Ex-teacher sentenced for having students hit bully San Jose Mercury News SAN ANTONIO—A former San Antonio teacher accused of directing students to hit a schoolmate for being a bully has been sentenced to 30 days in jail. Cynthia Ambrose also was ordered Tuesday to serve two years' probation. She was convicted in June of ... and more »

OnlyMrGodKnowsWhy

Dr. Jernigan said that the breakdown of liquor consumption in the study may be particular to Baltimore

The study, carried out over the course of a year at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, found that five beer brands were consumed most often by people who ended up in the emergency room. They were Budweiser, Steel Reserve, Colt 45, Bud Ice and Bud Light.

Original Source

With his helmet on and his lights activated, he started to walk his bike along Barbur. He believes he was struck about three to five minutes later. The collision broke both his legs, his collarbone and some vertebrae, lacerated his spleen, and left him with bruises, abrasions and road rash. There were no witnesses, as far as he knows, he said. Portland police are investigating but have no suspects, said spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson.

The second of Breaking Bad’s final eight episodes, “Buried,” turned down the heat just a bit, to cool the drama and let it linger for as long as possible throughout the final season. But in an episode with some wonderful highlights to balance the domestic strife and Jesse’s silent breakdown—Kuby and Huell going full Scrooge McDuck on the pile of money—one extra’s mustache reigned supreme. As Hank walked into work at the DEA, there was the man with the glorious grey mustache in the foreground. NewsCastic tracked down the actual person, retired Albuquerque firefighter Robert Sanchez, to talk about his unexpected breakout moment.

The social media furor of this past Sunday probably erupted due to Breaking Bad’s ratings improvement, considering Sanchez has been on the show more than a few times. He shook hands with Hank after his promotion, gave the middle finger to ...

Read more

rfrms:

EITA

meme4u:

First time

Superheroes, William Wray

An anonymous reader writes "The Brisbane Times notes that 'Julian Assange's Wikileaks Party has come under fire for directing its preferences to the Shooters and Fishers Party and the white nationalist Australia First Party ahead of both major parties and the Greens in the NSW Senate race. Australia First's policies include reducing and limiting immigration and "abolishing multiculturalism." The chairman of Australia First, Jim Saleam, is a former neo-Nazi who was convicted in the late 1980s of organizing a shotgun attack on the home of an Australian representative of the African National Congress. WikiLeaks candidates in NSW include human rights activist Kellie Tranter.' The Wikileaks Party blamed the outcome on administrative problems. This is drawing further criticism."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

I would like to describe my experience interviewing with Google, and specifically outline why I thought the experience was poor by way of telling my story.

Tattoo You

Read 5 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Only a day after a page was launched on crowdfunding platform GoFundMe, the internet community has raised over $10,000 for the Palestinian security researcher who exposed a flaw in Facebook’s digital infrastructure.

Khalil Shreateh last week found a bug in Facebook’s coding that allowed him to post on any user’s wall, even if the two were not friends. Shreateh claims that he sent multiple emails to Facebook about this leak and after receiving a response that claimed it was not a bug, decided to prove his point by posting on co-founder Mark Zuckerberg’s wall.

Despite this being a major breach—the implication being that spammers could post to multiple user accounts without being friends with them—Facebook did not compensate Shreateh in any way, which it would normally do for so-called “white hat” hackers who identify security flaws in its systems. According to Facebook, Shreateh was ineligible for the minimum $500 payout because he violated Facebook’s terms of service by infringing on the privacy of users he was not friends with.

To counter this, California-based security professional Marc Maiffret launched a fund-raising campaign for Shreateh, stressing the importance of online safety. The page description for the campaign reads:

Khalil Shreateh found a vulnerability in Facebook.com and, due to miscommunication, was not awarded a bounty for his work. Let us all send a message to security researchers across the world and say that we appreciate the efforts they make for the good of everyone.

In just 24 hours nearly 150 people from places as far flung as the United States, Croatia, Morocco and Bangladesh, had donated money, demonstrating how important Facebook users consider privacy and security to be.

