Wynter wrote:>>insulted<<
:muack:
:muack:
Interesting/Weird Stories in the News
Started by blender1184 · 8 Jul 2005 · 1,969 replies
General Discussion
:muack:
bmwracer wrote:
:muack:
:rolly:
On Topic:
Lock Of Lennon's Hair Sells For $48,000 At Auction
Wednesday December 12, 2007
CityNews.ca Staff
She trimmed the Beatles' moptops for years, but she probably never imagined that decades later a chunk of that clipped hair would sell for tens of thousands.
Former Fab Four hairstylist Betty Glasow decided to auction off her Beatles' memorabilia because she felt it deserved to go to fans rather than sit in storage at her home. One such item, a lock of John Lennon's hair fastened inside an autographed copy of the late musician's book "A Spaniard in the Works," sold for an astonishing $48,000.
That's way above what Gorringes auction house had predicted it would sell for - they'd estimated between $4,000 and $6,000. In the book, Lennon wrote, "To Betty, Lots of Love and Hair, John Lennon xx."
"It is astonishing that there is still so much interest in the Beatles and the sale goes to prove that John Lennon is still an icon," said Francesca Collin, a spokeswoman for Gorringes.
"To have some of Lennon's hair along with a signed note from him really does give it fantastic provenance and authenticity."
Glasow worked with the Beatles on the set of their films A Hard Day's Night and Help! in the 1960s.
Other items auctioned off include signed photos of the band, including one George Harrison signed "George 'Dandruff' Harrison." That photo sold for $13,000.
Wynter wrote:I'm not surprised. I've got an album signed by George Harrison, and I've been offered over 4 figures for it. [/list:u]
:rolly:
On Topic:
Lock Of Lennon's Hair Sells For $48,000 At Auction
From The Motley Fool:
The Dos and Don'ts of Regifting
Thursday December 6, 11:51 am ET
By Dayana Yochim
C'mon, stop being such a goody two-shoes. Everybody's doing it. Well, maybe not everyone, but according to a recent Harris Interactive survey, more than half of us admit to regifting -- that is, passing off unwanted gifts as if they were being bestowed for the very first time.
For years considered a clear social no-no, regifting is shedding its stigma. Whether it's due to eco-friendly attitude shifts, bulging closets, or maxed-out lines of credit, Americans are warming up to the idea of putting idle presents back into play. Today, anywhere from 60% to 78% of us, depending on what survey you read, think regifting is A-okay.
In fact, giving gifts that have past lives is so routine, there's an official day dedicated to celebrating the practice: December 20 -- the Thursday before Christmas -- has been christened "National Regifting Day" by Money Management International (MMI). (As with all new calendar additions, it's best to check with your boss before taking the day off in observance.)
What? Me regift? Pshaw!
The personal reasons people regift have little to do with, say, the inability to find a parking space at the mall, or plain old laziness. More than 60% of re-packagers have their heart in the right place, passing along items because they believe the next recipient will appreciate it more than they do, according to MMI. About four in 10 more pragmatically cite regifting as a way to save some green. Frankly, can you blame them? The alternative -- credit card debt and shopper's resentment -- is hardly in the holiday spirit.
Lest you think the well-to-do abstain from the practice, consider that one-third of households with annual incomes in the $100,000 to $150,000 range recycle unwanted presents. (Data on whether or not they regift cooler stuff was unavailable at press time.)
Whether you do or you don't (riiiight), there's one single critical cardinal rule to follow before you release your stampede of White Elephants gifts back into the world: Don't get caught.
Following regifting etiquette to the letter will keep your karma right and ensure that a failed regift doesn't end up back under your Christmas tree someday. Keep your re-wrapped gifts under wraps by heeding the do's and don'ts of regifting.
The rules of regifting
There are plenty of obvious "tells" that a gift has been resurrected from one of your holidays past. To avoid them...
