In the past year, numerous prescription sleeping pills have hit the market, and it seems like you can't turn anywhere without seeing an ad for one of these drugs. Sleep aids like Ambien, Lunesta, and Rozerem have helped millions of Americans get a good night's sleep. But these drugs are not without their side effects (remember the media frenzy a few months ago over people ''sleep driving" while on Ambien?), and some people prefer a more natural approach to dealing with sleep problems.
A new product called SleepKey recently hit the market and promises a drug-free, behavioral approach to dealing with insomnia. Sleep key, which is made by a company called PICS, Inc., is an unassuming electronic device about the size of a small remote control. I've been having some problems getting on a regular sleep schedule myself, so after reviewing the SleepKey website, I decided to purchase one of the gadgets for myself.
The product arrived quickly, and it was easy enough to set up. SleepKey has only four buttons, so there's really not much to screw up. After installing 3 AAA batteries, I set the current time, in addition to the time I wanted to wake up the next morning. For the first 7 days, the instruction manual informed me, SleepKey would take me through the first of three phases.
Here's how it works: when you go to bed, you let Sleep key know by pressing the "In/Out of Bed'' button. After a short while, SleepKey will emit a very soft beeping tone. If you hear the tone, you press the "Awake" button on top of the device, which is probably similar in shape, size and feel to the snooze button on your alarm clock. The idea is that if you're sleeping, the tones won't be loud enough to wake you up, so you won't press the button. This process, called "Active Sleep Sampling'', let's SleepKey assess your sleep efficiency, or the amount of time that you're in bed that you are actually sleeping.
I had no problem falling asleep with the tones, as they are very quiet and infrequent. If you find that the tones bother you, SleepKey also has a vibrate option, In the morning, SleepKey acts as your alarm clock and gets you out of bed by emitting a series of progressively louder and longer beeps. You have to press the ''Out of Bed" button to stop the alarm as opposed to the "Awake'' button that you'd intuitively press, which is actually a great feature. I find that sometimes I just hit the snooze button on my alarm clock without actually waking up, causing me to sleep in. SleepKey makes me think just enough to turn the alarm off that I really am awake and I do get up out of bed.
After the first seven days, SleepKey has learned enough about your personal sleep pattern to move on to the second phase. In Phase II, SleepKey tells you when you should go to bed, as opposed to you picking your own bedtime as you did during the first phase. Initially, the bedtime that SleepKey sets might be much later than you are used to--that's okay. The idea is that if you wake up at a normal time, you'll be tired enough to get a good night's sleep the next night.
Each night during Phase II, SleepKey will sound a prompt to let you know that it's time for bed. Once you are in bed, SleepKey will emit the same tones to check whether or not you're awake. Unlike Phase I, however, if you are in bed for too long without falling asleep, SleepKey will prompt you to get out of bed and try falling asleep again in a little while. This is based on studies that show insomnia is caused, to some degree, by people not associating their bed with sleep. By making you get out of bed until you are tired enough to sleep, SleepKey helps to reinforce the notion that your bed should be used for sleep, and not much else.
SleepKey also provides important data about your sleep, allowing you to retrieve your "Total Time Asleep" and "Sleep Efficiency" numbers for the past 7 nights, and gives you averages of these important numbers as well. That might not seem important at first, but by allowing you to see your "raw data," you can see your sleeping patterns improve over time. Once your sleep efficiency starts to rise and you are spending most of your time in bed asleep, SleepKey will adjust your bedtime to be a little bit earlier every few days, allowing you to achieve a normal bedtime and the optimum amount of sleep for your body.
Once you have achieved a normal sleep schedule that you are happy with, you can manually set SleepKey to go into Phase III, which is "maintenance mode." During Phase III, SleepKey will no longer adjust your bedtime earlier, but may make it later if you begin to have problems sleeping again. Some users are able to graduate to Phase III in a matter of weeks, while others find it takes them several months to get back on a normal sleep schedule.
I've been using SleepKey for a little over a month now and my sleeping habits have greatly improved. I am finding that my body clock is slowly resetting itself, and I am getting tired around my bedtime and, more importantly, I'm ready to get up when my alarm sounds. I still have a bit to go until I'm on a "normal" sleep schedule, but I have no doubt that SleepKey can help me reach that goal.
