text:
The CharIN Association Aims for Single System To Cover All Charging Scenarios Up To 200 kW DC
Recently established CharIN Association presented an interesting brochure describing itself and the goal of providing a global standard for electric vehicle charging – CCS (Combined Charging System).
CharIN is founded by group of German manufacturers (Audi, BMW, Daimler, Mennekes, Phoenix Contact, Porsche, TUV and Volkswagen) and supported by Ford and General Motors from U.S.
CCS-members has ambitions to marginalize the CHAdeMO DC fast charging system, which doesn't offer/allow for AC charging.
"The target of the initiative is to continuously and competently advance the combined charging system (CCS), with the aim to establish this system to the global markets. This universal charging interface for electric vehicles is mature and field-tested and is already standard in the US and Europe. It is our goal to advance standardization of CCS in other regions of the world. This is the cause and the challenge to which we, the CharIN Association, are dedicated. Because: "The best and most accepted system should be the global standard.""
The main goal is to introduce and popularize higher power DC fast charging – up to 200 kW (that's more than the 150 kW targeted in the near-term by Audi), while at the same time keep single charging inlet for single-phase and three-phase charging.
"Why we're different The answer is simple: CCS is currently the world's only charging system that covers all charging scenarios with a single product. Drivers of any type of electric vehicle can choose between normal and fast charging as well as AC (single-phase up to three-phase) and DC (up to high speed 200 kW at public charging stations) – and they only need a single system for all these options. The CCS standard is accepted and supported by a significant number of companies from different industries."
The North American version of CCS is different because of the need to be based on a different AC charging plug (SAE J1772). In other words, European and North American vehicles will be incompatible until converted to the other standard, or until there would be a usable adapter (of which there are none).
CHAdeMO on the other hand, is the same worldwide. Like CCS, the Tesla plug is also different in NA, compared to rest of the world.
CharIN Founding Members:
CharIN Association Members:
Categories: Charging
Leave a Reply
51 Comments on "The CharIN Association Aims for Single System To Cover All Charging Scenarios Up To 200 kW DC"
I like the "one plug fits all" that my Tesla is equipped with here in the US. Minimal and effective. Maybe it's just me but I don't think the "frankenplug" is as practical….
It seems fine to me. It is smaller than Chademo and it incorporates the existing popular J1772.
I'm sure that if they hadn't have felt the need to support J1772 there'd be a simpler CCS in North America as well.
2 sizes fit all.. That is if they use either plug in China and Japan. If not then 3 sizes fit all. I think..
200KW. Drool.
The automakers are going to have a heck of a time building battery packs that can accept that.
The 60KWH pack size that will deliver 200+ miles for an aerodynamic car will have a tough time accepting such power. 60KWH Model S cars start charging at around 90KW and quickly drop from there according to Bjorn's info.
Does anyone understand what are the technical or practical hurdles to approving >50kW charging from CCS DC charging stations RIGHT NOW?
I keep reading articles saying they'll get to 150kW or 200kW in a few years or so. WHY THE WAIT??? If the CCS connector, pins, cables, etc. can handle the higher current, I don't understand what the issue is. Heck, Tesla is doing 135kW today with a smaller connector.
(And don't say "Because there aren't any cars w/ CCS yet that >50kW." That may be true, but it's no excuse. DCFC chargers installed in 2016 need to be able to charge EV's sold in 2018, 2020, 2025, etc., unless we want to waste a ton of money switching them out after only a few years. So there's less incentive to install CCS DCFC's now because they're (relatively) slow. And there's even less incentive for automakers to sell EV's with >50kW DC charging rates when no chargers exist to actually supply that much power.)
Correction: Looks like SAE recently updated J1772 to allow up to 200A or current via the CCS connector. So that's theoretically up to 100kW of power with the maximum voltage of 500V. In practice I believe it would be more like 80-90kW with lower battery pack voltages(?).
The technical hurdle for fast charging would seem to be heat. Tesla had to upgrade the cooling on their packs around 2014 to support over 90kw and you still need a pack with more battery cells to take higher than 90kw for long (as mentioned the 60kwh pack doesn't charge over 90kw for more than a few minutes even with improved cooling). To get over 135kw without increasing the size/weight of the charger cable, Tesla is testing liquid cooling the cable.
Another technical hurdle is the connection between chargers and power pole starts to become overloaded if multiple cars are drawing 200kw+.
In practice 120 kW CCS/Chademo chargers are available since last year. You can buy one at any time if you think you really need it.
As I have understood it, some types of DC chargers are modular, eg a type deployed in a charging network here in Norway already has 120kW dual-head chargers – up to 50kW CCS + up to 70kW Chademo
The reason for stopping at these levels is stated as
– "No CCS cars currently supports more than 50kW, and no Chademo cars supports more than 70kW".
– "We will update the charging stations with additional 10kW modules as the market is able to utilise the extra power"
To me, these statments says that there is no real technical issues limiting DC fast charging to 50kW.
This one supports 120 kW at each CCS or Chademo plug although you would pay extra for extra modules go to full 120 kW:
Yes there are no cars that can use this power with standard charger so there is no point to push for wide deployment of higher power chargers right now. Cars should be shown first.
Specu"lawyer" posts a picture with a caption that says "world without lawyers"?
Q. What do you call 10,000 dead lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?
A. A good start.
1). What is the difference between a Lawyer and a Hooker?
2). How can you tell that your Lawyer is fibbing?
The basic tech and non-tech problem with these things is who is going to pay for it?
Tesla solved that problem because Wall St. Loves Tesla.
(ans: 1). The hooker stops screwing you when you die.
2). His lips are moving. )
While I agree we should have one standard, there's no way I would ever willingly trade my single, small, light, lovely Tesla charger cable for the big, heavy, ugly frankenplug. I'm still convinced that gas car makers voted for frankenplug to help slow down EV adoption. Tesla's plug proves there's no technical reason you can't use one plug for both AC and high power DC.
The charging cable is basically the same. Well, in Europe at least, where Tesla has adopted the type 2-connector.
The DC pins are not present on removable cables, as they are only ever used on fast chargers, which have these connectors on the permanently installed cable.
Hey . . . where is Fiat/Chrysler on that li . . . SERGIO! AAARRrrgh.
Fiat is waiting for Tesla to prove it can be done
But Tesla's already done it. Fiat just has to add Italian style to Tesla's charger plug and rule the market.
Tesla connector already does ac and dc?
And it is smaller than the CCS connector?!?
Yes. The SuperCharger and CHAdeMO adapter from Tesla both use DC through their car's single small port.
And get this: the Euro model has a Mennekes Type2 inlet that does both AC and DC and also does ChaDeMo DC with a adapter!
It is hard to comprehend why other cars dont do this.
It tops at some 135 kW with a stretch, as Tesla Type 2 has a bit extended connectors. CCS is aiming to standardize at 350 kW, 200 kW is just now.
Tesla has certainly made a few mistakes . . . but overall, Tesla has made AMAZINGLY good long-term planning decisions with their Model S.
They made some decisions that I thought were stupid at the time but Tesla was right and I was wrong.
I would like all connectors to support 1- and 3-phase AC. North American public charging stations at commercial sites likely have access to 3-phase power, so why not support 3-phase charging in North America as in Europe and elsewhere? If Tesla's European connector is capable of 200 kW, why not adopt it as the worldwide standard since it is smaller than the European CCS connector?
It was short-sighted by American automakers through SAE to choose J1772. European car makers lobbied for the Mennekes Type-2 connector for American cars, but SAE didn't go for it. Actually, 50kW of existing fast chargers can be easily handled by the "DC-Mid" mode on the Mennekes connector. They use 2 pins for each DC+ and DC-. This is the approach that Tesla uses for their European SuperChargers too. Tesla passes more than 100kW from the SuperCharger to the car without the extra DC-High pins below.
Alohart – because CharIn founding member Phoenix Contact would go out of business if your idea were adopted.
I didn't heard Tesla EU plug can support 200 kW. Currently it is 135 kW for short time with modified plug. New Audi and Porsche battery cars are going with 300 kW. Obviously 2 extra dedicated DC connectors in CCS allows for higher power.
If 60 kWh battery can charge at 3.2C, that would be 192 kW. That's enough to take it to 80% in 15 minutes (assume no taper to 80% like SparkEV). That would pretty much make gas cars obsolete.
It would be nice if they could modify the CCS plug so it's just the 2 big pin connections. Remove the J1772 portion. That would make it a sleek design like Tesla's.
You'd lose data lines that allow the vehicle and charger to initiate, negotiate and terminate a transfer. An EV's L2 / L3 charge port carries just more than power.
Leave one small pin for the comm.
Technically, you don't need additional pin for comm. Only two pins are needed with CCS (homeplug protocol) as the communication signals go over power wires, maybe third for ground.
You can modulate via the power cable, but engineers don't like it, neither do regulators. To much work to prove out that you have truly isolated the signal and high power sides.
Technically it can be done using wireless infrared communication as for example in SAE J2799.
Yeah, I wondered why they didn't decide to go with the EU plug, it has enough pins and is signaling compatible. 3 Phase would be fine too, but limited to 32A. I don't think there's a commercial car except that Tesla that does over 32A on the socket.
Any new car that doesn't have a Type-2 socket can use an adapter or a extension cord.
For that purpose I have a type-2 to j1772 cable for my i-Miev in NL, all the public charge points have Type-2 plugs. The signaling is the same either way.
It seem like there is quite a difference between the US and the EU, we just have sockets and everyone brings their own cable. The US seems to have quite a few chargepoints with fixed cables.
The CCS plug was their one shot at making a world car plug, and they flipped it.
For pure grace value the US Tesla plug is the smallest. Although in the EU it uses the type-2 like everything else that is made recent.
Well, no, the Leaf is still sold in NL with a J1772 and a Chademo, so go, standards, go.