* Don't confuse "barely used" with "brand-spankin' new": If there are any signs of wear and tear -- a broken seal, scratched part, pit stains -- the item's a no-go for regifting. Even the subtlest signs of use, such as mismatched twist-ties on cords, can tip off the most astute recipient. Consign it to the donation pile and keep searching.
* Do not pass off items that were clearly purchased for you: If it's monogrammed, sorry, you're stuck with it. (Unless you've got a knack for creative needlepoint reinterpretations.) Same for anything that obviously was meant to coordinate with your peach-and-purple sitting room decor, or relate to whatever hobby you might have.
* Don't give away anything handmade by someone you know: Handmade items are off the list of possible regiftables for two reasons: First, it was likely given with much more sentimental intentions than, say, a coffee grinder. Second, such gifts tend to be extremely recognizable. If it was lovingly crafted and signed by someone you know (who isn't a famous artist, that is), hold onto it. Another good rule-of-thumb: Pretty much anything in the macrame category is automatically out of the running for regifting. (With the possible exception of the estimated seven remaining macrame enthusiasts in North America.)
* Don't use different sentimental criteria for regifts: Re-circulating a problem gift just to get it out of your sight is bad form. Same goes for slapping a new bow on an old tchtotchke just to check someone's name off the holiday gift list.
* Don't give unused (or even "lightly loved") gift cards: A gift card with a $43.22 balance is an obvious regift. Same with any card that has an expiration date less than a year away or has had any fees from un-use already deducted.
* Don't declare "It's vintage!" when it's really just plain bedraggled: Just because it's old doesn't mean it's a cherished collectible. Remember, those who truly love antiques -- or even kitsch -- will likely be as charmed by your dusty basement cast-offs as you are of theirs. A truly vintage baking set from your great-great aunt is one thing. (If you're giving it a new home, cop to its provenance -- heck, that adds to its charm.) Unused baking pans you received for your wedding eight years ago are another category entirely.
* Don't regift an obvious giveaway: Skip the office- and trade-show schwag -- you know, key chains, coffee mugs, and outerwear with some random company's logo emblazoned upon it. If it was free in the first place, it's worth even less in round two.
* Do not bestow a white elephant re-gift out of spite: Funny, sure. But that flicker of sheer horror on the recipient's face will come back to haunt you.
The right way to regift
Follow these regifting tips to come off like a sentimental big lug during the big reveal.
* Keep track of the flow chart of gifting: There's no bigger horror than returning a gift that was bestowed to you back to its original giver. Avoid this by keeping track of each item's past (formally, on a spreadsheet, if you want to be a regifting pro). In fact, regifting pros suggest that to play it safe, its best to repurpose in an entirely different social circle than the one from which original item was bestowed. (For reference, check your family tree and office organizational chart.) That way, the original gift-giver won't find out that those potholders he painstakingly picked out have found a second life elsewhere.
* Make sure all original packaging is intact: Does it pass the shrinkwrap test? If the item originally came hermetically sealed from the factory, it should move up the gift chain in the same condition. (Review the "barely used" v. "brand spankin' new" entry above.)
* Triple-check for all telltale regifting signs: Gift tags stuck in the bottom of the box's folds, gift receipts, the whiff of someone else's perfume, an actual picture of someone you know in the frame (and not the standby camera-ready studio family shot) -- remove all signs (dust for fingerprints if you must) that the gift has a past. Finally, before you present it, step back and re-evaluate the regift from the recipient's perspective to make sure it passes the test.
* Wrap it like it's new: Repurpose the gift, not the wrapping paper, bow, or heaven forfend, the card. Think of it as providing a makeover -- a chance for a new beginning. So presentation is everything.
* Give with good intentions: The sentiment behind your regift should be the same as the thought behind any new gift: You're passing it along because you think the recipient will appreciate it.
* Give it away anyways: If you received something in the past that doesn't pass the regift test, you're not necessarily stuck with it forever. Pass it along without the guise of the "new gift" (minus wrapping paper, bow and card) and give the recipient an easy out (e.g. "I wore this once and was told it made my complexion come off as puce. If you like it -- or know someone else who would -- it's yours.").