Tech-minded netizens concerned about internet security have also criticized the social network for its handling of Shreateh’s finding. In a blog post dated August 2, Facebook claimed that it has paid out over $1 million to researchers who have discovered security bugs. The social media company has previously hired people who have hacked into its system, including user Chris Putnam, who redesigned his Facebook page to resemble rival network MySpace. Shreateh looks unlikely to get a job for his efforts, but at least he can enjoy the money.

it’s time to go.

gemiblu:

me too

I've been a programmer for a very long time. I don't even want to tell you!

In all those years, I've only been part of one programming team that had a woman.

I've probably worked, indirectly, with 1000 programmers. One woman, 999 men.

The question is why? I don't know the answer, though I've pondered it often. It would be nice if there were more women in my line of work. I like women. Very much. I can provide references, if necessary. ;-)

Now, I'm sure there is sexism, probably a lot of sexism. But I also think there's something about programming that makes many women not want to do it. Here's a theory why that might be.

Programming is a very modal activity. To be any good at it you have to focus. And be very patient. I imagine it's a lot like sitting in a blind waiting for a rabbit to show up so you can grab it and bring it home for dinner.

There is specialization in our species. It seems pretty clear that programming as it exists today is a mostly male thing. Which also raises the obvious question that perhaps we can make it so that it can better-use the abilities of the other half of our species?

I invite comment on this post, but be careful about saying derogatory things about whole genders, which btw, also includes my gender. Thank you.

And you know what would be great -- comments from women! :-)

Notes (written after closing comments)

• This was not a well-written post. It came out of a discussion on Facebook about all-male programming shops. I moved the discussion over here, because this is where I'm comfortable discussing and writing, and I'm relatively new to Facebook.
• The line I struck through was a mistake. I wrote it so quickly, and I move stuff around, and I move on before I've read everything enough. Today was especially like that. Anyway, I want everyone to do great stuff. Anyone who wants to contribute should be able to. I deal with a lot of limits on what i can do because I'm 58. Anyway, peace please and good night. Oh one more thing..
• Also, I closed comments because they're almost all angry and personal now. Rather than moderating, I think it's time for people who want to say something to say it in their space.

Further pieces (written over the following days)

• I write what occurs to me.
• Programming, looking forward.
• When in doubt.
• Who does he think he is.

What you don't understand

• So many people want to tell me what I don't understand, here's what they don't.
• Blogging.
• Programming.
• People.
• Blogging is all about the free exchange of ideas. You can't get me fired, I don't work for a TV or radio network, or the government. I am free to say what I think because of a wonderful thing called the First Amendment.
• I am not intimidated by Internet flamers. What they do is powerless. If you want to make things better, work with people who show an interest in what you are interested in. Be open to learning as much as you insist on teaching. Never ever, under any circumstances, tell someone to shut up. If you can't take what they're saying, walk away. Hit the Back button. Or even better, recognize that the things you least want to hear are the things you most need to hear.
• If you want to know what I think, read. Or ask. Don't let someone else tell you what I think. And don't let anyone else tell you what to think.

I was going to just rant about the gross old men that tell me to smile and say hi because there's nothing more obnoxious than a strange man telling me what to do. And then calling me a bitch when I ignore him. Why the fuck would I talk to you, let alone smile?! You're a creepy, dirty, rude idiot and a STRANGE MAN. I don't owe you anything and it's my prerogative to walk by silently. So fuck you. But now I want to rant about the terms of writing I, anonymous "homophobic, racist, or overly misogynistic language is strictly prohibited". So being a regular misogyntist is ok? Fuck that too!

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

I guess it’s good to cover all the bases when think up knee sock selections.

Insane photo set from this weekend in Richmond

This is a content summary only. Click on the story to read the whole thing at InvisibleOranges.com

OnlyMrGodKnowsWhy

#teamdog

There are two phrases you hear a lot in animal welfare circles: “Responsible Pet Ownership” and “Irresponsible Pet Owners.”

As compassionate and results-oriented leaders in the field, I asked Robert and Lori Hensley of the Coalition to Unchain Dogs to share their perspectives on these labels.

In their own words….