The EU (Mennekes) plug was developed and adopted AFTER the US had adopted the SAE J1772 plug. It was adopted specifically since the J1772 plug didn't allow for 3-phase power and 3-phase is more common in Europe. So, in a sense, it was too late for the US/North America to change course and switch to the Mennekes plug at that point.
"I don't think there's a commercial car except that Tesla that does over 32A on the socket."
The Renault Zoe R210 does 3x63A AC fast charge over the standard Mennekes plug.
No offense meant, but Europeans complaining about plugs is rather a joke when talking about anything OTHER than EV's, there are totally different plugs for different countries where the power systems are pretty close to being identical so that inter-country power sales are facilitated.
I'm guessing SAE didn't go for it since most places in the states only need 2 ac power wires, and the combo plug is an easy fix worldwide.
People will disagree, but I bet CCS wins ultimately on the lower cost per vehicle.
Its not any more complicated than that.
hmmm…"the best" is Tesla's charging technology…
Tesla made a smart move joining CharIn Association for CCS. Tesla's game plan might involve adding two additional DC pins below the existing 7pins socket (in the EU) which gives their cars unrivalled utility.
Maybe they can put those two big DC pins on the side of the car, one on each side. And make them look like bolts…
Interesting perspective. Thanks for that.
I will add that this isn't the first attempt at a PR campaign for CCS in Germany. This current effort just appears to be more organized. CHAdeMO has been organized for many years, and quietly and methodically has managed to stay on top.
All I can say is remember Betamax vs. VHS. Ie., big and ugly beats small and beautiful if you have enough manufacturers on the side of big and ugly. And large, multiparty agreements tend to generate big and ugly.
"CCS is currently the world's only charging system that covers all charging scenarios with a single product."
It's how you look at it. The Renault Zoe only has a standard Mennekes plug over which it handles fast charge, up to 43 kW. So that is a single solution covering all scenarios from L1 to QC over 1 plug.
Whether or not you call 43 kW 'fast' is another matter. For now I think it qualifies, but in the future it won't. I can not judge whether the Renault solutions scales above 3x63A. My guess is therefore that Renault will go with CCS in the not too distant future.


text:
Sunderland's skyline has a magnificent new addition.
The New Wear Crossing's stunning 100metre centrepiece pylon has been lifted into position.
Work began at first light yesterday and carried on until dusk last night then resumed first thing this morning and by 9am the backmast, which has supported the pylon during the early stages of the lift process, had been disconnected.
The work was finally completed at 3.30pm.
Stephen McCaffrey is project director for FVB joint Venture, the company which is building the bridge.
"We are all delighted and very relieved," he said.
"We did put a lot of time and effort in to the planning and we were aware of the potential problems.
"But you can plan it as much as you like - the most important thing is that it happens on the day.
"It went very smoothly - there were no problems, which is a big relief.
"We are all delighted to be here today, having successfully raised the pylon, but it is back to work on Monday. We now need to fix the pylon onto the massive concrete tusks it will rest on.
"The next stage is to push the bridge deck out from where it is sitting on the south side of the river to the north side.
"We could have built the pylon on-site, from the ground up, but we chose to fabricate it in one go, off site, in a factory environment because we had better control over conditions, got a better quality of finish and could avoid having people working at height.
"The transportation of the pylon from the fabrication yard in Belgium and the raising on site have been challenging but we planned well and the result was a successful operation."
Patrick Van Severen, project director for Victor Buyck Steel Constrrction, said a milestone had been reached but there was more to do.
"The sheer size and weight of the structure, as well as its shape, meant that getting it here on site, attached to the foundation and then raised into position took a lot of preparation and precision from a large team of people who each brought their skills to the project," he said.
"We had allowed the whole weekend for the raising operation, but we completed in less than 16 hours over two days, so we are very happy.
"Now our focus turns to the next phases of work. We will be launching the bridge deck out across the river in the Spring and will start connecting the cable stays in the summer.
"After that, people will really see their bridge come to life."
Sunderland City Council leader Coun Paul Watson said the difference between seeing the pylon in reality rather than on architect's plans and computer simulations was 'like watching Match of the Day on telly or going to the match in person.'
"The atmosphere, the ambience is completely different," he said.
"Walking out today, it feels like a really significant moment.
"It is a fantastic success story."
The challenge now was to deliver the benefits the bridge was intended to provide for Sunderland.
"It can't be overstated, the impact this project can have on the city, not just now but in the future for our children and grandchildren," said Coun Watson.
"We need to make sure it delivers what is was put there for, in terms of the econmic success, the social benefits, getting people into jobs."
The new bridge will have dual two-lane carriageways for vehicles, as well as dedicated cycle and pedestrian routes and will enhance public transport, as well as significantly improving the important transport links to the city centre and Port of Sunderland from the A19 and A1.
It is on track to open in the spring of 2018.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Here are a few recent pieces I've done. January is music month!
First up: A poster for local jazz ensemble, The Composers Collective Big Band. They're playing at the Rex Hotel on the 23rd, and are well worth seeing! The band lineup is subject to change as the show approaches, so I'll change the poster accordingly.
Next: a demo CD design for the Holiday Brass, a classical quintet that plays at events over the holiday season (I suppose I'm a little late in posting this)
And finally, the finished version of the Humber Recording Studios logo.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Please Mr. Music, will you play?
Posted by Eric Overton at 1:45 p.m.
2 comments:
- Katie said...
I really like the poster for the big band!! Very nicely done :) Looks like you've been up to a lot
- 6:07 p.m.
- 10:36 p.m.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Report Writing
Third class were focusing on the writing genre of reports. We started off by reading various reports and labeling the different features of the reports. Next, we wrote a report together based on school:
We then had to write an individual report on the famine to coincide with our class novel Under the Hawthorn Tree. We started off by planning which involved a lot of research using different sources.
Then, we started our draft using the information gathered from our research. Following this the children edited their report and completed their redraft. When they (and their teacher) were happy with their redraft they published their report and added diagrams.


text:
How do you count words? Ashley Wagner discusses the question as part of our video on the number of words in the English language.
Definition of daga in Spanish:
feminine noun
- 1
Arma blanca de hoja corta, ancha y puntiaguda, parecida a la espada pero de menor tamaño.
la daga tenía el puño de oro
Further reading
'Compliment' or 'complement': what's the difference?Read more
A lot of people get compliment and complement confused: they're pronounced in the same way and have very similar spellings but they have completely different meanings.
Should you capitalize the word "Internet"?Read more
The question of whether the word internet should be capitalized is so passionately debated and rife with controversy that it has its own Wikipedia article.
14 ways to hugFind out more
We've delved into the Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary to come up with some historical substitutions for hug as a verb.


text:
Over the past year I've taken to building a whole range of guitar and bass effects. Some are clones of hard to find or out-of-production pedals, and a few are my own designs. I don't want to be grouped in with other "boutique" pedal builders because, really I do this for two reasons:
1.) Fun
2.) The quest for the ever elusive "tone" that's in my head.
I'm not in this as a business, but I have been selling a few of these designs, so I thought I'd say a little bit about these pedals as a sort of one stop shop for info about my builds. As a disclaimer, many of my designs come from JD Sleep's awesome work at www.generalguitargadgets.com, and the rest from my own trial and error.
The first pedal I built was a take on the ever classic Tube Screamer. This is a copy of the TS808 to be exact, but with a few mods. The first modification is the addition of a switch to select clipping stages. This offers the option of asymmetrical silicon diodes / bypass / LED clipping.
The second mod was to add a "bass" toggle to help the design retain low end. The design idea came from Allen Ginsberg's "Howl"
More to come...


text:
I began watching this story out of curiosity. I had heard of Kalief Browder's story through social media, and I remember the post speaking of his mental health declining after countless days in solitary confinement. I was more concerned with the effects of solitary confinement at the time. Solitary confinement is something that I've constantly researched in order to gain some insight. I've read a few fiction novels, scholarly articles, and articles written by journalists on the subject, but there's nothing more informing than an interview of someone describing their experience. Also, every psychology major should be familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment which also raises a few concerns about the prison system.
I was very touched by this documentary and I would like to place a trigger warning on it for obvious reasons.
TRIGGER WARNING: If you are triggered by any the following topics: suicide, self-harm and/or injustice, I encourage you to take a break from reading this blog post and reach out to someone you trust to process your feelings and thoughts. If you or someone you know is struggling and/or has been feeling suicidal, do not hesitate to call the National Suicide Prevention Hotline. Representatives from the National Suicide Prevention Hotline are available 24/7. 1-800-273-8255
SPOILER ALERT: The following blog post contains spoilers from the Netflix series.
The documentary starts out by talking about Kalief's childhood. Him and his siblings were adopted by his mother Venida Browder and her estranged husband. Kalief and his siblings were all children of "the System." They were placed in Child Protective Services immediately due to their biological mother's drug addiction, and later adopted by his mother Venida.
Kalief, 16, and a friend were walking home around 2am from a party that was 3 blocks away from Kalief's home in the Bronx. As Kalief was walking home, a victim of a robbery that occurred a week prior panicked at the sight of the two men and contacted 911 identifying the two men as "the black guys that robbed" him. The documentary does not say what happened to the friend, but it shows how Kalief was taken into police custody and interrogated. At no point during this documentary did Kalief admit his guilt because this was simply a case of mistaken identity. The documentary showed how his older brother was convicted of a crime and his record had affected him negatively; Kalief did not want this for his life, so he decided to stand his ground and stand up for what was right. He knew he was innocent and there was a video camera where the robbery occurred. That video tape was never pulled and Kalief wouldn't be exonerated until a few years later.
