Fashion Mode

When Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod to save lives and buildings, he had no idea that he would also conquer Satan.

One dark stormy day in June of 1752, 46-year-old Benjamin Franklin took a walk with his 21-year-old son, William, into a field near the banks of the Schuylkill to fly a kite. Trusting in his father's scientific know-how, William probably had little idea that he was participating in a potentially life-threatening experiment

As part of his scientific research with electricity, Franklin was intrigued by electrical storms. So much so, that he designed an experiment to study the lightning generated by storms. In a fashion, we can probably dub Franklin as, "the world's first official storm chaser."

As the legendary story goes, Franklin attached a piece of metal wire to his homemade kite in order to help attract electrical charges flying across the overhead clouds. As the hemp string played out through Franklin's fingers, the kite twisted and turned in the turbulent winds as it soared higher and higher. After a considerable length of the string had played out, Franklin used a piece of silk ribbon to tie a key to the string. Then, with great apprehension, he waited with William patiently standing nearby to see what would happen.

Whether it was a collection of static electricity gathered along the moist hemp string or a "gentle" lightning strike, we may never know. Regardless, Ben Franklin reported that he received a jolt of electricity when he reached out and positioned his hand near the key.

"The rest," as is often said, "is history." And, even though Franklin and his son, William, survived this experiment. There have been others who have tried to duplicate this experiment, and have lost their lives, or, crippled their minds and/or bodies.

Long before his famous kite-flying experiment, Franklin believed that lightning and static electricity shared similarities. While living in Boston in 1746, Franklin set up a laboratory to conduct his "electrical amusements."

At the time, there were other scientists in Boston conducting electrical experiments. It was in 1746, during his first year of conducting electrical experiments, that Franklin suffered a not-too-amusing jolt of electricity. In a letter to a friend he expressed the shocking experience as, "... a universal blow throughout my whole body from head to foot, which seemed within as well as without; after which the first thing I took notice of was a violent quick shaking of my body." As a result of this electrical shock, Franklin experienced numbness in his arms and the back of his neck for a few days.

As Franklin continued to conduct his electrical experiments, he wrote down his efforts and shared them in letters written to Peter Collinson in London. Collinson was a friend and scientist who shared an interest in Frankin's experiments. In 1749, Franklin sent a letter to Collinson describing the concept of a electrical battery that could hold a charge for a brief period of time. In the same letter, Franklin expressed doubts as to how such an invention could be of service to humankind.

During Franklin's experiments, he observed that when glass was rubbed, it became "filled" with an electrical charge, making it "positively charged." He also observed that when other objects, such as amber, were rubbed, electricity flowed out from them, and therefore they became "negatively charged." This designation by Franklin of "positive" and "negative" electrical charges established a new base language for understanding electricity that has remains with us to this day. Prior to Franklin's time the words "vitreous" and "resinous" were used to express the charges of electricity.

In his experiments, Franklin observed that when certain objects were "filled" with static electricity, they would discharge a "spark" of electricity when placed near a pointed metal needle. Franklin was not the first to speculate about a relationship between lightning and the harmless sparks created by static electricity. William Wall, a British scholar had suggested such a relationship in 1708.

However, Franklin was the first to propose an experiment of using a lightning rod on top of a building to capture the "fire" from the clouds. The first lightning rod described by Franklin was an iron rod 8 to 10 feet in length that came to a sharpened point on it uppermost tip.

Two years prior to his kite experiment, Franklin conducted experiments where he used a large sharp iron needle to draw electricity away from a charged metal sphere. Through his observations, Franklin extrapolated the results to his invention of the lightning rod to protect the tops of buildings. In 1750 he wrote to a friend, "May not the knowledge of this power of points be of use to mankind, in preserving houses, churches, ships, etc., from the stroke of lightning, by directing us to fix, on the highest parts of those edifices, upright rods of iron made sharp as a needle... Would not these pointed rods probably draw the electrical fire silently out of a cloud before it came nigh enough to strike, and thereby secure us from that most sudden and terrible mischief?"