* * * * *

Growing up in rural Mississippi in the 1960’s, where the nearest store was miles from the house, we spent a lot of time riding in cars and trucks. Our mode of travel frequently took one of the following forms — either standing up on the front seat of grandmother’s station wagon, with no seatbelt in sight, or crawling around in the open bed of a speeding pick-up truck, as the wind did its best to rip the t-shirts off our backs. These days, seatbelts lock in place when a car’s brakes are engaged; back then, a grandmother’s right arm automatically shot out across your chest whenever she had to bring her giant Caprice Classic to an abrupt stop.

All of this, of course, seems absolutely crazy from today’s perspective. But does it mean that our grandmothers were just being irresponsible or that they didn’t care about us when they let us ride standing up in the front seat? Were our parents bad people because they let us to hop in the back of the truck as we headed out for the lake?

And how is any of this relevant to a blog post about dogs?

Back in 2007, we started working with a group called Coalition to Unchain Dogs in Durham, North Carolina. Without any previous animal welfare experience, we didn’t realize that what we were doing was anything unusual at first. We soon learned, however, that in a field where the paradigm was “rescue,” the Coalition was operating like a bunch of heretics.

Instead of taking dogs from “bad” situations and trying to find them “good homes,” we were doing everything we could to keep dogs in the homes that they already had. To us, this heresy seemed like a rational strategy. After all, when there aren’t enough homes for the dogs already in shelters and rescues, where would you place these dogs anyway?

Almost exclusively, we assisted the folks that our culture often characterizes as “irresponsible” dog owners. You know who I’m talking about: “those people.” People who chain their dogs. Young African-American pit bull owners. People who’ve never spayed/neutered their dogs. People whose dogs are “too skinny.” In general, poor folks of the sort it is often asked: Why do those people even have dogs if they can’t afford to take care of them?

However, “those people” — in the abstract — turn out to be a little different when you actually talk to them face to face.

In fact, many of them reminded us a lot of our own grandmothers.

And, sometimes, they reminded us of what it was like just to be a kid on a Saturday afternoon.

We offered free spay/neuter and vaccinations. We built fences or provided crates so the owners could transition the dogs inside. We gave parvo shots in people’s homes and de-wormed just about every dog we met. We talked to landlords and paid pet deposits. We offered euthanasia when that was the most humane course.

We listened, shared information when asked, and learned more than we ever imagined we could. There was one thing that we did not offer: judgment.

A funny thing happens when you treat people with respect and don’t try to take their dogs.

They invite you into their homes, even if their kitchen has a huge hole in the floor. You find out how eager they are to get vet care for their dog, and how hard that is when there are no nearby vet offices (or even supermarkets) and you rely on public transportation to get around. They show you the over-the-counter de-wormer they bought for their dogs – that hasn’t worked – and tell you they’ve been feeding him extra, but “he just won’t keep any weight on.” After you leave, these folks say good things about you to their neighbors. You find that out when the neighbors approach you about getting their dogs spayed/neutered, too.

Treating people with respect is not complicated. And, if results are truly what you’re after, it’s a far more productive strategy than treating someone simply as an “irresponsible” dog owner. Especially, since what often gets people branded as “irresponsible” dog owners is the fact that they are choosing from among the limited set of options available to them. Not surprisingly, we’ve found that things change quickly, for both the dogs and their owners, when the set of available options is broadened.

Isn’t it the case that, for some portion, if not all of our lives, most of us end up doing what we know to do based on what we’ve seen the people around us do?

Surely that’s what our loving, wonderful grandmothers were doing back in 1968 as they allowed us to stand on the front seats of their station wagons as they drove at high speeds down those narrow, two-lane, Mississippi roads.  They were just doing what everybody else in their community was doing.

And so, of course, we would never attribute those actions to our grandmothers’ “irresponsibility,” because – let’s be honest – that’s not a term we ever use to describe our own conduct, now is it?

- Robert and Lori Hensley, Coalition to Unchain Dogs, North Carolina

* * * * *

Thank you, Robert and Lori, for your compassion and commitment to people and their pets!

Original Source

---

Link

---

As reported by CoreBrand in their BrandPower Series. Full report available here with free registration.

guccipoop:

Walk a mile in these Louboutins

lulz-time:

seventieth:

INCRELDIBE………