The documentary observes the life of Kalief Browder while being held at Riker's Island. Riker's Island is known for being one of the most notorious prisons in the New England region, with many qualities of the infamous Guantanamo Bay (a navel base in Cuba that holds and tortures terrorists). The documentary shows countless videos of Kalief Browder being jumped and kicked by guards and inmates for refusing to comply with "The Program." The Program is said to be a 'gang' that the strongest and baddest inmates and correction officers use to extort their way through Riker's Island. Basically, there was a ton of illegal activity going on there. Kalief refused to give up his commissary money, he would speak up when they were being starved or if their food was being laced with rat poison, he would speak up when the guards refused to let him shower for weeks at a time. He served 300 straight days in solitary confinement after being jumped by the other inmates at the age 17. This was only the beginning of many days spent in what he called "The Box" for speaking up for what's right and not conforming to the illegal activity that could give him more time. By the end of his stay, Kalief had served over 800 days in solitary confinement. Even if he wasn't innocent–someone stealing a backpack shouldn't have endured the torture he experienced. I honestly wouldn't wish the torture he experienced on anyone. I can't even tell you the half of it in one blog post.
Kalief Browder spent three years at Riker's Island for a crime that he 'allegedly' committed, which was stealing a backpack. The prosecutors continued to delay his trial with claims that they would be ready in "one week." The documentary speaks about the backlog of cases within the Bronx's court system, and how for three years Kalief stood in front of several judges who continuously adjourned his case. It wasn't until the last judge recognized that the case had been adjourned continuously and demanded a trial. The prosecutors were forced to admit that their victim and witness had relocated to Mexico and could not be reached. Kalief was then released back into society with no explanation, no transition assistance…only a metro card.
Kalief recorded several personal interviews that showed him being this driven young man who was determined not to let anyone break him, not even the system. He had began seeing a counselor and taking medication for the psychotic symptoms he developed while being kept in solitary confinement.
His family described the darkest moments with Kalief that we didn't get to see on camera. Anyone dealing with mental illness knows how to put on "the smile" so that the world can be easily fooled. Only the ones closest to us can see what happens when the sun goes down and the blinds are closed. His mother and sister speak of times where he was in his room talking to bottles that he had lined up as if they were people. They spoke of times that he had urinated on his bedroom floor and was just delusional. He was not the Kalief we saw on the interviews. He was suffering. The urination part really hit home to me because I know that involuntary urination in adulthood can be caused by trauma. Kalief was traumatized from his experiences and became very paranoid. He decided to file a lawsuit, which required him to expose a lot of illegal activity that put the careers of many important people at risk, EVERYONE…district attorneys, correction officers, judges, etc. His mental health was already deteriorating from his stay at Riker's, his life outside of Riker's was just as triggering.
He was ambitious by day and suicidal by night. He wasn't only fighting the demons of mental illness that was developed at Riker's, he was also fighting the demons in his community because of the public attention he received. He was admitted to the psychiatric ward at least twice following his stay at Riker's.
I believe the documentary mentioned that he attempted suicide several times while incarcerated and was beaten for each attempt. He attempted suicide one time after being released, and his second attempt post-incarceration was a success.
Kalief had fought long and hard. Despite referring to himself has "cursed," Kalief showed an exceptional amount of bravery and stayed committed to his purpose. He came across many that were accusatory and doubted the truth of his story–which I've dealt with personally–it is a terrible feeling and often makes you want to give up and give in. Kalief was 22-years old when he died.
The story ends with his mother speaking of her congestive heart failure. All of Kalief's siblings gather together at a hospital in the Bronx to be there for the mother that raised them. Throughout the documentary, Venida speaks about her previous heart attacks and how she just wants to be with her son again. Venida dies towards the end of the documentary being filmed. Venida also fought long and hard.
I hope this story encourages everyone to stand up for what is right, and demand justice in all things. This could've easily been my son. There are many Kaliefs out there who are innocent. They are victims of the system, and they are being tortured by the people we are supposed to trust.
I was able to be strong through this documentary, but I completely lost in on the last episode. I knew that Kalief committed suicide, but the moments leading up to it really hit home for me and reminded me of the things I've been through. Nothing I've been through can compare to the torture Kalief endured, NOTHING…but this is a fight, a fight for all of us.
And we must conquer it together.


text:
Triad School Events
Troy Titans Benefit
Saturday, January 19th 6-8pm Buffet; 6-10pm Drinks
Time Out Sports Bar & Grill
111 W. Market St., Troy IL
$10 Kids; $20 Buffet & Beer; $30 Buffet & Rail Drinks
Come make your favorite coach wait on YOU!
For more info, please contact email@example.com
View the Flyer
Kids Knight Out
Kindergarten thru 4th grade at TRIAD HIGH SCHOOL
Friday, February 1, 2019
Registration: 5:30 pm
6:00 pm – 9:00 pm
No Early Dismissal
$15.00 per child
Crafts*Games*Pizza*Prizes*Activities - Supervised by the Triad Band Parents Association.
If you have any questions or need to make special needs/allergy arrangements, please contact Michelle Underwood at (618) 407-9988 View the Registration Form
Partners in Education
Goal: Provide our educational partners with a list of those Chamber members interested in speaking, making both monetary and non-monetary donations etc.
If you are a Chamber Business or Educational Staff, please fill out this form and send finished forms to Dawn:
Triad Incentives - Triad/Chamber/Chamber Members Working Together
The Triad School District has put together a unique professional development system for their 250 certified staff and faculty members. In this program, teachers have the option to sign up for courses led by instructional coaches, or they can choose their own adventure and research a strategy or tool of their own choice. Their next step is to use those new skills in their classroom. This program is helping Triad stay in the forefront of innovative educational practices.
Here's where you, as a Chamber member, come in. Once the teachers use their new skills professionally, the coaches in the district would like to reward them with coupons or gift cards or other donations of any kind from local businesses.
Whatever you end up donating, you will be able to use those credits to purchase things within the Chamber that actually cost you money – so it is win/win. Credits will be based on what you provide so, for example, if you provide a $10 gift card and it is selected from one of the Triad staff, then you have a $10 Chamber credit!
Read More and Apply
Foundations for Success
Foundations for Success Prevention Initiative Program - Parents as Teachers Affiliate
The Foundations for Success Prevention Initiative is a voluntary education and support program offered for FREE to families that reside in the Triad School District and are expecting a baby or have a child under theage of 3 years. Read the Flyer to find out more about the services provided by this program.
This program is funded by the Illinois Department of Education
Foundations for Success Prevention Initiative Program
C.A. Henning Elementary
520 East Highway 40, Troy IL
618-667-5401 ext. 6194
Host an Exchange Student on a US Dept. of State Scholarship
Consider becoming a host family for a high school student on a US Dept of State scholarship. Students will be with the host family for two semesters beginning in August 2018. Find out more about these students, the scholarships they have qualified for, and what is required of host families by reading the information linked below.
Please read the flyers for more information
View Info Letter; View State Dept Scholarship Info; View Hosting Families Needed Letter
Triad Maker Space
Triad has an exciting opportunity for you to assist with their Maker's Program. "A makerspace is a metaphor for a unique learning environment that encourages tinkering, play, and open-ended exploration for all." ~ Laura Fleming
Community members, below is a list of some of the larger items we are trying to secure for our district MakerSpaces. Though we are starting with C.A. Henning, it is our goal to have Makerspaces in each of the elementary schools throughout the Triad district. For any donation that is made by an individual or organization, we will include a donation plaque on the item to recognize our community members' generosity. We look forward to working with you in building these amazing supports for our schools.
Jeannine Butler and Sarah Phelps
firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com
Please read the supplies needed for Triad's Makerspace: View Big Ticket Items Flyer and View the original flyer
Animated Digital Advertisement
We are looking for sponsors to feature on the Basketball Scoretable and help support the Knights Athletic Department.
- Animated Digital Advertisement is located in the Basketball Gymnasium
Animated Digital Advertisement:
2' x 8' Ad on Scoretable
Professionally Designed Animated Ad
3 Full Years of Endless Exposure Potential
Industry Exclusivity
PA Announcments at every Home game throughout Sponsorship
Only: $965/year Payment Plans Available for Every Budget
View the Flyer
Bus Drivers Needed
Bus Drivers Needed for Triad School District #2 in Troy IL
Apply online , E-mail or call 618-667-5400 Ext 1208
Must be 21 years old and hold a valid driver's license
Good driving record and bus driving license a plus
Starting wage: $14/hour
Full and Part Time Positions Available
Summers & Holidays Off
Training Available
View Flyer
Triad Booster Club Windscreens
Triad Booster Club is offering printed windscreens. Support the Triad Booster Club by ordering yours today!
View Order Form
The Giving Project
Please consider donating to a new project at Triad High School called The Giving Project.
This project will consist of a service that we want to provide for any student facing a financial burden in our school to receive free gently-used clothing, toiletries, and or shoes/accessories. We plan to provide these resources to our students from donations that people may typically give away or sell. We are also working in coordination with our Special Education Department to use this resource as a means for transition skills for students in our training for life skills program (i.e., laundering, folding, and sorting).
Please read more about The Giving Project and consider helping with this worthy cause.


text:
|SecondLife Status is a widget for Yahoo Widgets. This small widget will be useful to the users that play SecondLife game. With the aid of this widget you will always be aware of your status in this game. The widget is rather simple and is easy to use. If you want to be always aware of your status in this game, then this widget is just what you need.
Author: Mike Feldmeier


text: Last weekend I had the incredible experience of working with the very talented Ellie Lane, of Ellie Lane Imagery. I have become heavily inspired by Ellie's overall artistic vision and originality, which is so perfectly demonstrated in her self portrait series. Finally getting to shoot with her was an incredible experience, as she pushed my boundaries and expression, and gave me a boost of self-confidence I didn't know I needed. I've posted just a sample of our shoot, but you can see more on her website. Hope you have a good weekend!