The only drawback to SleepKey is that it does depend on you to "obey" its prompts. If you don't go to bed when the unit prompts you to, or if you ignore the wake up prompts, SleepKey won't work. You have to be an active participant in the process. If you're looking for a quick fix for short-term sleep problems, prescription sleeping pills might be the right choice. But if you're looking for a behavioral approach to help you deal with sleeping difficulties over the long-term without drugs, SleepKey might be just the product you've been looking for.
Friday, August 1, 2014
CAPTCHA Tests Limit Web Access For The Disabled
We've all been annoyed by them. Some can be frustratingly difficult to get right. I'm talking about those little boxes with the squiggly words that you have to guess correctly in order to register for a website, like the examples in the "Pictures" section of this article. They're called CAPTCHAs, which is a geeky acronym for "Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart." Basically, these tests make sure that an actual person is performing a given action, and not an automated computer process.
The idea is that, even though the tests are "simple," they are tasks that are too complex for a computer to perform, so if the correct answer is given, the user must be a human. These test go a long way in deterring fraud on the internet, preventing identity theft, and keeping social networking sites like MySpace.com and Digg.com relatively free of spam (obviously, in the last example, the spammers have found ways around the CAPTCHA technology). But an unintended consequence of using CAPTCHAs is that these seemingly simple tests often prevent disabled people from using many popular websites.
Think about it. People with perfectly good vision often have a difficult time picking out all the letters in some CAPTCHAs. Now imagine you had cataracts or some other vision problem that reduced your visual acuity. It certainly doesn't make the process any easier, to say the least. Some CAPTCHA boxes rely on a user's ability to distinguish colors, which eliminates the color blind. Those who are completely blind have special computer equipment that converts text on the screen into spoken words or Braille. Unfortunately, these technologies cannot "read" CAPTCHA boxes.
Some sites have recently come out with alternative "audio CAPTCHAs," where a user clicks a link, hears a spoken word, and has to correctly transcribe the word that was said. One company who adopted this early on was popular GoDaddy.com. While this helps those with just visual impairments, it does nothing for the millions of individuals worldwide who have both vision and hearing difficulties. People with learning disabilities like dyslexia often have particular difficulty with CAPTCHAs as well.
So far, no one has figured out the perfect solution that will prevent automated web submissions while allowing web access to all humans, not just those without disabilities. In the meantime, progressive companies are making sure that they provide both visual and audio CAPTCHAs to provide access to the widest range of people. In addition, it is important for companies to have alternate registration procedures, such as allowing users to register over the phone, for those people who still have trouble with CAPTCHAs because of their disability. This will ensure that the web is truly accessible to everyone.
The idea is that, even though the tests are "simple," they are tasks that are too complex for a computer to perform, so if the correct answer is given, the user must be a human. These test go a long way in deterring fraud on the internet, preventing identity theft, and keeping social networking sites like MySpace.com and Digg.com relatively free of spam (obviously, in the last example, the spammers have found ways around the CAPTCHA technology). But an unintended consequence of using CAPTCHAs is that these seemingly simple tests often prevent disabled people from using many popular websites.
Think about it. People with perfectly good vision often have a difficult time picking out all the letters in some CAPTCHAs. Now imagine you had cataracts or some other vision problem that reduced your visual acuity. It certainly doesn't make the process any easier, to say the least. Some CAPTCHA boxes rely on a user's ability to distinguish colors, which eliminates the color blind. Those who are completely blind have special computer equipment that converts text on the screen into spoken words or Braille. Unfortunately, these technologies cannot "read" CAPTCHA boxes.
Some sites have recently come out with alternative "audio CAPTCHAs," where a user clicks a link, hears a spoken word, and has to correctly transcribe the word that was said. One company who adopted this early on was popular GoDaddy.com. While this helps those with just visual impairments, it does nothing for the millions of individuals worldwide who have both vision and hearing difficulties. People with learning disabilities like dyslexia often have particular difficulty with CAPTCHAs as well.
So far, no one has figured out the perfect solution that will prevent automated web submissions while allowing web access to all humans, not just those without disabilities. In the meantime, progressive companies are making sure that they provide both visual and audio CAPTCHAs to provide access to the widest range of people. In addition, it is important for companies to have alternate registration procedures, such as allowing users to register over the phone, for those people who still have trouble with CAPTCHAs because of their disability. This will ensure that the web is truly accessible to everyone.