Finally, we all know that when it comes to gifts, that whole "it's the thought that counts" yarn really doesn't fly with anyone but your parents. For all others, it is all about the gift (though no one will cop to it, at least on the record). So put some thought into your gift -- er, regift -- and pat yourself on the back for finding it a permanent home.
The Dos and Don'ts of Regifting
Thursday December 6, 11:51 am ET
By Dayana Yochim
C'mon, stop being such a goody two-shoes. Everybody's doing it. Well, maybe not everyone, but according to a recent Harris Interactive survey, more than half of us admit to regifting -- that is, passing off unwanted gifts as if they were being bestowed for the very first time.
For years considered a clear social no-no, regifting is shedding its stigma. Whether it's due to eco-friendly attitude shifts, bulging closets, or maxed-out lines of credit, Americans are warming up to the idea of putting idle presents back into play. Today, anywhere from 60% to 78% of us, depending on what survey you read, think regifting is A-okay.
In fact, giving gifts that have past lives is so routine, there's an official day dedicated to celebrating the practice: December 20 -- the Thursday before Christmas -- has been christened "National Regifting Day" by Money Management International (MMI). (As with all new calendar additions, it's best to check with your boss before taking the day off in observance.)
What? Me regift? Pshaw!
The personal reasons people regift have little to do with, say, the inability to find a parking space at the mall, or plain old laziness. More than 60% of re-packagers have their heart in the right place, passing along items because they believe the next recipient will appreciate it more than they do, according to MMI. About four in 10 more pragmatically cite regifting as a way to save some green. Frankly, can you blame them? The alternative -- credit card debt and shopper's resentment -- is hardly in the holiday spirit.
Lest you think the well-to-do abstain from the practice, consider that one-third of households with annual incomes in the $100,000 to $150,000 range recycle unwanted presents. (Data on whether or not they regift cooler stuff was unavailable at press time.)
Whether you do or you don't (riiiight), there's one single critical cardinal rule to follow before you release your stampede of White Elephants gifts back into the world: Don't get caught.
Following regifting etiquette to the letter will keep your karma right and ensure that a failed regift doesn't end up back under your Christmas tree someday. Keep your re-wrapped gifts under wraps by heeding the do's and don'ts of regifting.
The rules of regifting
There are plenty of obvious "tells" that a gift has been resurrected from one of your holidays past. To avoid them...
* Don't confuse "barely used" with "brand-spankin' new": If there are any signs of wear and tear -- a broken seal, scratched part, pit stains -- the item's a no-go for regifting. Even the subtlest signs of use, such as mismatched twist-ties on cords, can tip off the most astute recipient. Consign it to the donation pile and keep searching.
* Do not pass off items that were clearly purchased for you: If it's monogrammed, sorry, you're stuck with it. (Unless you've got a knack for creative needlepoint reinterpretations.) Same for anything that obviously was meant to coordinate with your peach-and-purple sitting room decor, or relate to whatever hobby you might have.
* Don't give away anything handmade by someone you know: Handmade items are off the list of possible regiftables for two reasons: First, it was likely given with much more sentimental intentions than, say, a coffee grinder. Second, such gifts tend to be extremely recognizable. If it was lovingly crafted and signed by someone you know (who isn't a famous artist, that is), hold onto it. Another good rule-of-thumb: Pretty much anything in the macrame category is automatically out of the running for regifting. (With the possible exception of the estimated seven remaining macrame enthusiasts in North America.)
* Don't use different sentimental criteria for regifts: Re-circulating a problem gift just to get it out of your sight is bad form. Same goes for slapping a new bow on an old tchtotchke just to check someone's name off the holiday gift list.
* Don't give unused (or even "lightly loved") gift cards: A gift card with a $43.22 balance is an obvious regift. Same with any card that has an expiration date less than a year away or has had any fees from un-use already deducted.
