Jeddak of Helium, to rechart the air currents, and to take atmospheric density tests," replied the fair prisoner, in a low, well-modulated voice.
"We were unprepared for battle," she continued, "as we were on a peaceful mission, as our banners and the colors of our craft denoted. The work we were doing was as much in your interests as in ours, for you know full well that were it not for our labors and the fruits of our scientific operations there would not be enough air or water on Mars to support a single human life. For ages we have maintained the air and water supply at practically the same point without an appreciable loss, and we have done this in the face of the brutal and ignorant interference of your green men.
"Why, oh, why will you not learn to live in amity with your fellows, must you ever go on down the ages to your final extinction but little above the plane of the dumb brutes that serve you! A people without written language, without art, without homes, without love; the victim of eons of the horrible community idea. Owning everything in common, even to your women and children, has resulted in your owning nothing in common. You hate each other as you hate all else except yourselves. Come back to the ways of our common ancestors, come back to the light of kindliness and fellowship. The way is open to you, you will find the hands of the red men stretched out to aid you. Together we may do still more to regenerate our dying planet. The granddaughter of the greatest and mightiest of the red jeddaks has asked you. Will you come?"
Sola, one of the few green martians who expresses what Carter considers human-like emotions, condemns her own society by comparing it with that of the red martians:
They live at peace with all their fellows, except when duty calls upon them to make war, while we are at peace with none; forever warring among our own kind as well as upon the red men, and even in our own communities the individuals fight amongst themselves. Oh, it is one continual, awful period of bloodshed from the time we break the shell until we gladly embrace the bosom of the river of mystery, the dark and ancient Iss which carries us to an unknown, but at least no more frightful and terrible existence! Fortunate indeed is he who meets his end in an early death.
In any other sense, this sort of characterization might be considered simple world-building, the establishment of a character for the denizens of Barsoom. Its similarity to European and Euro-American attitudes towards Native Americans, unfortunately, makes one's skin crawl.
An example of these prevailing attitudes can be found in Karl Pearson's National Life from the Standpoint of Science, a 1901 publication of his 1900 lecture to the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle. Pearson, as evidenced by the illustrious organization which he address, was no fringe thinker. He became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1896 for his work in mathematics, which in turn proved influential for Albert Einstein. He was also a devotee of Sir Francis Galton and a fervent eugenicist, being the first to hold the Chair of Eugenics at the University of London, a seat founded by Galton's bequest. It was only his Marxist beliefs that led him to refuse offers for both an Order of the British Empire and a knighthood.
What Pearson had to say was eerily echoed by Dejah Thoris:
I venture to assert, then, that the struggle for existence between white and red man, painful and even terrible as it was in its details, has given us a good far outbalancing its immediate evil. In place of the red man, contributing practically nothing to the work and thought of the world, we have a great nation, mistress of many arts, and able, with its youthful imagination and fresh, untrammelled impulses, to contribute much to the common stock of civilized man.
He adds "Against that you have only to put the romantic sympathy for the Red Indian generated by the novels of Cooper and the poems of Longfellow, and then - see how little it weighs in the balance!" Horace Greeley, writing in 1860, condemns the authors as well. After declaring that Native "arts, wars, treaties, alliances, habitations, crafts, properties, commerce, comforts, all belong to the very lowest and rudest ages of human existence" he says:
It needs but little familiarity with the actual, palpable aborigines to convince anyone that the poetic Indian—the Indian of Cooper and Longfellow—is only visible to the poet's eye. To the prosaic observer, the average Indian of the woods and prairies is a being who does little credit to human nature—a slave of appetite and sloth, never emancipated from the tyranny of one animal passion save by the more ravenous demands of another.
An 1869 New Mexico Supreme Court ruling judged that,
The idea that a handful of wild, half-naked, thieving, plundering, murdering savages should be dignified with the sovereign attributes of nations, enter into solemn treaties, and claim a country 500 miles wide by 1,000 miles long as theirs in fee simple, because they hunted buffalo or antelope over it, might do for a beautiful reading of Hiawatha, but is unsuited to the intelligence and justice of this age, or the natural rights of mankind.
Dejah also invoked President Theodore Roosevelt, who spoke of the Native Americans "whose life was but a few degrees less meaningless, squalid, and ferocious than that of the wild beasts with whom they held joint ownership."
President Andrew Jackson's 1830 message to Congress prefigures Pearson, and echos Burrough's characterization of the Tharks as inhabitants of the abandoned cities of a greater civilization:
In the monuments and fortresses of an unknown people, spread over the extensive regions of the West, we behold the memorials of a once powerful race, which was exterminated or has disappeared to make room for the existing savage tribes. Nor is there anything in this which, upon a comprehensive view of the general interests of the human race, is to be regretted... What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?
Even those with a more liberal mind still preferred the extinction of Native culture to the extinction of Natives themselves. President Ulysses S. Grant's 1871 State of the Union Address expressed the hope that
the policy pursued toward the Indians has resulted favorably...many tribes of Indians have been induced to settle upon reservations, to cultivate the soil, to perform productive labor of various kinds, and to partially accept civilization. They are being cared for in such a way, it is hoped, as to induce those still pursuing their old habits of life to embrace the only opportunity which is left them to avoid extermination.
And of "that horrible community idea" - which, incidentally, is an entirely sensible practicality of survival in a harsh, resource-poor environment like the plains of North America or the dead sea beds of Mars - Indian Affairs Commissioner John Oberly decreed that Native Americans "must be imbued with the exalting egotism of American civilization so that he will say 'I' instead of 'We', and 'This is mine' instead of 'This is ours'."
Some attempt to laud Burroughs for creating a world of racial harmony, as the end has the red martians of the city-state of Helium join together with the green martians of Thark. They are, naturally, joined together under the auspices of John Carter. Being "good", the problem did not belong so much to the red martians. It was those pesky green martians and their violent, joyless society. The key figure is Tars Tarkas, a green martian with almost human-like emotional depth who befriends Carter and thus becomes the green martian leader. He becomes a Good Indian.
The remaining two volumes of the original John Carter trilogy move beyond race to deal with subjects of religion and society at large. They are subjects treated with the same nuanced perspective with which Burroughs treats the subjects in this classic study of escapism.