Polaroid Pictures & Scrapbooking: What You Should Know
A few months ago, I resurrected an old personal hobby and started scrapbooking for the first time in years. Soon thereafter, I painfully realized that I quit taking pictures around the same time I quit scrapbooking in high school, and I have virtually no photos of the past 7 or 8 years. My entire time at college. My internship at Walt Disney World. My first boyfriend. All these memories pretty much gone forever.
I set out on the market for a new camera so I could start documenting my life with photographs once again, when I came across a deal on a website that caught my eye-a brand new, Polaroid instant camera for just $24.99. I remembered the (very) few times in my life that I had an instant photograph taken, I remembered how much fun it was, and I decided to take the plunge into the world of instant photography.
A few months after I got my Polaroid camera and took some great photographs, I was having a conversation about scrapbooking with my aunt (who is like the World Queen of Scrapbooking...you should see her supply room) when I mentioned that I had recently gotten into taking instant photographs.
I believe that her response was something along the lines of "You need to get out of the 1970s and get areal camera where the prints won't dissolve in 10 years." We laughed at the time, but it made me think....should I really be trusting my memories to be preserved on Polaroid pictures? How will these prints hold up compared to my traditional, 35mm prints? What makes me like instant photography so much? These are all questions that I'll attempt to provide some answers to in this article.
First, let's address the common belief that Polaroid pictures will deteriorate faster than traditional prints. This is simply not the case. Traditional prints can begin breaking down in just 15-20 years if not stored properly, and most experts agree that the majority of today's photographs will fade completely in just 60-100 years. According to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), it will take more than 100 years for today's Polaroid pictures to fade to an unacceptable level. Therefore, we can safely say that the "shelf life" of traditional prints versus instant prints is roughly the same. Furthermore, Polaroid pictures have the advantage of a built-in protective outer layer made from polyester, making them easy to clean (think fingerprints, dust, adhesive, etc.) and providing some level of protection against water damage.
Many scrapbookers want to know if they can safely crop instant photographs. The answer is, it depends who you ask. The problem is that instant pictures contain a developing chemical which can be caustic and irritate the skin and eyes. Normally this isn't a problem since the chemicals are contained within the picture itself. The problem arises when you start cutting the pictures up and "break" the seal the picture itself provides.
I will warn you that there have been reports of people seeking medical treatment after cropping Polaroid pictures....they are few and far between, though, and no one has suffered any permanent injuries as a result. The irritating chemicals inside the picture start to neutralize themselves as soon as your instant print is ejected from the camera. However, this neutralization process may take several days to complete. Think of it as the inside of the picture needing to "dry out." Most people find that they can safely crop Polaroid photographs about a week after the picture was taken. I have safely cropped hundreds of Polaroids without incident. However, if you are concerned about the chemical issue, you can simply mount the picture in your scrapbook without cutting it.
Lastly, let me tell you about the many benefits of owning an instant camera. Did you know that over 90% of the pictures taken worldwide are never printed? They stay locked in a digital camera, or worse yet, a roll of film, never to see the light of day. With a Polaroid camera, you take a picture, you get a print....that simple, no questions asked. Plus, Polaroids are fun! You should see the smiles on peoples' faces when they see a picture pop out of the front of my camera. Everyone gathers round and wants to shake the picture and see it develop. Take one to your next special event and I guarantee you'll be the life of the party!
There are a few downsides, however. First, I find that my Polaroid works best for close-up shots...especially shots with people. Landscape shots and shot of distant objects are not ideal for the Polaroid...I would recommend a traditional or digital camera for those. Second, some people complain about the expense of Polaroid pictures. If you buy the film at retail, you will probably pay about $20 for 20 prints...or $1 per photograph. I find that if I look around on eBay and deal sites, I can usually get film for about $0.40-$0.60 per print. Not cheap, but remember, the Polaroid film includes your film, developing, and batteries (a lot of people don't know that a battery inside each film pack powers your camera....new film means new battery, too). When you factor in these costs, there is not such a big price gap between instant and traditional photography.
One other great thing....often now, when I come home from a special event, I can start scrapbooking immediately. Since I used my Polaroid camera, I already have all my pictures. Gotta love that!
Overall, I would highly recommend picking up a Polaroid camera, especially if you're serious about scrapbooking. It probably won't become your only camera, but you'll find it useful in more situations than you'd imagine and I'd bet you'll soon be taking more Polaroid pictures than you ever imagined!