Even though Franklin's lightning rod proposal was first published in England by the Royal Society of London in 1751, it was someone in France who had the nerve and wherewithal to attempt the experiment in the spring of 1752. When the French lightning rod experiment worked according to Franklin's theory, the King of France sent a message to Franklin expressing his compliments. However, due to the slow transit of mail in those days, Franklin did not receive the French King's message until August of 1752, two months after Franklin had already proved his theory by successfully using the dangerous kite and key rig.

In June of 1752, Franklin was in Philadelphia watching the progress of a steeple being built on top of the Christ Church. Franklin was going to use this steeple for his first lightning rod experiment.

From these "electrical amusements," Franklin speculated further that the placement of a pointed iron "rods" on top of buildings would prevent lightning from causing fires. He figured fires could be prevented because the pointed rod would capture the lightning's "fire sparks." On this note, Franklin was half right. Eventually, sometime in 1753, Franklin figured out that all lightning rods need to be "grounded." He accomplished this by using a metal wire or cable to draw the charge from the lightning rod, and to harmlessly guide the electric charge down into the ground away from the structure.

Before Franklin's invention, lightning destroyed or damaged many buildings. The invention of the lightning rod immediately reduced the number of buildings being struck by lightning across the colonies and Europe. The rapid and widespread use of lightning rods quickly reduced the number of fires. This fact alone helped governments and the public to better appreciate the practical applications of Franklin's scientific research into electricity. Especially, when one considers the antiquated firefighting apparatus available in the 1700s. In Franklin's time, entire towns were known to burn down as the result of fires ignited by lightning strikes.

Buildings, such as those with tall spires or constructed on promontory points - like churches; lighthouses; mansions, and commercial buildings - were all susceptible to lightning strikes. Once outfitted with lightning rods, these tall structures were less likely to be struck and damaged by lightning. The tangible reality of Franklin's invention saving lives, homes and buildings made him an international celebrity and a respected scientific genius.

Prior to Franklin's studies of electricity and his lightning rod invention, most European and American people associated lightning strikes to be associated with selective punishment by God. Thunderstorms and lightning were considered as "evil" and sourced from "Satan." Terms identified with Satan include in the Book of John 12:31, 14:30; "the prince of the power of the air" also called Merriam.

One popular belief held by many early church leaders was that the ringing of consecrated holy bells was a way to use God's power to ward off Satan's approaching thunderstorms and lightning bolts. The irony of this belief is that the metal bells in the bell towers actually attracted lightning, which often killed or maimed the bell-ringers. The high death toll of bell-ringers from thunderstorms became so high, that In 1786, the Parliament of Paris passed a law making "... the custom of ringing church bells during storms illegal on account of the many deaths it caused to those pulling the ropes."

Peter Ahlwardts, the author of, "Reasonable and Theological Considerations about Thunder and Lightning" (1745), published information based on anecdotal stories and his personal observations. Ahlwardts' book advised people to stay away from buildings with tall steeples, such as churches, during thunderstorms, in order to avoid being struck by lightning. At the time, Ahlwardt's book was considered somewhat heretical.

On another note, many religious leaders found displeasure with Franklin's invention, and considered it as an affront to their belief systems. So much so, that Franklin's lightning rods installed on spires in Boston was blamed for the earthquake of 1755. At the time, Reverend Thomas Prince, who was pastor of Boston's Old South Church, made a note in his sermon intimating the frequency of Boston earthquakes may be the direct result of "iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." Reverend Prince's statement was based on his opinion that "... in Boston are more erected [lightning rods] than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God.''

The invention of the lightning rod was helpful in educating people about the scientific basis of lightning relative to storm clouds and thunder. Once understood, people became aware of lightning as a natural phenomenon generated by storms through the action of churning water molecules within clouds. On similar note, this new understanding removed the stigma that being struck by lightning as a sign of God's selective punishment. Franklin's experiments proved that being struck by lightning was the unfortunate result of a random act in nature.

