Ashi

Google Buys Tesla reminds me of Time-Warner AOL merger.... Not a fan of Google dominates everything.... Though I love Amazon, but I am a little wary of it being too dominating in B2C e-Commerse.... So Google dominating everything in our lives is kind of scary thought (not to mention many things Google does is sort of going after Walmart pattern).

Oh, don't get me started. I took a brief gig as a grill cook (thanks economy...), and I couldn't take it!!! The working condition was beyond miserable. I had to quit because my kidneys were hurting like crap and I am having a spot baldness problem (a quick Wiki shows it's an autoimmune disease, that's how little sleep I had...). I think the job is not worth it for the near minimum wage, I think.... And yes, the kitchen was a zoo. If you worked in it, you'd understand why cooks are always in bad temper: under appreciated (customers and managers are always complaining), too much work, manager doesn't know nothing about fridge and never stock enough foods (or buy the wrong foods/wrong utensils/wrong size of anything). But on the flip side, as a grill cook, I got to meet so many different people. Some were very interesting characters for the novels. Actually I already have the idea down for a short story, but I am putting it off for another one (or maybe somehow integrate the two so I don't have to write two stories...). OMG, I used double negative in one of the above sentence. Gosh, that job really got into me.... Yes, people spoke in double negative all the time in the kitchen.... Grammar, what grammar.... I was probably the only writer in the room....

Oh, I resent that last statement. You dog people wear dogs like an accessory, us cat people respect cats as fully individuals. LOL. Seriously though, your work place indeed sounds like a nice reality TV program premise or maybe just a good old setting for a nice novel! Anyways, back on topic. Many of my former work places have strange dress codes. Some of them are probably manager's imagination at work.... I mean, I couldn't imagine my rather liberal clothing company I used to work for (again, hide the name to protect the innocents) would implement a no tattoo policy. I am pretty sure these weren't official company policy, but only her personal discretion. Why people couldn't wear anything except closed-toes dress shoes (she asked me not to wear Converse-style sneakers to work, umm..., does she realize this is a fashionable casual clothing company?). Her later yielding to flip flops really told me the closed-toes policy was really her figment of imagination. Before she came, we have never had such policy and never had our butt checked for whether we were wearing the company's jeans or not. Our old policy had always been " wearing something neat and fashionable." She invented so many policies so she could fire people. If you have tattoos? Fired. You said you're bisexual on Facebook, fired. Too many piercings? "Oooh, I don't like that!" (in the most annoying nagging voice) Fired. She basically fired everyone she didn't like. The music we played while we were folding clothes during after hours had to be approved by her.... I could actually get away with a whole tons of stuff she fired other people for, only because she liked me. Many of the front-end managers really have mental problems (not just her, though she is the best example hard to believe exists until one has the honor to work for one). For the food service industry, it's a lot more different. I can understand the merit-based policy. I don't know about UK, but in the U.S., all food service companies are required to have at least one person (usually in supervisor position) who is certified with knowledge in food safety and sanitation standard, and I had the ServSafe certification (I didn't renew mine). Personal piercing is spelled out not adherent to the food safety requirement. The only jewelry allowed is wedding band (not gem stoned wedding rings or any ring with elaborate carvings, just the simple, religious ring to symbolize the infinite nature of marriage). There is a reason for it, because people could get sick by it. Not just customers, but germs can hide in pierced area and cause infection to the wearer. No artificial nails either, just like rings, it can harbor bacteria. No scratching ass on the job either, but you know why. Anyways, if it's merit-based policy, I'll condone, but policy for policy's stake, thank you so much, "have a life," my wish to these managers. So the answer to the original poster, no, majority of the companies I worked for were not alternative friendly.... But I think it largely due to the person who enforces the policy, rather than the company itself.

Be optimistic (not saying it's easy). Cloud is not all bad, if you think about it. It adds variation and shades. As a photographer, cloudy day is the best day to take photos. If you can, take some photos and create some memories for yourself and others. It is very therapeutic.