I set out on the market for a new camera so I could start documenting my life with photographs once again, when I came across a deal on a website that caught my eye-a brand new, Polaroid instant camera for just $24.99. I remembered the (very) few times in my life that I had an instant photograph taken, I remembered how much fun it was, and I decided to take the plunge into the world of instant photography.
A few months after I got my Polaroid camera and took some great photographs, I was having a conversation about scrapbooking with my aunt (who is like the World Queen of Scrapbooking...you should see her supply room) when I mentioned that I had recently gotten into taking instant photographs.
I believe that her response was something along the lines of "You need to get out of the 1970s and get areal camera where the prints won't dissolve in 10 years." We laughed at the time, but it made me think....should I really be trusting my memories to be preserved on Polaroid pictures? How will these prints hold up compared to my traditional, 35mm prints? What makes me like instant photography so much? These are all questions that I'll attempt to provide some answers to in this article.
First, let's address the common belief that Polaroid pictures will deteriorate faster than traditional prints. This is simply not the case. Traditional prints can begin breaking down in just 15-20 years if not stored properly, and most experts agree that the majority of today's photographs will fade completely in just 60-100 years. According to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), it will take more than 100 years for today's Polaroid pictures to fade to an unacceptable level. Therefore, we can safely say that the "shelf life" of traditional prints versus instant prints is roughly the same. Furthermore, Polaroid pictures have the advantage of a built-in protective outer layer made from polyester, making them easy to clean (think fingerprints, dust, adhesive, etc.) and providing some level of protection against water damage.
Many scrapbookers want to know if they can safely crop instant photographs. The answer is, it depends who you ask. The problem is that instant pictures contain a developing chemical which can be caustic and irritate the skin and eyes. Normally this isn't a problem since the chemicals are contained within the picture itself. The problem arises when you start cutting the pictures up and "break" the seal the picture itself provides.
I will warn you that there have been reports of people seeking medical treatment after cropping Polaroid pictures....they are few and far between, though, and no one has suffered any permanent injuries as a result. The irritating chemicals inside the picture start to neutralize themselves as soon as your instant print is ejected from the camera. However, this neutralization process may take several days to complete. Think of it as the inside of the picture needing to "dry out." Most people find that they can safely crop Polaroid photographs about a week after the picture was taken. I have safely cropped hundreds of Polaroids without incident. However, if you are concerned about the chemical issue, you can simply mount the picture in your scrapbook without cutting it.
Lastly, let me tell you about the many benefits of owning an instant camera. Did you know that over 90% of the pictures taken worldwide are never printed? They stay locked in a digital camera, or worse yet, a roll of film, never to see the light of day. With a Polaroid camera, you take a picture, you get a print....that simple, no questions asked. Plus, Polaroids are fun! You should see the smiles on peoples' faces when they see a picture pop out of the front of my camera. Everyone gathers round and wants to shake the picture and see it develop. Take one to your next special event and I guarantee you'll be the life of the party!
There are a few downsides, however. First, I find that my Polaroid works best for close-up shots...especially shots with people. Landscape shots and shot of distant objects are not ideal for the Polaroid...I would recommend a traditional or digital camera for those. Second, some people complain about the expense of Polaroid pictures. If you buy the film at retail, you will probably pay about $20 for 20 prints...or $1 per photograph. I find that if I look around on eBay and deal sites, I can usually get film for about $0.40-$0.60 per print. Not cheap, but remember, the Polaroid film includes your film, developing, and batteries (a lot of people don't know that a battery inside each film pack powers your camera....new film means new battery, too). When you factor in these costs, there is not such a big price gap between instant and traditional photography.
One other great thing....often now, when I come home from a special event, I can start scrapbooking immediately. Since I used my Polaroid camera, I already have all my pictures. Gotta love that!
Overall, I would highly recommend picking up a Polaroid camera, especially if you're serious about scrapbooking. It probably won't become your only camera, but you'll find it useful in more situations than you'd imagine and I'd bet you'll soon be taking more Polaroid pictures than you ever imagined!
The True Cost of 'Convenience'
We all do it. The light bulb is burned out so we run to the corner store and pay $3.49 for a two-pack of bulbs because that's the closest store there is. We don't feel like driving all the way to our own bank, so we pay a $2.00 ATM fee to withdrawal some money. Or maybe we don't feel like cooking dinner, so we stop off at Boston Market and pay $17 for a "family meal."