* Don't declare "It's vintage!" when it's really just plain bedraggled: Just because it's old doesn't mean it's a cherished collectible. Remember, those who truly love antiques -- or even kitsch -- will likely be as charmed by your dusty basement cast-offs as you are of theirs. A truly vintage baking set from your great-great aunt is one thing. (If you're giving it a new home, cop to its provenance -- heck, that adds to its charm.) Unused baking pans you received for your wedding eight years ago are another category entirely.
* Don't regift an obvious giveaway: Skip the office- and trade-show schwag -- you know, key chains, coffee mugs, and outerwear with some random company's logo emblazoned upon it. If it was free in the first place, it's worth even less in round two.
* Do not bestow a white elephant re-gift out of spite: Funny, sure. But that flicker of sheer horror on the recipient's face will come back to haunt you.
The right way to regift
Follow these regifting tips to come off like a sentimental big lug during the big reveal.
* Keep track of the flow chart of gifting: There's no bigger horror than returning a gift that was bestowed to you back to its original giver. Avoid this by keeping track of each item's past (formally, on a spreadsheet, if you want to be a regifting pro). In fact, regifting pros suggest that to play it safe, its best to repurpose in an entirely different social circle than the one from which original item was bestowed. (For reference, check your family tree and office organizational chart.) That way, the original gift-giver won't find out that those potholders he painstakingly picked out have found a second life elsewhere.
* Make sure all original packaging is intact: Does it pass the shrinkwrap test? If the item originally came hermetically sealed from the factory, it should move up the gift chain in the same condition. (Review the "barely used" v. "brand spankin' new" entry above.)
* Triple-check for all telltale regifting signs: Gift tags stuck in the bottom of the box's folds, gift receipts, the whiff of someone else's perfume, an actual picture of someone you know in the frame (and not the standby camera-ready studio family shot) -- remove all signs (dust for fingerprints if you must) that the gift has a past. Finally, before you present it, step back and re-evaluate the regift from the recipient's perspective to make sure it passes the test.
* Wrap it like it's new: Repurpose the gift, not the wrapping paper, bow, or heaven forfend, the card. Think of it as providing a makeover -- a chance for a new beginning. So presentation is everything.
* Give with good intentions: The sentiment behind your regift should be the same as the thought behind any new gift: You're passing it along because you think the recipient will appreciate it.
* Give it away anyways: If you received something in the past that doesn't pass the regift test, you're not necessarily stuck with it forever. Pass it along without the guise of the "new gift" (minus wrapping paper, bow and card) and give the recipient an easy out (e.g. "I wore this once and was told it made my complexion come off as puce. If you like it -- or know someone else who would -- it's yours.").
Finally, we all know that when it comes to gifts, that whole "it's the thought that counts" yarn really doesn't fly with anyone but your parents. For all others, it is all about the gift (though no one will cop to it, at least on the record). So put some thought into your gift -- er, regift -- and pat yourself on the back for finding it a permanent home.
From Yahoo! Tech:
10 Worst Tech Products of 2007
Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:25PM EST
Would you be surprised to learn that a certain Windows upgrade made the list? Behold the worst tech of the year, including a pair of $7,250 speaker cables, ad-riddled video downloads that expire after a week, a much-hyped TV set-top box that's dying on the vine, and more.
So here we go...in alphabetical order:
Apple TV: Apple's foray into the living room seemed like a no-brainer, and this HDMI-packing, Wi-Fi- and Ethernet-enabled set-top box looked like a sure-fire success. From the beginning, however, Apple TV was hamstrung by the meager movie selection (and now dwindling selection of TV shows) on iTunes, plus the fact that you can't browse or buy videos directly over the box. Even worse, Apple seems to have lost interest in its home theater "hobby," with a full six months passing since the last Apple TV software update. Short of a sudden infusion of new features, look for this once-promising box to go the way of iPod Hi-Fi.
iPod Battery Replacement Kit: One of the chief complaints I hear about the iPod (and the iPhone, for that matter) is that the battery is sealed in the casing, with Apple adding insult to injury by charging $60 to replace out-of-warranty iPod batteries (or $86 for the iPhone). So here's Blue Raven's $30 iPod battery replacement kit, which consists of a new battery, a tiny screwdriver, and a plastic thingy that looks like a mini crowbar (similar kits are available for the iPhone). I tried it with my old iPod, and I replaced the battery all right, but I also managed wreck the crummy plastic tool and scratch the heck out of my once-shiny iPod in the process. Next time I want to scratch up my gadgets, I'll save $30 and use my own little screwdriver, thanks very much.