text:
Monday, June 20, 2011
Documentary...Butterflies ♥
"Youth is like diamonds in the sun,
and diamonds are forever"
& I know I am forever young … ♥ ♥♥ ♥
Come be my Camera,
the terrace Of polished mosaics,
filled with gossips,laugh & chatter....
Besides coffe
in my country they plant Angel ........
"Hi" the girl said.
Iwas cautious, for i thought she might want to chide me for my lackluster performance ♥
"how do you do ?"i said.
"she kicked the ball!"
...oh lola im sorry ...!!!!!! she said
How mean...................:((((
2 comments:
- Simran said...
Ahhh!! How mean she is! even not replied to your question..This is what youth ..lol
Nice picsss
- June 21, 2011 at 9:05 PM
- sHoNa said...
- June 30, 2011 at 2:30 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Charity, and why it needs to go away
Charity relies on the whims and 'kindness' of people with money to donate - when it should be social responsibility. Charity is inherently arrogant, it says 'I have money, I'm a good person, so I'll give it to others". It shouldn't work like that, helping others should be obligation, it should be law, and it's incredibly arrogant to think otherwise. Of course, even people who donate large sums of money to charity disagree. They donate because they want to look impressive to others (it's accepted that very high earners should have a constant stream of money going to charity, it's just "what you do") or because they like the feeling they get from doing it - they like thinking "I'm a good person" and "People are getting a better life because of me", basically a big ego trip. Charity is like a business in that sense - it's selling you good feelings.
And why should you decide who is most worthy of receiving money? So your mother died of cancer = cancer charities are worthy. You see a particularly heartbreaking Oxfam advert = Oxfam are worthy. You watch a Children in Need special = Children in Need is worthy. It's all down to the whims of people - and that's not how it should be at all. It's selfish to suggest that because some cause appealed to you in an emotional way, it's the one that most deserves money. The worth of causes should not be decided by emotions - that's a terrible thing - their worth should be decided by facts - which causes can be tackled effectively, where would money be wisely spent etc. It just means that well-publicised and 'glamorous' charities are given to the most - those who shout loudest win. Whilst unglamorous causes get left with little funding, doesn't seem terribly fair, does it? And it works on a social level as well. It seems nearly everyone here (kind of, other than me) are champions of democracy (DEMOCRACY! YAY!). But charity works on a level that Mrs CEO gives £100,000 to Charity A, whilst Mrs Postwoman gives £10 to Charity B. So those with the most money are making the decisions - they're deciding who to help, who to save. Surely the idea of democracy is to take power away from the wealthy and to the many, and that is impossible to achieve with a charity structure.
Charity lacks understanding, and further, it absolves the need for understanding. You donate, and that is the end of things, you can sit back happily knowing that you're helping someone somewhere in some way. As some religious person said "charity is no substitute for justice withheld" - charity gives government the okay to wash their hands of causes. It absolves their responsibility - and it always should be the responsibility of the government to provide for it's people, it should be set-in-stone absolute, not down to people to do what they like, when they feel like it.
Finally, charity is inherently unhealthy. The relationship between the provider and the receiver is wrong. People give money and think "someone's going to be really grateful for that", it's the same way Oxfam tell you to sponser a child, and then they'll send you a letter telling you just how thankful they are for your generosity. This fits into the first ego-trip category as well, but also into further establishing the hierarachy. The idea of being a 'provider' is unhealthy, and shows a complete lack of understanding - people should get what they deserve and not have to feel in any way thankful - most things charities cover should be basic rights.
Nearly all charities, even 'development' ones, are inneffective. They throw money at short term solutions, even ones that consider themselves different really aren't much better. The latter send off waterpumps and schools to be built, doctors to be trained - but in the existing structure, it's mostly worthless. It advocates survival. It says 'here, you have water, and you have medicine, be happy' as if people in poorer countries have no more ambition than to live beyond their thirtieth birthday. It sets them apart from 'us', it almost makes them inhuman - even when giving them schools to build and run themselves - it seems almost like keeping a pet. The idea that they think in totally bizarre ways, that they wouldn't be introduced to watches, and video games and cars and think "hell yes" - that they'd just nod in acceptance and get on with 'just living'. Ultimately, when dealing with poverty, and often even when not, it's just a system to keep the poor in their place. It doesn't really have any intention of changing things, if it did, it would cease to exist, it would realise it was wasting time and resources, it would realise it was a terrible system, an unequal system. Charity as a concept would die, and the actual changes needed for any good could hapen. Amen.
Okay, that was remarkably tiring to write, so start picking holes, and I'll get on with apologising or defending or whatever it is I do.
See this, is why I try not to
back up my points on DiS ever.
I was told to do so, I did, and it still gets the same results. Yay for completely wasting my time!
People are gonna disagree
with you at points during your life.
That's not a bad thing.
No, all people disagree with me
at every point in my life.
I don't usually agree with a lot of what you write.
but I can have that turned round and complain that you wouldn't agree with me.
You certainly have an idiosyncratic view of life, which I think personally is a good thing cos I can relate to it.
I don't
I kind of agree with you.
i've actually replied properly down there
i was just feeding my need to make sarcastic comments
Thta actually worked out as shorter than I expected, awesome
Incidentally, this is a continuation of thread here:
which is a stupid thread as nobody will have a clue what it's about.
I'm not going to read that,
but I kind of saw where you were coming from earlier.
Can you at least read the first freaking paragraph
or something.
Can you at least pretend to?
OK, I've read it...
and I agree with a lot of what you've written, but I can't see people's attitudes changing.
Then you should also disagree with charity
Cause that ain't gonna change anything either.
And no, I don't count Eileen being alive to see her daughters wedding as 'changing things'.
You've lost me now.
Who's Eileen?
The name I give to the women
who appear in all the cancer research adverts.
A sponsored abolish-charities charity run?
Go for it!
Yes, because they give out of choice
it's their 'kindness' so it makes them feel good. And you should be forced to give money to causes through the GOVERNMENT, not charity, there should be no charities at all. It should be an obligation, it should be standard, not something you choose to do because your feeling particularly 'generous' one morning.
Well, evidentally I don't agree with that
Exactly, there should be no shouting, no appeals, no emotions, no pulling at heartstrings. There should be a government chamber, experts, facts and figures. Those should be the things that go into making decisions on where to give money, not people and emotions.
No they shouldn't, because charities shouldn't exist
and donating to them is causing them to keep existing.
I would say, although someone more intelligent than me could do a better job than this, that it should be based on things such as a) how much benefit is really gotten from healing the problem - do we want to give lots and lots and lots to medical problems that are causing us to have a significant elderly, basically useless, population (should we be striving to keep people alive forever?), b) how effectively could the money be spent and so on so forth, I'm sure you could think of this yourself very easily...
No, but I don't think that trying to keep people alive
forever is a particularly good idea. And I think research and funsing would be better invested elsewhere.
I have no problem with offering welfare to the elderly
Obviously. I wasn't talking about Help the Aged, your post didn't seem to have anything to do with them other than their name in the subject bar.
yes but this is YOUR opinion
why should you have a say in what other people think are worthy causes? So you don't think keeping grannies alive is a worthy cause, but other people obviously do. Why should one organisation decide on what is worthy or not?
No, but it's no neccessarily a bad effect
Do you think it's a worthwhile use of money keeping old people alive for longer?
i don't think it matters what people
think either way. If some people think that it is a charitable cause and want to donate to it, then they should be allowed to.
This is going to go majorly nowhere
So I'll leave this bit as it is. Oh my God, why is typing getting so freaking difficult.
you're never going to agree with me
and i'm never going to agree with you. I'm ok with that, as long as you never become prime minister!
Because it's an organisation that has the sole purpose
of GOVERNING, and governing properly should include all these things. You could say that about anything the government does - I suppose you're an anarchist?
You, know, there's this one way of replying, and reading replies.
You know, when you do it the right way.
but then
all decisions about whether a charity is 'worthy' are left to one group of people. That's a bit of a charity dictatorship, don't you think?
There are many charity causes i don't agree with, but that doesn't give me the right to say they shouldn't exist. Under a government run scheme many charities on the fringes may be refused money, and if people support these causes and want to give them money but aren't allowed to, well that just strikes me as idiotic.
CAUSE not charity (sorry)
And as I've said, it's all part of governing, it's what the govenment is supposed to be doing, but figured they could probably get away with just leaving it be and not doing the job they're supposed to.
My local council do many things I disagree with, they spend money in ways I consider a total waste, but I can't just say 'oh, I don't like that, I'm not paying any council tax'. Sometimes you have to just accept that you can't have everything your way.
You also seem to misunderstand, I'm saying there should be NO charities, so it's not about the government giving money to charities, it's about government dealing with problems directly.
sorry, i keep saying charity
instead of cause. Charitable cause, i suppose.
And yes, i can see where you're coming from where council tax is concerned, but charities (causes) aren't really the same. Not paying council tax isn;t a life or death situation, and tax is one of the things we have delegated to our goverment to decide how it is best used, as how on earth do i know which roads need to be resurfaced, and would i bother giving money if i did know? probably not, more out of laziness than anything because some roads really do need to be resurfaced.
money for charitable causes can't be managed in the same way that council tax is, that's just being completely blind to the whole world of issues that current charities tackle, and that would need to be tackled by any governing body.
okay, i've read it now
and i just feel that your argument is a bit like "in a perfect world we'd do it my way" which i can't realllly find fault with, 'cause i'm a bit like that, but without a change in the attitudes of people, which would need to happen gradually over time, nothing so seismic as "complete abandonment of charity as we know it" will happen
also, there's the "is a good deed still as good if it's done for bad reasons?" question which is one i refuse to go near with a barge pole
Sure, it's semi idealistic
But not entirely. I mean for that to work, basically just raise taxes, and voila.