Whatever the case may be, consumers seem to be willing to pay big bucks for convenience, and corporate America has certainly taken notice. One convenience store chain, 7-Eleven, manages to rake in a cool 10.8 billion dollars a year. It seems like if you can make something, anything, even a little bit faster or easier, Americans will shell out their hard-earned money.
Of course everyone wants to make their life easier, and the truth is, in any one particular instance, the cost of convenience isn't that much. Take the examples I mentioned earlier. The light bulbs might only be $1.50 cheaper at Home Depot. That ATM fee was only $2.00. The prepared dinner might only be $5 or so more expensive than a home cooked meal. When taken separately, these are not large amounts of money that we're talking about.
But over time, these things do start to add up. If you stop at an ATM not owned by your bank just once a week, that's $104 in a year. Take the family out to eat once a week instead of cooking at home, at an average cost of $50 each time you eat out (which is very conservative), and you've spent a whopping $2600.
It's the little things, and how you live your day to day life, that start to form your overall financial picture. Over time, those "little bits" of money start to accumulate into large sums. And what starts out as "convenience" really ends up being not so convenient when you start to live beyond your means. Having to work longer hours or worry about credit card debt is not "convenient."
It is easy to get accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and to rationalize to yourself that you can afford the luxury of "convenience fees" every now and then. Occasionally, spending a little more money for convenience can be worth it as a nice treat for yourself. But if you find that your budget is stretched thin, or that you don't have as much money saved as you would like to, you might want to ask yourself just how much your lifestyle is costing you.
Of course everyone wants to make their life easier, and the truth is, in any one particular instance, the cost of convenience isn't that much. Take the examples I mentioned earlier. The light bulbs might only be $1.50 cheaper at Home Depot. That ATM fee was only $2.00. The prepared dinner might only be $5 or so more expensive than a home cooked meal. When taken separately, these are not large amounts of money that we're talking about.
But over time, these things do start to add up. If you stop at an ATM not owned by your bank just once a week, that's $104 in a year. Take the family out to eat once a week instead of cooking at home, at an average cost of $50 each time you eat out (which is very conservative), and you've spent a whopping $2600.
It's the little things, and how you live your day to day life, that start to form your overall financial picture. Over time, those "little bits" of money start to accumulate into large sums. And what starts out as "convenience" really ends up being not so convenient when you start to live beyond your means. Having to work longer hours or worry about credit card debt is not "convenient."
It is easy to get accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and to rationalize to yourself that you can afford the luxury of "convenience fees" every now and then. Occasionally, spending a little more money for convenience can be worth it as a nice treat for yourself. But if you find that your budget is stretched thin, or that you don't have as much money saved as you would like to, you might want to ask yourself just how much your lifestyle is costing you.
Do You Know What a 'Ghetto Latte' Is?
You never know where your next article idea is going to come from. On a lot of days, I head down to the neighborhood Starbucks to grab a caffeinated beverage and sit down with my laptop and knock out an article or two. The inviting décor and soft music seem to create the perfect atmosphere for writing, and I must not be the only one with this idea, because I see other people working on their laptops all the time.
Standing in line today, I noticed a very polite, well-dressed woman standing in front of me. We happened to make eye contact and exchanged smiles. Our drinks were ready at the same time, so we made our way over to the "condiment bar" (for lack of a better phrase...you know, the place where you get your cream and sugar). I glanced over and noticed that her cup was only half full with a mixture of espresso and ice.
I watched as she proceeded to fill up the other half of her cup with whole milk from the carafe at the bar. Intrigued, I just had to ask, "Exactly what drink did you order?"
"Oh this...well, this is what you call a 'ghetto latte'," she said, leaning in close to me so no one around could hear us.
I cracked a smile. "You'll need to explain that one to me," I said. Without missing a beat, the woman proudly explained to me the whole "ghetto latte" process.
Apparently, some people find that a regular Starbucks iced latte, which is nothing more than a few shots of espresso, milk, and ice, is a bit too expensive for their budgets. So, these people have found an ingenious way to knock a few dollars off of their weekly coffee bill. Starbucks also sells an iced Americano, which is espresso, water, and ice, which is about a third cheaper than an iced latte. Here's where the 'ghetto' part comes in.
Customers have found that you can order an iced Americano without water, giving you the espresso and ice components of an iced latte. Now, just walk a few feet, add your own, free milk from the self-service bar, and viola: a "ghetto latte" (or for those who prefer, the more politically correct "poor man's latte").