Microsoft Surface: Unveiled in May with great fanfare, Microsoft's jaw-dropping Surface computer\a touch-sensitive tabletop PC that immediately invited comparisons to Tom Cruise's mid-air dragging-and-dropping in "Minority Report"\whipped the tech press into a frenzy of excitement. But scratch Surface and you'll something a little shy of elegant, including a full-on Vista PC and five (count 'em, five) motion-detecting cameras mounted beneath the 30-inch touch-sensitive sheet. Oh, and then there's the $5,000-to-$10,000 price tag. And of course, in true Microsoft fashion, the first Surface systems (intended primarily as kiosks in retail and hospitality venues) have reportedly been delayed until spring. Something tells me it'll be a long, long time before we see these babies in our living rooms.
NBC Direct: Give NBC credit for trying a little of everything when it comes to online video, but here's a service that's got a few too many restrictions for comfort. Yes, you can download full, free episodes of shows like "Heroes" and "The Office," but you have to sit through commercials, and you can't transfer shows to a portable player or another PC, and the videos won't work on a Mac...and the shows expire in a week, rendering the files unwatchable. Great.
Palm Foleo: It was a two-pound sub-notebook\sorry, smartphone companion\that was supposed to connect to your phone via Bluetooth and let you type emails, surf the Web, and edit documents with a full-size keyboard and screen. As I've written before, the Foleo might be a good idea in a decade or so, when our supercharged smartphones become our primary computing devices. But when it was announced in June, reviewers dog-piled on the Foleo, complaining that the $500 gadget would be just another device we'd have to lug around. Smelling a flop, Palm benched the Foleo before it ever saw the inside of a store.
Pear Audio "Anjou" speaker cable: I'm sure this pair of 12-foot speaker cables sounds just fine\but the $7,250 price tag puts it in contention for tech rip-off of the year.
Ringles: The big music labels still think the CD can be saved, and the "ringle"\a a $5.98-to-$6.98 bundle of three songs, plus a ringtone, all in an eye-catching slip cover\was the latest in a line of painfully sad attempts to lure us back into brick-and-mortar music stores. Last time I checked, however, CD sales were still tanking.
SunRocket VoIP: More of a service than a gadget, mind you, but still one of the biggest tech debacles of the year (and one, as many readers pointed out, that I should have mentioned in my recent "10 Tech Train Wrecks" post). SunRocket was, in fact, a perfectly fine VoIP service\that is, until July 16, 2007, when the financially strapped company abruptly closed its doors and disconnected tens of thousands of customers without warning. Well, that's one way of handling customer service.
Windows Vista: Where to begin? Vista arrived in stores months late, forced untold thousands of users to upgrade their hardware, made mincemeat of software and drivers that worked perfectly well in XP, ended up lacking many of the bold-faced features we'd been promised, and came saddled with new and annoying set of video DRM schemes. At least Vista now boasts an option for downgrading back to XP. (Now, before you Mac fanboys out there begin gloating, let me remind you that Leopard shipped a full six months late, and that many users are still suffering from sluggish, buggy systems after upgrading.)
Wireless USB: Just imagine it\the convenience of USB, without all the wires. Sounds awesome! Too bad the first examples of Wireless USB technology have fallen flat. Case in point: the IoGear Wireless USB Hub & Adapter, a device that's supposed to deliver speedy wireless connectivity within a range of about 30 feet. Reviewers took a crack at the $200 IoGear hub (including our own Chris Null) suffered slow and spotty connections from only a few feet away, and promptly went back to their old, but reliable, USB cables. Wireless USB may well be the wave of the future, but "future" is the key word.