Franklin believed that his creation of the lightning rod was his greatest and most useful invention for the benefit of humankind. In spite of Franklin's apparent habit of keeping records and sharing his experiments through his letters, it is of historic interest that he never documented his kite experiment or wrote letters about the event. The only witness to the kite experiment was his son, William. And, the only written account of the kite and key experiment was by another person some 15 years after the event took place.

Franklin's lightning rod design was of an iron rod honed to a sharp point on its skyward tip. This design probably originated from his laboratory experiments using an oversized needle with a sharpened point. When pointed lightning 8 rods began being installed in parts of Europe and America, King George III had his palace in England protected with a blunt lightning rod, which he believed to be superior to Franklin's. Also, it was a matter of national pride, whereby the king was trying to demonstrate England's superiority.

Since 1752, there have been many opinions put forth as to which lightning rod design was superior - King George's blunt rod or Franklin's pointed rod. In 2003, the controversy as to which lightning rod was most effective was put to the test. When it came to capturing and safely routing a lightning strike to the ground, it was determined that the blunt lightning rod was more effective. Even though Franklin's design did not win this competition, Franklin still deserves credit for bringing this invention to the service of humankind.

Today, over 250 years after Franklin's invention, only a minority of industrial and commercial buildings use lightning rods, and less than 10% of American homes are effectively protected. According to C. Andrew Larsen, executive director of the Lightning Protection Institute, Arlington Heights, Illinois, "... about "80% to 90% of lightning rod installations are ordered after a catastrophe... scores of lives and billions of dollars in property could be saved each year if buildings were properly protected against lightning."

Considering that the average lightning strike carries a whopping 30-million volts, we are fortunate for the blessings bestowed by Benjamin Franklin's lightning rod invention.

The Federal Resume format utilizes keywords within the format of the resume. Understanding how to use keywords to enhance your resume is the most important factors to success in job hunting in Federal government sector.

What are Keywords?

Resume Keywords are very powerful that can develop the employer's understanding of your experience and qualifications. When the agency announcement posts new opportunities, there are several descriptors within the body of the announcement that relate to the position. These descriptors are known as keywords. Understanding and effective usage of keywords could be the difference between ranking higher in specific categories during the application process.

Why Keywords are Important

Keywords are important with federal resumes as they are the action verbs that can highlight your experience.
When you explain the previous experience, it is important to use powerful action verbs that can act as descriptions and express how you performed the functions and what was the effectiveness.

Federal resumes unlike normal resumes are slightly longer because they are to be written in a detailed and descriptive fashion. When you prepare your federal resume make sure you include keywords from the announcement opening to improve your chances of being rated higher.

While there are several great Federal resume samples that a Federal job seeker may view, resume keywords are based on the Announcement and the applicant's background, so it's important to have an understanding of personal credentials in this process.

Whether it is government jobs or not it is important to enhance your resume by including numerical results. Adding numerical results in the resume can increase your chances as it contains a description of the responsibility level you have held in the past and how well you can manage the current job.

The Importance of a Good Federal Resume

When you have set your goal for a career in Federal government, crafting a good resume is one of the most important steps in the process.
Including relevant information to the Announcement being applied for is the biggest priority.

The most common mistake is including all jobs within the work history in a chronological listing. You need to use some discretion when there is too much information. You need to make sure that all the needed information that is required for the position you are applying for should be included in the resume. However if there is some information that is indirectly related can be ignored in case you have too much information.

Include Relevant Information
It is generally seen that majority of the applicants have great sense of pride when it comes to their work experience and want to list all their experiences. However, while preparing your federal resume anything like education or work experience need not be mentioned in depth as it happened a long time ago and is not a requirement for the future role that you shall be appointed for.

Use your best judgment to understand what information in the resume would raise your resume to Best Qualified. One of the most important aspects is using a solid keywords strategy that can make your federal resume stand out from the rest.

Let me ask you a question: when the Jewish people were stripped and herded like cattle into the gas chambers, was their dignity also stripped from them?

If your answer is yes, then I would respectfully suggest that you reconsider your ideas on what dignity really is.