The woman who told me about all of this wasn't someone I'd expect. She was dressed in a smart business suit carrying a Louis Vuitton bag. I looked at the menu, and for her grandé-sized drink, she saved $1.05 by ordering an Americano instead of a latte. Not exactly something to write home about.
But then I thought about it some more. Let's say she stops at Starbucks nearly every day, or 300 times per year (I know some business people who drink Starbucks much, much more frequently, but we'll be conservative). Over the course of one year, you can save $315 by drinking "ghetto lattes." I asked my math-whiz brother to crunch the numbers, and if you invested that amount each year at a conservative 10% return, after 40 years, you would have close to $140,000. Now that's not anything to sneeze at.
I guess it just goes to show that every little bit does add up and that it pays to be a tightwad. I've noticed in my life that the richer someone is, the 'cheaper' they tend to be. Maybe that's not just a coincidence.
Standing in line today, I noticed a very polite, well-dressed woman standing in front of me. We happened to make eye contact and exchanged smiles. Our drinks were ready at the same time, so we made our way over to the "condiment bar" (for lack of a better phrase...you know, the place where you get your cream and sugar). I glanced over and noticed that her cup was only half full with a mixture of espresso and ice.
I watched as she proceeded to fill up the other half of her cup with whole milk from the carafe at the bar. Intrigued, I just had to ask, "Exactly what drink did you order?"
"Oh this...well, this is what you call a 'ghetto latte'," she said, leaning in close to me so no one around could hear us.
I cracked a smile. "You'll need to explain that one to me," I said. Without missing a beat, the woman proudly explained to me the whole "ghetto latte" process.
Apparently, some people find that a regular Starbucks iced latte, which is nothing more than a few shots of espresso, milk, and ice, is a bit too expensive for their budgets. So, these people have found an ingenious way to knock a few dollars off of their weekly coffee bill. Starbucks also sells an iced Americano, which is espresso, water, and ice, which is about a third cheaper than an iced latte. Here's where the 'ghetto' part comes in.
Customers have found that you can order an iced Americano without water, giving you the espresso and ice components of an iced latte. Now, just walk a few feet, add your own, free milk from the self-service bar, and viola: a "ghetto latte" (or for those who prefer, the more politically correct "poor man's latte").
The woman who told me about all of this wasn't someone I'd expect. She was dressed in a smart business suit carrying a Louis Vuitton bag. I looked at the menu, and for her grandé-sized drink, she saved $1.05 by ordering an Americano instead of a latte. Not exactly something to write home about.
But then I thought about it some more. Let's say she stops at Starbucks nearly every day, or 300 times per year (I know some business people who drink Starbucks much, much more frequently, but we'll be conservative). Over the course of one year, you can save $315 by drinking "ghetto lattes." I asked my math-whiz brother to crunch the numbers, and if you invested that amount each year at a conservative 10% return, after 40 years, you would have close to $140,000. Now that's not anything to sneeze at.
I guess it just goes to show that every little bit does add up and that it pays to be a tightwad. I've noticed in my life that the richer someone is, the 'cheaper' they tend to be. Maybe that's not just a coincidence.
Gun Advocates Feel 'Strengthened' by Virginia Tech Shooting
According to a new Yahoo! News article, gun advocates are denying being weakened by last week's deadly school shooting, calling on Sunday for a bill to be passed that would allow college faculty members, as well as students over the age of 21, to carry a concealed weapon on Virginia campuses. Members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and OpenCarry.org, two pro-gun groups in Virginia, are saying that gun control laws in place last week helped to ensure that no one on the Virginia Tech campus could defend themselves against the shooter, and that had this bill been in place last week, perhaps not as many lives would have been lost.
Virginia has a law in place that allows anyone 21 years of age or older to carry a concealed weapon, provided that they have a permit. However, Virginia Tech had a policy in place that strictly forbade any weapons on campus. As Philip Van Cleave, president of the VCDL pointed out, "Gun control failed. [Cho Seung-Hui] under university rules was not to have a gun."
Van Cleave said that last weeks tragedy could give the proposed bill a boost since apparently the current gun control laws failed to stop the deadly shooting. Many people had expected gun control activists to rally around the Virginia Tech shootings, but that has not been the case, with gun advocates taking the lead in public debates so far.