10 Worst Tech Products of 2007
Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:25PM EST
Would you be surprised to learn that a certain Windows upgrade made the list? Behold the worst tech of the year, including a pair of $7,250 speaker cables, ad-riddled video downloads that expire after a week, a much-hyped TV set-top box that's dying on the vine, and more.
So here we go...in alphabetical order:
Apple TV: Apple's foray into the living room seemed like a no-brainer, and this HDMI-packing, Wi-Fi- and Ethernet-enabled set-top box looked like a sure-fire success. From the beginning, however, Apple TV was hamstrung by the meager movie selection (and now dwindling selection of TV shows) on iTunes, plus the fact that you can't browse or buy videos directly over the box. Even worse, Apple seems to have lost interest in its home theater "hobby," with a full six months passing since the last Apple TV software update. Short of a sudden infusion of new features, look for this once-promising box to go the way of iPod Hi-Fi.
iPod Battery Replacement Kit: One of the chief complaints I hear about the iPod (and the iPhone, for that matter) is that the battery is sealed in the casing, with Apple adding insult to injury by charging $60 to replace out-of-warranty iPod batteries (or $86 for the iPhone). So here's Blue Raven's $30 iPod battery replacement kit, which consists of a new battery, a tiny screwdriver, and a plastic thingy that looks like a mini crowbar (similar kits are available for the iPhone). I tried it with my old iPod, and I replaced the battery all right, but I also managed wreck the crummy plastic tool and scratch the heck out of my once-shiny iPod in the process. Next time I want to scratch up my gadgets, I'll save $30 and use my own little screwdriver, thanks very much.
Microsoft Surface: Unveiled in May with great fanfare, Microsoft's jaw-dropping Surface computer\a touch-sensitive tabletop PC that immediately invited comparisons to Tom Cruise's mid-air dragging-and-dropping in "Minority Report"\whipped the tech press into a frenzy of excitement. But scratch Surface and you'll something a little shy of elegant, including a full-on Vista PC and five (count 'em, five) motion-detecting cameras mounted beneath the 30-inch touch-sensitive sheet. Oh, and then there's the $5,000-to-$10,000 price tag. And of course, in true Microsoft fashion, the first Surface systems (intended primarily as kiosks in retail and hospitality venues) have reportedly been delayed until spring. Something tells me it'll be a long, long time before we see these babies in our living rooms.
NBC Direct: Give NBC credit for trying a little of everything when it comes to online video, but here's a service that's got a few too many restrictions for comfort. Yes, you can download full, free episodes of shows like "Heroes" and "The Office," but you have to sit through commercials, and you can't transfer shows to a portable player or another PC, and the videos won't work on a Mac...and the shows expire in a week, rendering the files unwatchable. Great.
Palm Foleo: It was a two-pound sub-notebook\sorry, smartphone companion\that was supposed to connect to your phone via Bluetooth and let you type emails, surf the Web, and edit documents with a full-size keyboard and screen. As I've written before, the Foleo might be a good idea in a decade or so, when our supercharged smartphones become our primary computing devices. But when it was announced in June, reviewers dog-piled on the Foleo, complaining that the $500 gadget would be just another device we'd have to lug around. Smelling a flop, Palm benched the Foleo before it ever saw the inside of a store.
Pear Audio "Anjou" speaker cable: I'm sure this pair of 12-foot speaker cables sounds just fine\but the $7,250 price tag puts it in contention for tech rip-off of the year.
Ringles: The big music labels still think the CD can be saved, and the "ringle"\a a $5.98-to-$6.98 bundle of three songs, plus a ringtone, all in an eye-catching slip cover\was the latest in a line of painfully sad attempts to lure us back into brick-and-mortar music stores. Last time I checked, however, CD sales were still tanking.