And I'm saying, obviously, that taxes SHOULD
be raised (significantly) to cover this. I'm not saying 'wouldn't it be nice if...' - I'm saying it should bloody well happen, and it's about time it did. Charity as an idea is outdated - remarkably outdated and old-fashioned.
but that in itself is very idealistic. Joe Bulldog of Wakefield isn't going to want his taxes raised if it's not going to be of direct benefit to him, etc, so we're trapped in THE SAME ENDLESS CYCLE all over again
don't get me wrong, i'm as "from each according to their means..." as the next man, but i just sense that forced charity is a bit of an....odd way to go about it
anyway, sod this, i'm off to watch the football,
see this argument again at half time
Joe Bulldog of Wakefield shouldn't have a choice in the matter
Incidentally, if we're thinking of the same Joe Bulldog, or the same Wakefield, he probably doesn't need his taxes raised a great deal. Alistair Poodle of Surrey, on the other hand, probably does.
ehhhh, good luck with making your perfectly world
frankly, and it pains me to say it, nothing of it is ever going to happen, ever. ever ever ever ever. and yes, it does pain me to say that, but there comes a point when, well, when realism has to take a role in our lives
I doubt it would happen
But it's possible. And it's possible without needing an entirely new system.
i kinda agree with quite a lot of what youve written
im not sure raising taxes is a very good solution, or likely to produce any better results than sort of guilttripping rich people into donating large sums.
the main thing i take issue with is
"Nearly all charities, even 'development' ones, are inneffective. They throw money at short term solutions, even ones that consider themselves different really aren't much better. The latter send off waterpumps and schools to be built, doctors to be trained - but in the existing structure, it's mostly worthless."
which seems a bit simplistic a view of what charities do...
It's not
Feel free to argue otherwise, but it isn't at all. Anything dealing with impoverished countries is ultimately futile until the governmental situation is sorted out. They're still mostly short-term solutions - just slight less short-term than bags of rice.
"Anything dealing with impoverished countries is ultimately futile until the governmental situation
So Aids awareness programs in africa? i dont think you can say 'do nothing until bad governments are removed', equally i mean, say in brazil a few years ago, would you rather that charites providing ophanages & education for street kids had just not bothered and waiting till the government stabilized and had to sort itself out. in a lot of these places the government is such a mess that itd take years to sort out.
also, i mean you can take bill gates as an example, regardless of your views on him, he donates huge amounts medical research charities and its not all based in 'short term solutions' but funding research which will lead to long term solutions on medical problems in the 3rd world. it may not be 'right' that the system is set up like this but its not as straightforward as all that to completely overhaul it...
again though
i dont necessarily disagree with yr views on 'the system'. youve made some pretty interesting points.
Well, very little, anyhow
And the AIDS programmes would be infinitely more productive with a helpful government.
And in a sense, yes, I accept that people will suffer, and die whilst changes are made. But is a hundred thousand, a million deaths ultimately the worst thing if the change comes about, not really. The charity often STOPS the change from happening, it prevents it, it preserves the status quo.
if you take south africa as an example
though, the aids programs forced the government to shift its position.
and there is no effective way to remove 'bad governments' these days. too much politics is invested in all that. the only means for that is UN sanctions and youve seen how well those work.
i dont deny that major crises tend to have a way of forcing things forward in a way charity work does not, this doesnt necessarily make it a better solution. and i mean, all youre really advocating is moving the distribution of money from various organisation to a centralised organisation, i'm not sure why thatd be so much better...
But that should be through governmental pressure
Not some charities waving leaflets around.
Just blow them up or something. We've got plenty of bombs to go round.
And I can't really say anything on the last point. I think it would, there's not really a debate to be had there.
why does it matter who does it?
(also, it was more going round towns and offering education to people)
how would you decide who to blow up? would it be people like chavez?
am i reading the thread right in saying that its mainly that you think the government would 'justly' portion out money, and educate the masses in a way that charities do not? (i dont have any convictions on this point, im just wondering)
No way, I love Chavez
I think it would more than charities on the first point, and to an extent on the latter, although if the governemnt were in control of it, it would be less important anyhow.
There are approximately
(judging by the numbers on the bottom of appeals and the like) 2,229,065 charities in the UK.
Dividing all that lot between money that we 'have' to give is possibly slightly tricky.
That's all I'm going to say on the matter.
There's no need to divide between charities, because the chairites shouldn't exist. It should just be causes, no charities, no pressure groups, just causes.
So what about the causes that get missed off
your great charitable giveaway? Cancer, Leukemia, blindness, deafness, leprosy, people who are in serious accidents and have to be supported, this list really is endless.
How do you decide what constitutes a "cause" though?
There are an infinite number of things that this could apply to.
Yes, and so people in the know
and the government should work together to identify where to put money. Maybe some causes lose funding in that system, and others gain significantly - it's a much less biased way of doing things than which charity can advertise itself the best / is coolest / is most glamerous.
its not really that simple
a lot of charities aren't just 'causes', they are organisations and businesses that need to exist for the charities to run properly. Abolishing the charities and handing out money won't work because the government doesn't have time time, money or resources to organise and delegate and do all the work that charities do. it isn;t just about thrusting money at causes, a lot of charities do much much more than that, like research, managing, monitoring, etc etc etc. You simply can't expect one organisation to be able to control all of that, you need independant bodies.
Also, i doubt that the government would divide money up between 'causes' fairly, there are a lot of causes that the government would not support, and the only reason they get any funding is because of independant charities.
Giving to charity out of willingness is a necessary part of the system.
The government could make that happen
It would require some pretty big changes to the system, yes, but it could make a system do deal with it. And you think that the government can't have anything to do with researching/monitoring etcetc??? Why on earth not? And you can, it would need to be extended sure, but you don't need independent bodies at all. You just sound like typical liberal 'anything but the government!!" type.
The causes the government (assuming it was a halfway decent one) would surely be decided far more fairly than the way it is with charities. How can you possibly deny that?
And the whole bloody point of my argument is that it shouldn't be.
for goodness sake
of course i'm not an 'anything but the government' type. thats assuming quite a lot about my general views on your part. I'm not an 'anything but the government' type, but surely handing everything over to them is putting rather a lot of eggs in one basket? It's not the fact that it's "The Government", it's that it is just ONE controlling body. Personally i think it is a much better system to have many different organisations controlling charities than one.
And if the government should control everything, who monitors them? Who makes sure that money isn't disappearing into the system?
I'm just suggesting that this is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be, abolishing charities with years of work and reinstating them as part of the government just wouldn't work. its far to broad and complicated a system, even just for one charity! There's just no way one organisation would be able to control it all!
"assuming it was a halfway decent one" and what if it wasn't? And why would it 'surely'? 'worth' is not defined by facts and figures, it is defined by human (or animal or environmental) need.
the whole point of your argument was that it shouldn't be what?
Well, I disagree big time on that one
I think having the same body dealing with all causes would be hugely beneficial. It gives you something to base allocation on.
Some money will 'disappear into the system', but the government, or at least, any government we're likely to have, isn't so evil as to tax the hell out of the population and spend it all on champagne.
I can't see a situation where an impossibly evil government would be in power. In an ideal world, I'd love for it not to be democratic, for it to be a left-wing non-liberal government. But then that is being too idealistic. And I'm trying to keep this some level of relaistic, otherwise it's a pointless debate to have.
man, you are a communist
Yeah, but I also love Tony Blair
I think that might be a capital offense in communist circles.
gave up half way through
I think donating to charity is sometimes a way to alleviate guilt a modern day tithe, and therefore could be seen as mitagating against necessary change.
But then again some charities do good work and the world would be worse without them.
You are such a pathetic cunt
Your obvious lack of confidence and self beliefs manifests itself in snide scorn on anyone who just seems to be getting on with it in their own way. Grow up you pathetic idiot.
You're not
You're one of those people that thinks all people who do drugs are BO-O-RING.
we already give money to charitable causes by law. It's called tax. If the NHS didn't exist i'm more than certain there would be charities set up to provide the underprivileged with healthcare. Just living in society and spending your money anywhere is charity enough. Any "surplus" charity isn't done to satisfy people's egos, and frankly I couldn't care if it was, you snidey, annoying person.
:( oh dear, thats a tad harsh
oh well at least he didnt call you k***y
Completely not
As soon as you consider "the charitable" the best subject you can find to deride you are more than worthy of being called a cunt. Added to about a million other instances of being an intolerant, stubborn bore.
stop being a reactionary idiot
i disagree with pocketmouses views on running charities, but did you even read the thread? Or did you just think she was bashing all charitable causes?
she is not deriding the charitable, she is deriding the way the system works.
so read stuff before you start throwing insults around. calling someone you don;t know a cunt is childish and stupid.
^ yes
I honestly don't care what she's like in real life
Thankfully I doubt I shall ever encounter her. On here she's a cunt.
all you've really proved by posting here
is that you can be a cunt yourself.
As much as I like destroying peoples arguments, I recognise that people such as you do have good intentions.
You know, mostly.
as much as i disagree with you
its your opinion, it doesn't make you a better or worse person, obviously! i hate people who use personal insults in non personal arguments, it's just silly.
Charity is not simply throwing money at a cause.
Believe it or not a great deal of thought, time and energy goes in to delivering projects to actively change situations, processes people or that are marginalised in some way.
Your comprehensive analysis that "Nearly all charities, even 'development' ones, are inneffective" is incredible, and the thousands and thousands, and millions and millions of case-studies of people who have positively benefited from charitable work can easily contest this.
Your assumption that all charities work for those who are poor or destitute in some way is misguided.
You have a very cynical world view, and it is your own world view that has decided those who benefit from charities are treated like pets, not everyone elses.
this, very much
what do you make of the point pocketmouse raises
about people using charity as a means not to need to educate themselves as to things that are going on in the world
"Charity lacks understanding, and further, it absolves the need for understanding. You donate, and that is the end of things, you can sit back happily knowing that you're helping someone somewhere in some way"
do you think thats true? im not really sure but am curious as to how others view this...
a lot of people don't just donate
many people also spend time and energy actively working for causes.
obviously there are some who donate their hard earned money and forget. but if this funding finds it way to those who do understand the cause in a significant way, and know how and where to spend funds then what's the problem?