text:
11 Nov 2008 1:02 AM #1
[FIXED] grid leaves scrollbar space empty
os: osx
gxt: 1.1.1++
browsers: all
hi gxt team,
when all rows are visible inside a grid, the vertical scrollbar is not needed and disappears as it should. but the space of this scrollbar is still unused.
in gridview there is a fixed width "scrollOffset" which is always occupied - regardless if needed or not.
i am using autoheight grids which then never fill their space......
it would be great, if this could be at least configured....
all rows fit into view? remove the scrollbar and the white space at the right side....
rows do not fit? add scrollbar and shrink with by scrollOffset....
regards, kht
27 Feb 2009 5:07 PM #2
Has there been any resolution to how to accomplish this?
27 Feb 2009 5:12 PM #3
This was already chagned in 1.2.3
8 Sep 2011 7:48 AM #4
I noticed exactly the same issue in GXT 2.2.4
Do you know anything about it?
8 Sep 2011 8:46 AM #5


text:
How to Get What You Want from the Pediatrician
Get your child undressed before the exam, if you are so asked. Lots of kids resist taking their clothes off, so their parents wait until the doctor comes in to start wrestling with them. This is a waste of time and a major irritant to doctors. "Skin can tell you so much about what's going on," says Andrew Baumel. "The child really needs to be undressed to be examined properly."
Greet the doctor as if she is an old friend. It will put your child at ease, particularly if she sees the doctor infrequently. If the doc doesn't greet your child by name (a good doctor will), casually reintroduce them: "Chloe's grown a lot since last time, Dr. Harmon." Your friendliness toward the doctor signals confidence in her, which will make your child more cooperative.
Keep your tone of voice calm and cheerful. If your voice is important when you visit your own doctor, it is doubly so at the pediatrician's office. "The child picks up all the parent's cues," says Baumel. "When parents are nervous, the child feeds off it. Parents can make the child much, much more anxious than he would be on his own." Your tone is more important than the words you say, so if you can't keep the anxiety out of your voice, say nothing at all.
Ask the pediatrician what she will be doing during the exam. This is for your child's peace of mind. Sometimes the doctor will volunteer the information, but often they just start right in questioning you or examining your child.
Tell the pediatrician good news as well as bad. Progress is just as important as problems in helping the doctor assess your child's development. If your son is getting along better with his older brother, excelling at reading, or playing an instrument, let the doctor know. It provides a more balanced view than when you simply list all the problem areas.
Separate fact and opinion, and be specific. When describing problems, make a distinction between your worries and what has actually taken place. For example, say, "I'm concerned that Cindy may be backsliding in her toilet training. She has an accident about once a week," not, "Cindy's backsliding on her toilet training she has accidents all the time."
Bring help if you're bringing other kids. If it's noisy, the doctor will not be able to give his full attention to the child who is there for the checkup. She needs to listen to the heart and lungs, talk to you without interruptions, and focus on your child. You need to focus on the child, too. It's best if only the two of you are in the examining room.
Stay calm and steady during shots. Your attitude will keep the tension low and help your child deal with the pain. Do not apologize, grimace, or in any way indicate that there is a choice about this procedure. You can be mildly sympathetic, but the moment you start looking anxious your child will get even more upset. If the child really puts up a struggle, follow the nurse's directions to restrain him, and be kind but firm. After the shot, thank the nurse, hug your child, and congratulate him on a job well done. That's the end of it no big deal.
From Say the Magic Words by Lynette Padwa. Copyright © 2005. Used by arrangement with Penguin Group (USA) Inc.
If you'd like to buy this book, go to Amazon.


text:
Exhibit explores the way darkness illumines beauty
Not a subscriber? You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition. CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.