SunRocket VoIP: More of a service than a gadget, mind you, but still one of the biggest tech debacles of the year (and one, as many readers pointed out, that I should have mentioned in my recent "10 Tech Train Wrecks" post). SunRocket was, in fact, a perfectly fine VoIP service\that is, until July 16, 2007, when the financially strapped company abruptly closed its doors and disconnected tens of thousands of customers without warning. Well, that's one way of handling customer service.
Windows Vista: Where to begin? Vista arrived in stores months late, forced untold thousands of users to upgrade their hardware, made mincemeat of software and drivers that worked perfectly well in XP, ended up lacking many of the bold-faced features we'd been promised, and came saddled with new and annoying set of video DRM schemes. At least Vista now boasts an option for downgrading back to XP. (Now, before you Mac fanboys out there begin gloating, let me remind you that Leopard shipped a full six months late, and that many users are still suffering from sluggish, buggy systems after upgrading.)
Wireless USB: Just imagine it\the convenience of USB, without all the wires. Sounds awesome! Too bad the first examples of Wireless USB technology have fallen flat. Case in point: the IoGear Wireless USB Hub & Adapter, a device that's supposed to deliver speedy wireless connectivity within a range of about 30 feet. Reviewers took a crack at the $200 IoGear hub (including our own Chris Null) suffered slow and spotty connections from only a few feet away, and promptly went back to their old, but reliable, USB cables. Wireless USB may well be the wave of the future, but "future" is the key word.
From Yahoo! News:
France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study
Tue Jan 8, 4:45 PM ET
France is tops, and the United States dead last, in providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens, according to a survey Tuesday of preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries.
The study by the Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs measured developed countries' effectiveness at providing timely and effective healthcare.
The study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," was written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.
The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.
The non-profit Commonwealth Fund, which financed the study, expressed alarm at the findings.
"It is startling to see the US falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, who noted that "other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less."
The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.
White the United States ranked 15th of 19 between 1997-98, by 2002-03 it had fallen to last place.
"It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the US," said Ellen Nolte, lead author of the study.
Had the United States performed as well as any of the top three industrialized countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year, the researchers said.
-------------------------------------------------------------
No pun intended, but this is sickening. :bleh: :shakehead:
France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study
Tue Jan 8, 4:45 PM ET
France is tops, and the United States dead last, in providing timely and effective healthcare to its citizens, according to a survey Tuesday of preventable deaths in 19 industrialized countries.
The study by the Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of the journal Health Affairs measured developed countries' effectiveness at providing timely and effective healthcare.
The study, entitled "Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," was written by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It looked at death rates in subjects younger than 75 that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care.
The researchers found that while most countries surveyed saw preventable deaths decline by an average of 16 percent, the United States saw only a four percent dip.
The non-profit Commonwealth Fund, which financed the study, expressed alarm at the findings.
"It is startling to see the US falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance," said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen, who noted that "other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less."
The 19 countries, in order of best to worst, were: France, Japan, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Some countries showed dramatic improvement in the periods studied -- 1997 and 1998 and again between 2002 and 2003 -- outpacing the United States, which showed only slight improvement.
White the United States ranked 15th of 19 between 1997-98, by 2002-03 it had fallen to last place.
"It is notable that all countries have improved substantially except the US," said Ellen Nolte, lead author of the study.
Had the United States performed as well as any of the top three industrialized countries, there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year, the researchers said.
-------------------------------------------------------------
No pun intended, but this is sickening. :bleh: :shakehead:
Separated at Birth Twins get Married[/list:u]
LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.
David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed
[/list:u]Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.
David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed
[/list:u]Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
gaijinmark wrote:Separated at Birth Twins get Married[/list:u]
LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.
David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed
[/list:u]Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
If so, they probably involved Tackey. :beaten:
bmwracer wrote:Hmmm, I don't ever recall seeing Tackey and Gackt in the same drama. [/list:u]
If so, they probably involved Tackey. :beaten:
gaijinmark wrote:Separated at Birth Twins get Married[/list:u]
[/list:u]Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
Unfortunately, yes. :bleh: More so in Korean dramas.