On my poetry website I recently wrote a senryu, a seventeen syllable poem similar to a haiku. It goes like this:

Dignity is not

Lost by what is done to you

But by how you act.

Let me hazard a definition of what I think dignity is: holding fast to sincere, positive, life-affirming beliefs, and expressing this quality in your every thought and deed, so that it becomes a life stance and is manifest in your outward behaviour.

By this definition, dignity is much more than a mental proposition, or an 'ology' or an 'ism' that you subscribe to - it kind of defines you, it pervades your presence, and speaks to people beyond your actual words and deeds. For me this adherence must have a strongly positive and life-affirming aspect - for example, I don't think that the determined career criminal can ascribe to dignity. Dignity is often understood as a certain comportment or bearing, because it radiates out from the inner spiritual core of a person. It is very close to what we call integrity, but for me has a stronger sense of external expression. Perhaps we could see it as the outward manifestation of a person's integrity?

Moreover, rather than being torn from you by oppression and injustice, such terrible things can actually serve to highlight your dignity. Popular films and literature are full of the noble hero who manages to keep their dignity in spite of the most awful things being done to them. Witness William Wallace in Braveheart, Panther Claw's father in Apocalypto, Jean Valjean in Les Miserables, Corrie Ten Boom's father in No Hiding Place, and so on and so on. As much as Jesus' love is drawn into ultra bright focus in the terrible darkness of the crucifixion, so too, dignity can be magnified by evil.

There is also a further element of how the hero may often escape the terrible end, if only they would recant their belief or cause. The point here is that dignity holds faithfully to its fundamental truth in the face of adversity and even death, preferring to take the consequences rather than be false to itself. The hero can evade the trauma and their own destruction only if they will agree to recant. The pathos can be ramped up by 'friends' arguing seemingly sensible reasons why they should do this. Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons is faced with such a terrible choice, but holds fast to his beliefs and goes to his death with his dignity intact.

Dignity is then both a way of life and a choice. For me it is closely aligned with love and compassion, though to be fair, a person who holds a diametrically opposite belief or cause to me may well value their dignity and strength of purpose. In politics, for example, there are men and women of completely divergent views who sincerely hold to their opinions come what may. We could be cynical and say that such principled politicians don't always get elected.

Is dignity perhaps out of fashion in our modern and increasingly materialistic and shallow world? I think dignity matters as a virtue to be cultivated primarily for our own wellbeing. It is, like love, timeless. It is relevant today, no more so than in our complex society, and there are a number of topical areas where it is being bandied about. Again, like love itself, I think the word dignity is somewhat over-used, or more precisely, mis-used.

I'm thinking particularly of the issue of so-called 'right to die' and the slogan: dying with dignity.

Let me say straight out as a Catholic that I believe that all human life is sacred - that is, beyond any material valuation and deserving of our greatest efforts to protect. Life, from the moment of conception till its natural end, is utterly inviolable. It is not ours to terminate. Never, ever.

Let me also say, as someone who is relatively fit and well, that we should take a huge slice of humble pie before we start commenting on folk who are suffering from debilitating and degenerative physical conditions. I try sometimes to imagine what it must be like to be unable to jump out of bed, to be unable to fetch a drink for myself, or to depend on another person for even the most basic functions, quite apart from the pain, discomfort, fear and dread of what the future will bring. Imagine being unable to swipe a fly from your face. Imagine being unable to easily communicate with others. Imagine having no real hope of better days.

I have great compassion for someone for whom another day brings no prospect of any relief but rather further incapacity, for whom death or oblivion is preferable to another hour of living, for whom the frustration of not being able to do anything about it is the ultimate cross to have to bear.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of 'assisted dying', and the real fears of allowing a statutory right to die, I cannot sit easy with talk of helping people to 'die with dignity'. This is at best a misuse of the word, at worst a pernicious lie, used to steamroller reasoned debate on this very difficult issue. While it may be very, very hard to have someone else wipe your bottom or clean the snot out of your nose, these things do not take away your dignity. Your dignity, like your conscience, can only be impaired if you either: don't foster it in the first place, or allow it to slip from you by surrendering your principles.