Many US politicians aren't interested in introducing gun control legislation, and for good reason. It is estimated that around 40 percent of US households own a gun, and gun rights advocates tend to be particularly vocal, as well as politically active.
But the question remains: would Virginia Tech, or any other college campus for that matter, really be safer if more people had guns? Cho Seung-Hui was a particularly troubled individual with a history of psychological problems and violent outbursts. He took several weeks to get a gun, break the rules, bring the gun on campus, and commit his crime.
Now imagine that every frat boy that was at least 21 had a gun. Do we really think there would be less violence? Considering the nature of campus life, with cramped quarters, tense roommate situations, and abundant amounts of alcohol, giving everyone guns to "protect themselves" may end up causing more problems than it actually solves.
In the meantime, Van Cleave says that his groups, along with other pro-gun organizations, will continue to try to introduce legislation easing the restrictions on carrying guns on campus in Virginia. The efforts are bound to be controversial, but only time will tell if our schools might actually be safer if more people had guns.
SOURCE ARTICLE: Yahoo! News; "Pro-gun lobby strengthened following US campus shooting"; Retrieved 4/23/2007;http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070422195959
Virginia has a law in place that allows anyone 21 years of age or older to carry a concealed weapon, provided that they have a permit. However, Virginia Tech had a policy in place that strictly forbade any weapons on campus. As Philip Van Cleave, president of the VCDL pointed out, "Gun control failed. [Cho Seung-Hui] under university rules was not to have a gun."
Van Cleave said that last weeks tragedy could give the proposed bill a boost since apparently the current gun control laws failed to stop the deadly shooting. Many people had expected gun control activists to rally around the Virginia Tech shootings, but that has not been the case, with gun advocates taking the lead in public debates so far.
Many US politicians aren't interested in introducing gun control legislation, and for good reason. It is estimated that around 40 percent of US households own a gun, and gun rights advocates tend to be particularly vocal, as well as politically active.
But the question remains: would Virginia Tech, or any other college campus for that matter, really be safer if more people had guns? Cho Seung-Hui was a particularly troubled individual with a history of psychological problems and violent outbursts. He took several weeks to get a gun, break the rules, bring the gun on campus, and commit his crime.
Now imagine that every frat boy that was at least 21 had a gun. Do we really think there would be less violence? Considering the nature of campus life, with cramped quarters, tense roommate situations, and abundant amounts of alcohol, giving everyone guns to "protect themselves" may end up causing more problems than it actually solves.
In the meantime, Van Cleave says that his groups, along with other pro-gun organizations, will continue to try to introduce legislation easing the restrictions on carrying guns on campus in Virginia. The efforts are bound to be controversial, but only time will tell if our schools might actually be safer if more people had guns.
SOURCE ARTICLE: Yahoo! News; "Pro-gun lobby strengthened following US campus shooting"; Retrieved 4/23/2007;http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070422/ts_alt_afp/uscrimeshootingguns_070422195959
Five Great Tips for Coping with Hair Loss
Although we would like to stay young forever, sooner or later, most men (and many women) wake up one day to discover that they are losing their hair. This can be a frightening and unsettling experience, to say the least. Many people feel like going bald means kissing their youthful good looks goodbye, and this can be a difficult thing to accept.
Luckily, there are some simple things you can do to "fight back" against hair loss. From choosing the right haircut to having a positive mental attitude, here are some simple steps that you can take to help you cope with hair loss:
1) Realize that your hair does not determine your self-worth. This is difficult for many people, especially young people, who are used to looking a certain way. When your hair starts to fall out, it is easy to feel like that's all anybody is looking at. But chances are, you notice your own hair loss way more than anyone else. Try to relax. The truth is, most people are way more concerned about your personality than the way you look. And those that aren't are not worth being friends with in the long-run.
2) Learn about your medical treatment options as soon as possible. It may seem strange, but hair loss is an actual medical condition that can be successfully treated in most cases. From over-the-counter and prescription medication to surgical procedures, there are more options for treating baldness than ever before. One thing is certain, though. The sooner you start treating your hair loss, the better the chances are that you will have hair in the future. If you're determined to battle against your own personal hair loss, a trip to your family doctor or dermatologist should be one of the first steps you take.