The bank I used to work for is a British Bank.... When the whole subprime thing blew up, the bank refused to accept British government's helping hand, which I admire their gut for it.... If I were the bank, I would take the money, but use it effectively. Taking the money is not an admission the bank has done rotten things like other banks did. The money British government given out was to every British bank, not just our bank. So I don't know why the pride. In any case. This is how US government did with our monetary policy (we're ahead of you guys on this, though it didn't prevent our country's banks from being corrupt). The US government has always had this loan assisting program that "requires" banks to lend out to low-income families (and we're not talking about Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, who are underwriters of subprime loans. This is a separate system). I don't remember what the plan is called, but it's one of the questions we had to answer when the bank's compliance officer came to visit our branch. I am mentioning this because unlike the British system you are trying to explain, that gives help to banks all across the board (and the same policy that G W Bush gave to save Bank of America, but BoA abused it), this plan only gives to low-income families the loans they truly need. These people are actually going to live in the house they buy with such assistance, rather than buying up houses, inflating the housing price artificially, and doing it purely for personal gain. It is a very good system in my opinion, in term of equalizing wealth between rich and poor (though I don't think the original intention is that, but it does have that effect). But now we are seeing banks are doing the opposite, and deny families who actually want to be a home owners, but can't because the banks are using subprime loan crisis as an excuse not to give people a chance to pursuit after their own happiness. Yes, I know about minimum wage jobs. I've been working in such condition for such a long time now. It's not possible to pay for rent with such low income, let alone gasoline and car insurance. Without cars, you can't work in this part of the US (our average commuting time from home to work is about 45 minutes on freeway. Seriously. 1/5 of my income is burning up in gas and contribute to polluting the environment). If someone said poor people are poor because they're lazy, just give them a minimum wage job and see how life is. Many poor people have 2 or 3 jobs or they can't survive in this part of the country. It is that expensive to live here. Not to mention many of us are denied of any job opportunities. It is a very crazy, unsustainable economic format. And I disagree with you on the lending to mortgage as oppose to lending to business issue. Every Joe's/Jane's mortgage has higher priority over business lending. I don't think the government has enough money to make everyone happy, so give ordinary people money first is the way to go. I am very financially conservative, but I endorse such policy, just as I endorse my city's policy during the previous mayor's tenure to keep building affordable housings for low-income families to intentionally crash the house market. I am pretty sure you can imagine why home builders were opposing such city mandate (and that's why it stopped after the incumbent mayor got into the office). I see this measure as a sort of local anesthesia. Why try to create a national policy when it's Silicon Valley (and other metropolitan areas) that's affected by the skewed real estate induced inflation the most? A national remedy will cause areas that were not affected by such crazy housing market in the first place to be wrongfully reprimanded. US is VERY large country after all, with very diverse economic structure that shouldn't be all done in a cookie cutter format. And put people onto temporarily government payroll (but not government welfare money) is an emergency plan, that shouldn't be a permanent solution. But with our economic condition, it is necessary. Once the economy is back on its feet, I do believe government should slowly transition workers back to private sector again (and that's what we are seeing done now by the US government). I do hope private sector realize the purpose of tax-cut is to encourage hiring new employees (therefore, stimulating the whole economy), but not for personal gain. But when private sector refuses to hiring people, it's government's job to do the dirty work. Sometimes I do wish government can do something stronger than clean up the mess private sector makes, but this is democracy we're talking about.... And to Zombie. The favorable lending rate British government gives is called LIBOR (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate). It's an international standard. It's not just the British banks who are using that, but US banks at least are also using such rate as a model of how much a bank should charge for various debt instruments (in addition to Prime Rate, but LIBOR is more of an inter-bank lending indicator). And using low interest rate to stimulate the economy has proven to be useless at this point. There is no point of continuing on using Keynesian economics, if the trick doesn't work anymore. QE is just ridiculous and almost delusional (QE is used to buy back government debts, but I see it as a rather bizarre, if non-standard spin on Keynesian economics, because it doesn't really control money supply like monetary policy should be doing).