Additionally, if you're asking for an individual to take an active interest in every single thing they've invested in, or for the government to ensure that every single person with a problem is somehow supported in some all encompassing master plan, you're asking far more than human capacity, both physically and empathy, is capable of.
Yes, but 'positively benefited'
doesn't really mean that. Sure, they've helped more people live. They've given Alejandro a farm, they've given some kids in Ethiopia a school - it's all small-scale worthless stuff that doesn't really matter until the big changes are made.
And I never suggested all charities work for the poor at all. Way to use selective reading. I mostly focused on those, but could apply plenty of arguments against other charities.
And, yes, it's my view that that's how it is. They're given water, food and medicine and they should be happy. It's very 'pet'like. I think anyone who disagrees with that, and thinks that it's different and dignified has significant ego problems and believes that they're worth far more than they actually are.
It's true that substantial changes need to be made
but a lot of charities are there so that in future these changes CAN be made for people.
and what about Charities that are focused on a particular cause? such as anti-cancer charities? surely anything that helps find a cure for such diseases is a good thing, no matter how small it may be?
I disagree with that
I think charities nearly always prevent change and preserve the staus quo.
Is the intention, the aim good? Certainly. But it shouldn't be a private system - it should be the government, it should belong to people.
This is what I mean, you argument seems to stem from the view
that all charities exist to help people merely live. Charities don't just give water, food and medicine, that's your simplistic view of how they work. That may be the end result in some instances but often there's a hell of a lot more after care, and preceeding ground work that's involved.
It's not really selective reading when the majority of your argument seems to focus on this angle.
But if we take your example, how does building a farm, or providing an education not really matter? It matters to those individual people. Of course until the big changes are made there are still continuing problems, but taking no action until this happens is ludicrous. That's just sitting back and saying you can't change the massive political system of whatever, so why bother helping at all.
It's nothing about ego, it's about trying to do what you can to help, within your capacity, without taking the arrogant view that you are some sort of hero.
Like I said, in many cases
Western governments should provide aid/food/water/medicine. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen. I'm saying sometimes, the level to which charities do it, and the importance they place upon it helps preserve the status quo and prevents change. Is keeping people healthier on a constant propping-up basis more important than big structural change....?
this very, very much.
I can't face reading that but Socialists don't believe in charity either
because clearly it represents the holes in society that capitalism, by its selfish nature, creates being papered over by the good will of those who are essentially Socialists.
Or something like that.
Well, more socially
I suppose 'socialist' in terms of foreign policy now is quite 'liberal' and I'm definitely not that.
But most government aid, especially that spend in Africa
more often than not is self serving and endsa up in the wrong places. It is incredibly naive to think that governments would suddenly do everything correctly - in fact that's why charities exist isn't it? To help out on and raise awareness about things that governments ignore? If you were to get rid of charities and leave it solely down to governments then nothing would happen. After all, governments have had a fair while to help out the developing world, and has failed to do so.
Your point about people donating more than others also made me chuckle a bit because all the successful charities are ones that have a large base of retired BCD women donating £10 a month - bigger donation tend only to be more significant to smaller charities.
But the government 'ignoring'
issues is likely based on things the government knows. I don't believe there are really any issues that somehow, although the general populace are fully aware of and love donating to, the government somehow haven't so much as heard of their existence. And I disagree, done correctly a hell of a lot would be done, more quickly, and more effectively. And yes, government hasn't helped so far because it's still operating in this system where it doesn't have as much control and power as it should have.
Yes, that's true, but my point still works the way you've said it, one CEO gives a ton to a small charity, small charity next door gets nothing.
No, because I really don't know anywhere near
enough about it.
But government
primary concerns are ALWAYS the wellbeing of the country they govern.
They are simply just not anywhere near as focused as charities are.
so what you're saying is
that the government would automatically do what's good and right, and be completely fair?
A reasonable government
Admittedly, in bad hands the system wouldn't be so great. But I'd be happy with Labour operating such a system, sure. Hell, I could probably push to accepting the present Tory party.
power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
something like that
i really think your views on this are
very simplistic. In an ideal world of course, it might work, but this isn't an ideal word. the current system might be flawed, but i can;t see how it would be anywhere near as flawed as if the government controlled it!
Again, I think the same
right back atcha. With a little reversal at the end.
I don't give to charity.
but that's because I am a misanthrope.
I'm not going over the same thing
I've been over twenty times in this thread again. Just scroll up.
Governments should send aid,
And you should already have given a very significant portion of your income through TX.
I see the point,
it's a shame that the poor don't have enough money and that the ill are, well, ill.
I don't think higher taxes and less charity would be able to solve things: the government already gives huge sums to the developing world and that giving is very targetted. I don't see how giving more that way would be any more efficient or beneficial than charitable giving.
The only real difference would be that a few hundred people would deide where the money went, rather than the 60m who currently decide.
I agree that it would be great if people didn't have to give charity but that would imply a perfect world with everyone happy, healthy and above all equal. That won't happen and so giving is required.
But it's not just about the developing world
It's just as much, if not even more, about social problems at home.
And yes, those people would be approaching it from a far better angle, with far better things to base decisions on. And it's not 'all' that would be changed at all.
Yes, of course 'giving' is required. Otherwise known as taxing. I don't see how it becomes any different?
I don't think the government gives enough money to the developing world,
If all charity was through taxation, there may well be more money going that way, but I may still disagree with the amount.
The government doesn't tell me who to buy my food from and whilst I see your mothering point, I disagree that state funded charity would be any different. Also how much of GDP goes in aid anywhere would be decided centrally, and I may disagree.
I'm not religious but I do think that we should give to those less fortunate, I can't see how doing it through tax would be any more effective and would only upset people who can't give to what they see as worthy causes.
But the 'upseting people' thing makes no sense
Nearly every decision the government makes, every law it passes, will upset a significant number of people. How would allocation of funds to causes be any different? Should the government stop passing laws, for fear of upsetting people?
I might have missed this thread.
you've got some points I agree with
I think that taxes could be raised to support some charitable causes, particularly ones like Shelter where the government could be doing more with that issue. And yes, charities are run like businesses. They have to be, otherwise they'd never make any money or spend it properly! Even in your system, the government would still have to employ all those people who work for charities to do the work. Also, you're right about charity making people feel good. Doing something kind or generous or helpful does make people feel good. This doesn't mean that they're all selfish people.
You seem to be talking mostly about international development charities, and obviously there are thousands of other types of charities.
Your point about 'othering' developing nations is subject with loads written about it (I did a lot of it in my degree). But to say "It says 'here, you have water, and you have medicine, be happy' as if people in poorer countries have no more ambition than to live beyond their thirtieth birthday... The idea that they think in totally bizarre ways, that they wouldn't be introduced to watches, and video games" is pretty barmy. Charities donate food and water and shelter and medicine because in many cases, people would die without it. I don't think consumer goods are a priority there.
I just sent a pinball machine to the Sudan. Recorded delivery though, so hopefully no-one will be into sign for it and I'll get it back.
I'm going out for a cheese sandwich.
shoulda sent it to these guys
man, never satisfied these tribes
what next, mario kart wii round teh campfire?
Nah, a casino would be enough for them.
5 hallucinogenic frogs on black!
I'm not, and didn;t mean to focus on those type of charities
What I'm saying applies to other charities to, domestic ones, and if they don't I do have decent arguments for those too.
I know, but I'm talking there about a) preserving the status quo and b) wealthy/western people's attitudes towards such things. It's maintaining something that shouldn't be maintained, it's keeping it all in place, but the wrong things.
to give you an example which probably wouldn't fit into your system
so I wonder what you'd do:
I used to work for a registered charity. It was an orchestra. It received money from the Arts Council (so, the government) and from people watching concerts, but that wasn't enough to keep it going, so it was a charity too, and relied very heavily on donations from supporters.
How would that work in your non-charity system?
If it was worthwhile keeping
then it would receive arts funding.
Funded by higher taxes.
Okay, I need to take a time out for ten, fifteen minutes
Kind of exhausting having to disagree with anyone. I know last time this debate happened I had a couple of people helping me. Where the hell are you guys?
Back soon, don't worry. Or do worry. Whichever way you look at it.
I agree,
but I'm at work so can't really keep track of this (and I find arguing on here is one of the most pointless things ever).
I'm agreeing mostly
just in a less extreme way.
I agree mostly too
I understand your views
ultimately, it seems like
the thrust of your argument has been that charity needn't exist if governments were perfect, or at least really really fucking good. and i don't want to sound flippant here, but i honestly don't believe any government ever has got near 'really really fucking good' by your standards, and i don't believe any ever will, i really really don't.
there's so many causes to raise money for and yes, you're relying on the subjectivity of people, and yes, it's not a particularly logical method but ultimately, the system for raising money for charitable causes is how it is, and it is to all intents and purposes going ot say how it is for the forseeable future, and instead of complaining about the way the world works on internet forums, if you've got the interests of the needy at heart the only way you're going to be able to help them is if you personally go and help them yourself, this goes for everyone.
No, not at all
Like I said, even under Labour, or at a stretch even Tories, the system would work. Not ideally certainly with the latter, but better than it does now still.
I have a utopian view too, sure, but that's barely been expressed here. Most of it is unlikely, but not entirely unrealistic.
To be honest, I think complaining about it on an internet forum is just as worthwhile as me going out helping people.... as in they're both basically worthless.
i'm sure the people who you can realistically help
as in, go to a homeless shelter, work in a cats/dogs/rspca home, or something similar whereby at the moment the system doesn't cater for them as you'd see it, would like to be helped.
i wonder if you're somewhat of a zealot, in that you're looking at the grands aims of massive change and in pursuit of that forgetting about the little people you can, in the modern world, in the modern system, realistically do something to help them in the short-term, and that might be all they need
my serious post for the week.