MissMonika wrote:I think I saw one of those. They had a kid and his head was shaped like a bowling ball. [/list:u]
Unfortunately, yes. :bleh: More so in Korean dramas.
:rofl:
I guess it doesn't help with 20% of the population named Kim. :sweat:
I guess it doesn't help with 20% of the population named Kim. :sweat:
gaijinmark wrote:Separated at Birth Twins get Married[/list:u]
LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.
David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed
[/list:u]Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
OMGoodness! Talk about a small world... :sweat: And serious psychological damage.
tabana wrote::rofl:
I guess it doesn't help with 20% of the population named Kim. :sweat:
LOL. :lol:
It was bound to happen, ne? :hehe:
Yup. :sweat:
Personally I wouldn't be able to go out with someone with the name as mine. :bleh: Even if we didn't have common ancestors in the last 200 years.
That kim guy was quite a playboy. He must've lived before "child support" was invented. :hehe: :beaten:
Personally I wouldn't be able to go out with someone with the name as mine. :bleh: Even if we didn't have common ancestors in the last 200 years.
That kim guy was quite a playboy. He must've lived before "child support" was invented. :hehe: :beaten:
gaijinmark wrote:Separated at Birth Twins get Married[/list:u]
LONDON (AFP) - Twins who were separated at birth and adopted by different sets of parents later married each other without realising they were brother and sister, a peer has told the House of Lords.
David Alton, an independent, pro-life member of the Lords, said the brother and sister were granted an annulment after a high court judge ruled that the marriage had never validly existed
[/list:u]Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
Luke.........Leia? :rofl:
gaijinmark wrote:Separated at Birth Twins get Married[/list:u]
Hasn't this been the storyline in at least a couple different doramas? :shakehead:
So this really happens :shocked: - stranger than fiction ne!
From Yahoo! News:
Don't send in the clowns
Wed Jan 16, 8:32 AM ET
Bad news for Coco and Blinko -- children don't like clowns and even older kids are scared of them.
The news that will no doubt have clowns shedding tears was revealed in a poll of youngsters by researchers from the University of Sheffield who were examining how to improve the decor of hospital children's wards.
The study, reported in the Nursing Standard magazine, found all the 250 patients aged between four and 16 they quizzed disliked the use of clowns, with even the older ones finding them scary.
"As adults we make assumptions about what works for children," said Penny Curtis, a senior lecturer in research at the university.
"We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable."
Don't send in the clowns
Wed Jan 16, 8:32 AM ET
Bad news for Coco and Blinko -- children don't like clowns and even older kids are scared of them.
The news that will no doubt have clowns shedding tears was revealed in a poll of youngsters by researchers from the University of Sheffield who were examining how to improve the decor of hospital children's wards.
The study, reported in the Nursing Standard magazine, found all the 250 patients aged between four and 16 they quizzed disliked the use of clowns, with even the older ones finding them scary.
"As adults we make assumptions about what works for children," said Penny Curtis, a senior lecturer in research at the university.
"We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable."
bmwracer wrote:From Yahoo! News:
Don't send in the clowns
Wed Jan 16, 8:32 AM ET
Bad news for Coco and Blinko -- children don't like clowns and even older kids are scared of them.
The news that will no doubt have clowns shedding tears was revealed in a poll of youngsters by researchers from the University of Sheffield who were examining how to improve the decor of hospital children's wards.
The study, reported in the Nursing Standard magazine, found all the 250 patients aged between four and 16 they quizzed disliked the use of clowns, with even the older ones finding them scary.
"As adults we make assumptions about what works for children," said Penny Curtis, a senior lecturer in research at the university.
"We found that clowns are universally disliked by children. Some found them quite frightening and unknowable."
Strange...if I don't watch my clown video every night I can't go to sleep.
Tu_triky wrote:Strange...if I don't watch my clown video every night I can't go to sleep.
That's 'cause you're an enigma. :)
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.