Okay, let me explain how it happens.... (I was working in the bank, and have a finance degree currently not being used...) Banks themselves are not lending the money to each others, because even among themselves don't trust each other; therefore there is no money to lend out to consumers and businesses. When I was working in the bank, I noticed many people who wanted home loans couldn't get them because the banks (not just the bank I worked in, our lending policy was a reflection of the overall climate). So why am I bringing this subject up (and I am glad you brought it up)? Well, this type of lending policy where only the richest can qualify for the loan will create a big gap between rich and poor. And I don't condone the QE's Bernanke was doing. Absolutely disaster, IMHO. Printing money will only cause inflation, which devalues money and causes prices on consumers goods to go up (causes big gap between rich and poor again, because poor will rely on credit cards even more, which further getting them into debts). NOT only that, riches will go for their traditional inflation shelters, guess what? Gold and real estate. See the pattern? It will multiply the gap between rich and poor even more. I don't know what kind of revolution we are going to see this time (a history lesson, the rise of Communism was partly due to the gap between the rich and poor, the bourgeois and proletariat), but all I know is the clash between rich and poor would be even worse than Occupy Wall Street, if this continue to do so. Obviously I don't condone the policy of our current Fed Chairman (And former Chairman Alan Greenspan already protested QE's as "highly experimental"). Fortunately, as gold price continues to fall, at least it's a signal that economy is on the right track (I will spare you the reasoning how gold is an indicator of that). The very very last thing I want to bring up, which is the MOST important sentence of my post is this, if politicians still believe in Adam Smith in his An Inquiry into Nature and Causes of Wealth of Nations (AKA, Wealth of Nations), they should know the job of a government is to create jobs for the people. When I was still in business school, one of the things that made me deep in thought was, how much does politics add to the bottom line of a business? (that's a rhetorical question) So doesn't matter it's government or a business, shape it up or lose out. Stop pointless politics (and our current economic state is partly due to politics, btw), because people are suffering. Don't ever forget what Thoreau said in his Civil Disobedient.

Like Cia, the only POV I don't like is third-person omnipresent. I usually write in first-person and if I choose to write in third-person, it'll be third-person limited (or closed, if you prefer to call it that). I don't agree first-person is the easiest to write. Okay, technically, it's easy to learn but difficult to master. It's easy for some writers because it's the most natural, because we tend to start a sentence with "I." BUT..., as a writer, you have all the information you got, it's your job to hide the information as you write, keep a track who knows what at what moment. Doesn't it annoys you if you found out a character knew what is going on though there is no way he could have known that info, not before the characters in conflicts have a sit down and talk about the issue anyways.... That sort of thing is a test for the writer's ability. What I don't like about omnipresent POV (AKA god's POV) is because it spells out EVERY character's thinking process and I don't like that! That's why I usually write in first-person POV. The reader can feel like he or she is exploring the characters from only one person's POV, which is the "I" perspective. Same thing for third-person limited, you only get to see from one person's POV, and the rest is explored, guessed (either right or wrong, which is the charm of limited perspective like first-person or third-person limited), and then deduced as you go. That way there is a lot more psychological depth. Besides it gives the reader some sense of accomplishment when they finally figure it out why the conflict occurs, like, "Oh, so that's what he was thinking, and I thought he meant something else. No wonder there he and the protagonist were arguing, because we all assumed it wrong." And omnipresent POV has a tendency to drift into "speaking directly to the reader." That also annoys me a great deal. Back from my literature training, we were taught to avoid using omnipresent POV. Many great writers did write from omnipresent POV, and sometimes even shift POVs from one to another like Podga mentioned. But in modern convention, that should be avoided (and I said avoided..., because I bet there are some authors who know what they are doing and can do great wonders if they know when to break the rules, and done effectively).

It's very sweet, like a dessert. A guy is always hotter in uniform, especially if it's red. LOL. I love you wrote a story about IT, and I thought it could have been you! You horn dog.

Very nice poem you wrote dedicated to your mother. My mom always look out for me, much like yours. Laugh with me and cry with me. I think you'll make your mom laugh with tears with this poem, though I kind of think she may not think her job is done!

Oh, well. Decision like this is never easy, especially in our current economic condition. But volunteering at a local museum sounds very nice. I wish I could do that! I love going to museums and sometimes you'll meet a lot of nice people. Maybe you'll meet some museum goer who will offer you a job at his/her company.

Don't feel bad, Edward. I was working in a bank, and I saw how everything changed after the sub-prime mortgage thing exploded. It went from unmoderated banking practice to over-correction. So every bank is super (and beyond reasonable) cautious. It's suppose to be more prudent, but indirectly it makes people who are less affluent very unlikely to own a home. It's not just you who is feeling the pain, so don't feel too bad.

My mom thinks the same way as your mom. However, she seems to discourage me from taking every job I've been applying. Mom tends to think, "you're better than that" and I am flattered by it. However, if the person is willing to take a major hit on his dignity, I think it's a special situation that requires desperate measure. Just from experience, the longer you're out of work, the more likely you'll become a discouraged worker. I know some job doesn't sound like it's financial rewarding however, but many of things we do are not financial rewarding..., but may in the long run make you a better person. Just keep searching, if this job is not what you want though.