I think you raise some good points but you're looking at it from some utopian point of view that if we were to miraculously start from a year zero situation, it might be possible to implement. As it is, we can't and governments and societies have fucked up and we need charitable organisations to muck in and help improve matters. I can't begin to know why some people donate to charitable organisations but if it makes them feel better, big deal? It's surely better than not donating at all.
My main concern, is your apparent condescension of people who work for charities. They do some sterling work under the most difficult of circumstances and to say their efforts are 'ineffective' is not true.
I've probably missed the boat on this one.
never mind.
I'm not though
As much as I don't think it would happen - it could, and without revolutionary change. It's possible, but it would be unpopular, and the government doesn't really have any incentive to do it. But possible, sure.
I'm not doubting charity workers commitment to causes, or intentions, but that doesn't mean I think it's the correct way to go about doing things. And largely, I think it is ultimately ineffective - not always, but largely so.
the problem is that
for some things money is not the most efficient answer at delivering humanitarian salvation.
Ignoring my belief that we are facing economic caastrophe and other doomsday scenarios.
Let us take Bangladesh. I have checked up recently and the conditions are still the same as about 25-30 years ago when i first became aware of its difficult future.
1)It has the fastest growing popuation of the large population countries
2) It is very overpopulated
3) It is losing land faster than most other countries (washed away due to flooding in monsoon times)
4) flooding is made more extreme by more extreme volumes of water in river because of deforestration in upper reaches of river (in other countries)
This problem is going to get worse and worse and worse, every year more an more people are going to have to be living in more flood liable areas, less land for food etc.
Unless popuation growth is tackled as a global issue then it is unlikely that bangladesh will.
ONLY a political solution will aid the humanitarian problems that it will suffer......no matter how much money you throw at it (unless its enough to 'recreate land' like in dubai) it isnt going to improve year on year in general it is going to deteriorate (unless the climate changes to help them)
Bangladesh has India and Mayanamar(Burma) for neighbours.
You have seen Mayanamar's authorities attitude towards humanitarian relief recently.
India would be reluctant to open its borders to accept more bangladeshi's. Yet really this is the most humanitarian option....with all the political and local unrest that this would cause......it is best if the whole international community recognised this and afforded aid/recognition to india for this......this can only be done on governmental levels...the lobbying for this sort of thing to happen i mean.
Sometimes the willy nilly approach to throwing dosh at problems means that the ony long term solutions are overlooked.
In this case the borders exacerbating the humanitarian problems that might occur there.
Of course not all charity is like this but I can understand totally pocket mouses reaction against charity.....
another well known instance is the live aid aid.....when much of the food and supplies actually ended up supporting combatants. Im not suggesting that it means people were wrong to give to live aid....but you shouldnt attack people so vehemently for being disenchanted with the power of charity
I agree with a lot of that
(if perhaps not the overall conclusion) apart from the bit about charities being ineffective. I don't think that the charity which ran the hospice my grandparents died in was ineffective, for example. To use that example though, I believe that that care should have been provided by the NHS - I don't think it should be up to people to volunteer to pay for palliative care for cancer patients.
I definitely agree with the bit about the charities for popular causes or with the resources to advertise getting all the money (also, who wants the money they donate to go into advertising?). People will give money to fund breast cancer care because it's something that they know can happen to nice, innocent people like their mum or their auntie, but they might not want to give money to provide support for drug addicts or recently released convicts, even if it's needed.
If YOU give just £3 a month
you can help prevent the inhuman process of bread-freezing from happening ever again. With your help, we can make frozen bread a thing of the past. Please, donate now.
ps you have some good points and stuff but that doesn't mean the present system is completely bad or wrong, just not perfect.
I was going to take a bunch of my daughter's old clothes that she's grown out of to the charity shop at the end of my road but I guess it would be more efficient and fair to send the bag to the Central Depot For Government Approved Exchange Of Goods For Fair Causes and have them distribute each item equally between each Government Approved Cause Outlet on their program (sic).
Seems a little bit of a waste of resources, perhaps I should just give the clothes to my brother for his little one when she gets a bit older. Oh hang on, then I'd risk arrest under the Fair Distribution Of Goods For Fair Causes Act 2008 and I wouldn't want to blot my copybook with points against my Citizen License.
Ok, I'm being glib but you get my point.
You do raise some interesting and salient points about the nature of charities and their inherent problems but charities are aware of these issues and engage them as best they can.
To centralise distribution removes capacity to be flexible and deal with new crises that arise or problems that shift suddenly. It would be a disaster for so many people to have things centralised.
Additionally, national centralisation as a concept system is inherently flawed for any cause which might need to be dealt with internationally. You're essentially creating a massive and sluggish independent body under the remit of a civil service which may have a large amount of leverage at a political or diplomatic level but could equally be deeply mistrusted on a grass roots level.
And this leads me to my main point, which is that organisations which provide relief and help for people in need should not and NEVER be polticised.
If there are many problems, that usually means that many various solutions should be sought. Please try not to make the mistake of looking for THE solution to fix all the problems, for this or anything in life (I know this is a little patronising but it's genuinely sound advice)
For the record I absolutely agree that Governments need to do more to eradicate poverty, ensure clean environments, clean water, universal literacy and standards of education across the globe, not to mention a legion of other things.
But we cannot abdicate all personal responsibility to a centrally authorised body. We need to take personal responsibility not only in helping those who are in need but in making sure those whose voices are seldom heard have representation - a job which many charities do both directly and indirectly.
Finally, it's not an accident that people feel a sense of well-being when they give to or engage in charity work. It is an evolutionary mechanism to reward behaviour that benefits the society or community.
I agree with you inasmuch as
I think that, morally speaking, giving to charity is obligatory rather than merely supererogatory.
But I also think there's a case to be made that making it LEGALLY obligatory would actually devalue charity as a social institution. Certainly I'd welcome some kind of "charities tax". But to abolish independent charities as well? Far from making it valueless, I'd argue that the voluntary aspect of charity is a key part of its value.
Also, I don't buy your argument that people only give to feel good about themselves. Or, even if they do, that this is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, you have no right to feel proud of yourself. But if you're giving to a good cause, you're okay to feel *happy* - in fact, the world would be an odd place if we didn't feel happy about doing good things! I agree that giving to charity humbly is preferable (that's analytically true, in fact), but that doesn't mean you have to give with a solemn sense of duty.
"Charity lacks understanding, and further, it absolves the need for understanding."
I'm interested by this and I think there's an element of truth in it. But a system of forced giving would surely, if anything, worsen the drive towards understanding?
"The idea of being a 'provider' is unhealthy, and shows a complete lack of understanding - people should get what they deserve and not have to feel in any way thankful"
I think I part company with you here. Relationships of providence are fundamental in the world - parents and kids for starters. I agree that people should get what they deserve (analytically true again) and that providers have no right to insist on gratitude. But it doesn't follow that people shouldn't be thankful for whatever they have.


text:
Arduino is a microcontroller board in light of the ATmega328P (datasheet). It has 14 computerized input/yield pins (of which 6 can be utilized as PWM yields), 6 simple sources of info, a 16 MHz quartz precious stone, a USB association, a power jack, an ICSP header and a reset catch. It contains everything expected to bolster the microcontroller; just interface it to a PC with a USB link or power it with an AC-to-DC connector or battery to begin. You can tinker with your UNO without stressing excessively over accomplishing something incorrectly, most dire outcome imaginable you can swap the chip for a couple of dollars and begin once again once more.
OAASA Technologys Arduino instructional class will give you an edge over others. Arduino is a recognized Micro controller Embed in particular load up that can perform multitasking programs at once. This valuable smaller scale controller board is particularly known in showing process for its cheap costing and accommodating dialect that is versatile to all.
OAASA Technologys presents extend construct preparing in light of Arduino to lift you learning about electronic development with this multipurpose Micro controller.
LED Interfacing
LCD Interfacing
Interfacing GSM MODEM with Arduino
DC Motor Interfacing
Bank: VIJAYA BANK | A/C No.: 723300301000625 | A/C Holder: OAASA TECHNOLOGYS | Account Type: Current | IFSC Code: VIJB0007233
Branch GOPALPUR-RAJARHAT BRANCH, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, PIN: 700059
Regarding any Query, complaint or praise you can surely mail us, phone us or just visit us @oaasa.
Block A, Lake Town,
Kolkata, West Bengal,
India 700089
Landmark: ICICI Bank
William Bradley Barn Kidgate, Louth Lincolnshire LN119BT United Kingdom +44(0)1507824969 | +44(0)7823794797
Phone: (033) 33028471
Mobile: (+91) 9038022259


text:
Extreme Enduro Test | 300T V 350F | Bike Reviews | Features
If you look at the entries for an extreme enduro event you'll notice it is stocked with 300cc two-strokes, with the odd 250cc two-stroke and the even more rare four-stroke.
In last year's Erzberg Rodeo there was one four-stroke in the top 50 finishers, a KTM 350EXC-F piloted by a German named Phillip Sholz.
To understand why the two-stroke dominates extreme enduro we put two bikes of similar capacity but very different combustion against each other in an exclusively extreme environment.
To do this we headed to Aussie extreme enduro legend Rob Nowak's property in Vicco, where the gearbox never hit third. No singletrack or fireroads, just a massive hill, loads of fallen trees and the odd tyre.
The two capacities we chose were the 300cc two-stroke and the 350cc four-stroke. This was not a test on the Beta enduros, they were just playing picture bitches. And the two testers we used were Nowak and Con Thermos, both very accomplished extreme enduro riders.
What we hadn't expect was for Gary Grealy from Beta Australia to bring the Beta X-Trainer as well. It was never meant to be part of the test, but as soon as the boys saw it they wanted to ride it. And the results were surprising.