Perhaps the slogan should be something like 'dying with comfort'? Quality of life matters, of course it does, and it would be disingenuous to say otherwise. Should someone whose quality of life has degenerated to an appalling degree be allowed or assisted to die in relative comfort and rapidity? I have to say as a Christian that I think there is a better way, but I'm conscious that not everyone might be able to accept this position. If I were totally paralysed but enabled by modern science to continue living, I'd like to think that I could spend my days praying - praise of God, intercession for a needy world, as well as a profound personal spiritual journey. As a believer, no one is ever useless, no life is ever past its use by date, no one is ever less worthy of the air to breathe than anyone else.

Dignity - the quality of living true to your lights, of not being two-faced in your opinions and your activities, and of having the courage to remain steadfast when others try to threaten what you value. An inner quality that no one can rip from you unless you let them.

And nothing to do with bedpans and wheelchairs...

As far back as 1279 AD, under the rule of Khubila Khan, the Chinese have been conquered and ruled by foreign powers. China's early experience with foreign governments left a bad taste of economic colonialism in its mouth. Autonomous regions and concessions, which carved up China's sovereignty, led to forced trade and an opium war. Territory was lost and the national treasury depleted to indemnify the victors for war reparations. China, historically, has been harried by foreign powers-exposing its industrial weakness and national vulnerability. Where self-importance once reigned, doubt and a national inferiority complex permeate the Chinese consciousness.

Today, while maintaining the largest standing army of approximately 2.3 million soldiers (contrast with America's 1.4 million) and a comparatively credible nuclear arsenal, China has taken another "Great Leap Forward" in the modernization of its security forces to counteract this national psychosis.

There are two schools of thought as it concerns China's regional and global intentions. The first suggests that China has no hegemonic interest-that she has never ventured, for conquest, outside her borders and any interest she might communicate in this arena are for regional stability and noninterference, and to impugn China in any other fashion or to paint China as a regional/global menace-is to make her a regional/global menace. "... [B]elligerent policies risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy-treat China as an enemy and it will be one." (Ross 33)

The second suggests that China has always had revenge in mind, for historic indignities, and an evil/godless resolve to eventually dominate the world. Every shift she makes in policy, strategic or economic, must be viewed with this intent in mind. "... [C]hina's willingness, even eagerness, to improve the Sino-American mood represents a tactical gesture rather than a strategic one... Beijing has tempered its confrontational rhetoric and retreated from some of the actions that most annoyed Washington... 'For a relatively long time it will be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance,' General Mi Zhenyu, Vice Commander, Academy of Military Sciences in Beijing wrote. 'We must conceal our abilities and bide our time.'" (Bernstein/Munro 20)

To further this objective, China has made every attempt to acquire technological advantages the United States might offer into its military portfolio. To this aim, accusations of espionage, dubious, if not illegal, Chinese campaign contributions, and a fifth column at the White House reverberate throughout the conservative political spectrum. Waving this bloody shirt of political corruption the opposition party has conjured images of a Manchurian Candidate with the inscrutable Chinese as the queen-of-diamond protagonist.

Against this backdrop the questions are manifold and the assessment difficult as to the military course China has plotted. Towards which two objectives has her ship of state's compass been boxed? Is China's military buildup warranted as a regional power or does she have global ambitions? Is China's military capability commensurate with her strategic interests and does it represent a threat or legitimate growth? A definitive answer to these questions would require the deftness of Houdini and the clairvoyance of Kreskin; however, a culling of the two positions might ferret out suppositions that could lead to reasonable conclusions.

Position one hypothesizes that China, for centuries, has remained within its borders, and has never posed a threat to any of her neighbors. The Great Wall, built to prevent the Mongol hordes from entering China, exemplifies her defensive posture. Moreover, China has historically shunned contact with the outside world, neither desiring nor seeking trade or the capacity for exploration on the high seas. China's egocentric thinking can be underscored by her name-the Middle Kingdom. Where all roads once led to Rome, China simply believed itself to be the center of the world with no need to venture out from its shores.