Ooh, Happy Birthday!

Forget about whatever, just live for the present.

The way HIV is resistant to our typical human immune system is because it disguises itself as one of our own body cells. The leukemia patient who is cured of HIV is probably due to the fact his white blood cells were killing every cells, including those HIV disguised as normal cells. And HIV was got rid off before it became uncontrollable. It's a side effect of a terrible terrible disease, really (perhaps less terrible than HIV/AIDS, in which the patient really lose any shred of dignity). But would like to know about what's the procedure in the infant case. Hope it's replicable. I also think the real cure for HIV does not lie in antibiotic type of treatment but genetic treatment. I think some sort of nanotechnology that is able to track which cell is infected (out of millions of cells in our body) would be helpful also.

Congrats to all winners.

Congrats to Mann (Ramblings) for making into the promising author list.

Happy Birthday.

Thanks Ieshwar. I love writing stories with all sorts of analogies and symbols. I am glad you like my direction.

Oh, thank you, Branflakes. I am glad you like the little stuff I put in, and how it connects to you. I am currently taking a break on writing now, but I'll try to come back and finish writing my new stories (one of them is very emotionally taxing..., even thinking about writing it out is tiring).

Happiness is only real when shared!

Wow, happy birthday.

Try Evernote with Moleskine Evernote-enabled notebook. http://evernote.com/moleskine/

I was thinking tatter totter and calimari, but fried foods after feast might be too much, so something more refreshing would be nice. How about strawberry, quartered and served with or without condensed milk. Some toothpicks will make serving easy. Easy to serve and a change of pace after a heavy meal. Chilled off-dry Riesling is excellent with Chinese cuisine and fruits.

Oh, Finn. Many people identify themselves by the most discriminated feature of themselves and feel most strongly about it. Sometimes that's not the best to deal with the situation, but it happens. Maybe you don't feel very discriminated by people because of your sexuality, so you don't feel a big deal about it. It has to do with the time you grow up too. Nowadays, the society is MUCH more receptive to homosexuality and don't treat it as if it's a big deal. If I grew up in your generation I think it'll be very different. If you grew up in my generation, you'd realize people constantly remind you that your "lifestyle" is a sin, whether they put it politely (but still sneering) or simply call you all the most offensive derogatory term for gay people possible. Yes, we're from the same state. It's just different generation we're talking about. No one would possibly talk about sexuality overtly. Back when I was in high school in the 90's, if someone was suspected to be a homosexual, people would be talking about him/her behind his/her back (I constantly overheard gossips, because most people didn't realized I could understand English). They wouldn't do personal attack toward homosexuals, at least they wouldn't name the person nor would they say the reason why they laughed at him/her was because of his/her sexual orientation (because that would be political incorrect, which of course no one wanted to be accused of that!). I think a lot of that discrimination was collective and subconscious. If someone pointed out they were being unfair to that person, I am sure they would feel ashamed of their action. But still, no one, even the person who was defending the gay person, would possibly speak of that damned word, even though everyone with above average IQ knew the subject was homosexuality, they just wouldn't say that word!!! How far we've gone in such a short time. You've enjoyed the rights the gay advocates have paved for you without knowing it's actually a very different world we lived in. Just a few years later, after I went to college, the subject of homosexuality gradually opened up and people began to talk earnestly about the fact of homosexuality instead of treating it a hush-hush topic. Before that, people were ignorant about the subject and they continued to discriminating a group of people they didn't even understand (that's why one should not stereotype). And that was the real reason why there is a lot of self-loath among gay people that are somewhat older than you. If you were taught that gay people are evil, after a while you would believe in it. It's all brainwash. There is a psychological study called "blue eye, brown eye experiment." The teacher first told the class a scientific study shows blue eyed students are smarter, and brown eyed students are stupid. Believe or not, blue eyed students indeed got higher score on their next exam. When the teacher admitted to the class there was a mistake, the study shows brown eyed students are in fact the smarter of the two, the next exam's average scores reversed. That tells you the power of brainwash. This applies to anything of this nature. Don't ever let people tell you you're good/bad, smart/stupid, more artistic/less creative, because of your biological characteristics. But do use some positive reinforcement to make you better.