I sat down for a chat with Rob and Con, after a hard and sweaty slog in the extreme terrain, to see which bike they thought was the better extreme enduro weapon.
ROB: If you're an experienced rider, nothing comes close to a 300cc two-stroke. For every type of terrain. In general, if you're doing the entire extreme calendar it's the best bike for an expert.
CON: Yeah, I agree with Rob, but if you're a short rider, or someone with less experience, I would choose the X-Trainer, out of the Betas, over a 300cc two-stroke.
ROB: I see what Con is saying but I'm too heavy for the X-Trainer on some hills, the torque in the engine and weight and the way it delivers the power is great, but not for big hills. The four-stroke feels good until you get tired and you need to start pushing. You can notice the weight difference as soon as you have to start pushing. It might not mean much on the scales, but as soon as you need to start pushing it they get top heavy.
CON: Exactly what Rob said. As soon as you start getting into the nasty stuff where you're about to put your foot down and start pushing, you feel the weight of the 350. It's just not as flighty as the two-stroke when you need to change directions. The X-Trainer was like turning around a pushbike.
ROB: All that being said, while we're saying the 300cc two-stroke is the best, that 350cc four-stroke Beta can do it all. It might stall easier, but it doesn't stall nearly as much as other bikes do off the bottom. If you wanted to do a bit of extreme and still trailride in comfort the 350cc four-stroke would be better. For a beginner rider who's coming from a motocross bike or trail background, the 350cc four-stroke isn't intimidating. That being said, the beginner may feel that weight more and it does stall easier than the 300cc two-stroke.
CON: I kinda disagree with Rob. The 350 is an excellent trailbike, but after riding the Beta X-Trainer I think that bike is perfect for the beginner. Just the physical size of it, it's lower to the ground also. It gives you more confidence.
ROB: Yeah but come on Connie, you don't need as much clutch control on the 350cc four-stroke. It's only right off the bottom that it will flame out easier. But Con is convincing in his argument. If you were a deadset beginner in extreme enduro, you've gotta go that X-Trainer.
CON: I agree with Rob in regards to the injected four-strokes flaming out. It is a problem for me, because I stall four-strokes a lot because I like riding in the bottom of the power. When I was racing overseas last time I stalled it in the worst possible positions, like I nearly fell into a ravine, just because I've come round a corner and it flamed out and I've got nowhere to put my foot. In extreme riding your doing such slow speeds, and I know that all four-strokes just ride too fast.
ROB: If you had ambitions to go overseas and do a Romaniacs and an Erzberg, there's hardly any transport legs that are fast, it's all off-camber and up and down all day, and that X-Trainer just gives you confidence. As you get tired, especially at the end of the day where a 300cc two-stroke can get you into trouble as you make mistakes, the X-Trainer would be perfect.
Con: I'd go one step further than Rob and say you could be competitive in Gold class in Romaniacs on the X-trainer. If I went to Romaniacs again and had to ride a Beta, it would actually be the X-Trainer.
ROB: I can't agree with Con there. Because I'm heavier, the X-Trainer wouldn't pull me up some of those big hills at the start of Erzberg. There's just a couple of sections in extreme enduro where you need brute horsepower and it just doesn't have it.
CON: I can see where Rob's coming from but if I had to categorise the 300cc two-stroke I'd put it in the extreme enduro class.
ROB: Yeah the 300cc two-stroke is an extreme enduro bike for me as well. And I think the X-Trainer is one of the best trailbikes you could ride for a beginner.
CON: Obviously the X-Trainer is an excellent trailbike, but for me it is a better extreme enduro bike, and the 350cc four-stroke to me is a great trailbike.
ROB: The 350cc four-stroke is marketed as the race bike, so for me it would probably give me the most confidence going fast. I'd prefer to go fast on a 350 than a 450 at an event like an AORC. The motor gives me a lot of confidence. The motor can be held flat-out.
I've competed in Wildwood every year since it started, Erzberg four times, Sea to Sky, Romaniacs, and I did the Enduro-X twice.
I've done Romaniacs twice and regularly compete in B-Class in trials,
trailriding, I dunno!


text:
Fire and Rescue Q1 2018 has been published
Published: 02 March, 2018
Read your digital issue of F&R now.
Highlights include:
Schiphol expansion: Amsterdam Airport fire brigade extends its capability
Detox your PPE: A new way of cleaning firefighting kit with liquid CO2 could save lives
Other features:
- AFOA Conference report
- Foam Summit report
- ARFF incident handover
- Wearable technology for firefighters
- Trends and development in PPV
- Clinical governance
- The art of using the hydraulic ram
- A legal wildfire legacy
- Vehicles: deliveries all over the world
- A project that teaches how to deal with cyber attacks
To read F&R Q1, 2018, click here or on the cover.
To download F&R click here.


text:
Teacher (ASN - Mathematics), South Lanarkshire
Closing date:
Contract type: Full Time
Contract term: Permanent
KEAR Campus School provides education for secondary aged children with social, emotional and behavioural needs, on full and part time placements. KEAR Campus also includes four secondary support bases located at Cathkin High, Hamilton Grammar, Lesmahagow High and St Andrews and St Brides High. It also provides support to the ASN bases at Victoria Falls and Whithorn.
South Lanarkshire Council schools have recently undergone an £800m+ moderisation programme.
The aim of this programme is simple - to create high quality additional support needs and primary and secondary provision in South Lanarkshire - fit for the twenty first century.
During this time we have built and modernised numerous Primary and Secondary Schools.
It is our mission to make positive meaningful changes in the lives of young people. We aim to provide an exceptional learning and working environment for pupils and staff and work in partnership with parents, support staff and other professionals.
South Lanarkshire Council Education Resources are committed to the education, care and welfare of young people in a childcare environment.
We are now inviting applications from Fully Qualified (GTCS) Primary or Secondary Teachers with experience of teaching children with social, emotional and behavioural needs
You will assist in the delivery of the curriculum and contribute to whole school initiatives, as appropriate and will carry out the range of duties outlined in Annexe B of "A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century".
Closing date: 11/11/2018
Reference: SLA04334
Kear Campus, Bardykes Road, Blantyre, Glasgow
Contact Kear Campus
Thanks for your interest in this role.
Simply fill in the form below to ask any questions, request a call, or schedule a school visit.
This field is required


text:
- Photography
20 awesome examples of shadow art
in Photography
20 awesome examples of shadow art
Writen by Bogdan / 3 Comments
A shadow is not always what it seems. Tim Noble and Sue Webster, two British artists have played with our perception related to the notion of garbage. They have done some extraordinary work that represents the shadowier aspects of life. Most works are simply made from garbage with light projected against them to create a shadow image entirely different to that seen when looking directly at the disguised pile.
Bogdan is the founder of Top Design Magazine. You can find him in Bucharest-Romania so next time you want to drink a beer there and talk about web and stuff, give him a message.
You may also like
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
Chicago Property Flipping on the Rise
Many Cook County homes are being property flipped once again. According to RealtyTrac, more than 1,067 homes in the Chicago metro area were flipped during the first six months of 2012. This is a 30 percent increase from 2011.
While the re-growth in property flipping still hasn't reached 2010 levels, home prices remain low, which means investors are snatching up good opportunities. Property flipping is growing across the nation in general, and the U.S. market as a whole is experiencing a 25 percent increase from 2011 levels of property flipping.
RealtyTrac defines property flipping as a house that is renovated and then sold at a discounted price within a 90 day period. Most flipped properties are the result of distressed sales.
Property flipping can prove to be quite profitable if 'flippers' are experienced and skilled. For example, the average profit for a flipped home in Cook County is more than $55,000, not including any rehab and carrying costs. Normally, it takes an average of 114 days to flip a property.
Would you ever considering 'flipping' a home?


text:
One of my samples from several years ago when I was a student on one of Ruth Issett's wonderful Summer Schools for the TSG (Textile Study Group)
I am having a fabulous day, I have just returned from giving my last lecture this year to a new group based in East Grinstead. The group is named 'Context' - and they are a Comtemporary Quilt Group with a large and lively membership. I had a thoroughly enjoyable couple of hours talking to the group and showing them some of my work and samples - old and new. It was good to get a chance to look at some of my older pieces as well as all my new newspaper and Spunbond pieces.
This was a popular sample - layers of CS500 Vilene Spunbond, painted Bondaweb and gilding flake cut with a soldering iron ans ironed onto black CS500.
'Context' have only been together for a year but seem very well organised. Everyone was very helpful and happy - there was a great atmosphere. I really had a great time - I think all the ladies did too . . .
On the way out of The Chequermead Centre where Context meet I bumped into one of my ex students who studied with me for 2 years at Portslade.
It was wonderful to see her and to catch up with what she had been up to.
She was very eye catching as she was wearing an 1805 empire line costume including a bonnet. Very Jane Austin! One of things Eileen is now up to is running a period and fancy dress costume hire facility out of the Chequermead Centre every Saturday from 10 - 1pm. All the costumes are hand made and exquisitely finished (she didn't learn that from me!). The proceeds go to help the Chequermead Theatre and they have raised £14.000 in the past 3 years - amazing!!!It is always so GOOD to see my girls.
My day will get even better as my best friend in the whole world and Margate (old T.V show reference - I think it was Adreinne Posta) is coming down from London where she lives and we are spending the evening with my gorgeous sister and her husband. They are planning a sumptuous meal for us and no doubt a little alcohol will be consumed. I am going to be a very old lady on Monday and I will be about to leave for the D & T show that day so we are celebrating tonight! Yeehaaa - All my favourite people together in the same room. Marvelous. (That would include Talulah and Jill if you could get here)!!!
It feels as though school is out. Definitely time to turn up the music on the stereo and start to apply the poly-filla!!!!!
Hope you are having a great day too . . . x