(For more information about medical hair loss treatments, including my own personal experience with the prescription hair loss drug Propecia, read my previous article by clicking here)
3) Choose a hair cut that will help take the focus off your hair loss. It's so true...the right hair cut can make all the difference in the world when you start losing your hair. It may seem counterintuitive, but shorter hair cuts usually tend to work better for people who are balding, because longer hair makes the bald patches more noticeable. If you've lost a considerable amount of hair already, you might end up looking better with a completely shaved head. Talk to a good hair stylist who has experience in dealing with people with hair loss. Ask your stylist which cut they think would work best for your situation. Finally, if you don't like one cut, don't be afraid to go someplace else the next time. It may seem like a lot of trouble, but your appearance and self-confidence are worth it.
4) Choose the right styling products. The same hair products you used when you were 13 and had a thick, full head of hair are not the same products you should be using once your hair starts to thin and fall out. Many products are too "heavy" or greasy for thin hair, and will only make your hair loss more noticeable when applied. When deciding on a hair product, you want to look for something that will thicken the hair and provide a matte finish. Beware of products that say they add "gloss" or "shine," as they will usually be too oily. Find a store that will let you return an opened product if you don't like it, and again, don't be afraid to ask the opinion of your hair stylist. They will usually have some great recommendations.
5) Learn to accept the fact that you will eventually be bald...and that it doesn't matter. Hair loss is generally an ongoing, irreversible process. While medical technology has come a long way, and we can now slow down and even reverse hair loss, they haven't figured out a way to stop the inevitable from eventually occurring. Chances are that, one day, you will be completely bald. Hopefully it won't be until you're old enough to not care any more, but try to get comfortable with the fact that hair loss is just a part of life. When you realize that people love you for who you are, and not the hair on your head, your hair loss problem will start to seem less and less important.
Luckily, there are some simple things you can do to "fight back" against hair loss. From choosing the right haircut to having a positive mental attitude, here are some simple steps that you can take to help you cope with hair loss:
1) Realize that your hair does not determine your self-worth. This is difficult for many people, especially young people, who are used to looking a certain way. When your hair starts to fall out, it is easy to feel like that's all anybody is looking at. But chances are, you notice your own hair loss way more than anyone else. Try to relax. The truth is, most people are way more concerned about your personality than the way you look. And those that aren't are not worth being friends with in the long-run.
2) Learn about your medical treatment options as soon as possible. It may seem strange, but hair loss is an actual medical condition that can be successfully treated in most cases. From over-the-counter and prescription medication to surgical procedures, there are more options for treating baldness than ever before. One thing is certain, though. The sooner you start treating your hair loss, the better the chances are that you will have hair in the future. If you're determined to battle against your own personal hair loss, a trip to your family doctor or dermatologist should be one of the first steps you take.
(For more information about medical hair loss treatments, including my own personal experience with the prescription hair loss drug Propecia, read my previous article by clicking here)
3) Choose a hair cut that will help take the focus off your hair loss. It's so true...the right hair cut can make all the difference in the world when you start losing your hair. It may seem counterintuitive, but shorter hair cuts usually tend to work better for people who are balding, because longer hair makes the bald patches more noticeable. If you've lost a considerable amount of hair already, you might end up looking better with a completely shaved head. Talk to a good hair stylist who has experience in dealing with people with hair loss. Ask your stylist which cut they think would work best for your situation. Finally, if you don't like one cut, don't be afraid to go someplace else the next time. It may seem like a lot of trouble, but your appearance and self-confidence are worth it.
4) Choose the right styling products. The same hair products you used when you were 13 and had a thick, full head of hair are not the same products you should be using once your hair starts to thin and fall out. Many products are too "heavy" or greasy for thin hair, and will only make your hair loss more noticeable when applied. When deciding on a hair product, you want to look for something that will thicken the hair and provide a matte finish. Beware of products that say they add "gloss" or "shine," as they will usually be too oily. Find a store that will let you return an opened product if you don't like it, and again, don't be afraid to ask the opinion of your hair stylist. They will usually have some great recommendations.
5) Learn to accept the fact that you will eventually be bald...and that it doesn't matter. Hair loss is generally an ongoing, irreversible process. While medical technology has come a long way, and we can now slow down and even reverse hair loss, they haven't figured out a way to stop the inevitable from eventually occurring. Chances are that, one day, you will be completely bald. Hopefully it won't be until you're old enough to not care any more, but try to get comfortable with the fact that hair loss is just a part of life. When you realize that people love you for who you are, and not the hair on your head, your hair loss problem will start to seem less and less important.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)