Ironically, because China enjoyed her isolationist position with no penchant for empire expansion, she unwittingly opened herself to foreign devils looking to expand their global tentacles. The opium war of the 1840s was such an example. The British, suffering from a trade imbalance due to their insatiable appetite for Chinese tea (through their East Indian holding company), sought to traffic in opium with the intent of creating such a demand by addicting enough people to a substance that could be easily manufactured for trade; thereby, reversing a disastrous trend of trade deficit to a trade surplus. When China interdicted this drug trafficking of British opium, her inferior junks were no match for the superior steam-propelled British frigates resulting in the defeat of China's fledgling fleet. As punishment, the Chinese were compelled to indemnify the British, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, and transfer possession and control of Hong Kong to England.

In 1860, further humiliating land losses were forced upon China with the loss of the Kowloon peninsula (to the British) and the territories north of the Amur River and east of the Ussuri (to the Russians). China's weakness to defend her territory was further exposed by the Japanese in 1895 when the two countries clashed on the Korean peninsula. The resulting defeat shrunk China's territory even more-from the loss of Taiwan, the Pescadore islands, and the New Territories. All this territory was lost on the imploding Qing Dynasty watch of 1644 to 1911.

Smarting from these historic indignities, China has sought to match the military strength of her would be conquerors. Position one promotes China's military buildup/modernization program as defensive and reasonable while presenting no regional/global threat-especially in the context of past humiliations. This is borne out by China's inferior weaponry both quantitatively and qualitatively.

"Various experts estimate the Chinese are spending somewhere between $24 billion and $87 billion a year on their military (depending on the complicated ways this can be calculated). But, if we use one of the more plausible figures of $36 billion, that means China spends less on its military than does Japan-constitutionally a pacifist state, forbidden to maintain offensive armed forces." (Burnstein and Keijzer 2) And whether China can pass the quality control giggle test is uncertain. Is China's military cash outlay getting the most bang for its buck? "When China in 1996 conducted missile tests into the Taiwan Strait in a transparent effort to intimidate Taipei. The gravest danger was the munitions' obsolescence. Robert Ross notes: 'The missiles were so primitive that they could have veered off course and hit Taiwan.' China's most advanced domestically produced fighter, the F8-11, is the equivalent of a late-1960s U.S. warplane, Ross adds, and even this primitive plane has yet to enter fully into production. The Su-27 aircraft China has bartered from Russia are less advanced than what the U.S. sells to Taiwan, and far less advanced than what Japan co-produces with the United States for its defense. Two Kilo-class submarines China purchased from Russia in 1995 were laid up in the harbor two years later with serious problems stemming from poor maintenance... Some believe China is moving to develop an aircraft carrier, but developing and outfitting even a single 1970s vintage aircraft carrier is a decade-long undertaking." (Burnstein and Keijzer 2)

The above quote suggests China to be far behind in sophisticated weaponry not only as it relates to Japan, Taiwan, and smaller regional nations in general, but also, as it relates to the United States, specifically. China's inability to match first world military know-how exposes her flank to strategic assaults. What is China's modern war experience? The twentieth century has presented her with border skirmishes, such as, India in 1962 and Vietnam in 1979, where she was for all intents and purposes able to prevail. What modern military strategies did she employ, other than her predictable antiquated human-wave assaults, in these theaters that would concern a first rate world power? And sea power, what credible navy does she have? "The Chinese navy would lose a battle in this region against Singapore, Malaysia, or Indonesia, all of which possess advanced American or Bristish aircraft." (Ross 37) In what naval battle has she demonstrated her prowess? "China lacks the ability to conduct sustained military operations more than 100 miles from the Chinese shoreline. China is a formidable land power, but in maritime Southeast Asia, where U.S. interests are most at stake, China is militarily inferior even to such countries as Singapore and Malaysia.

Fast forward to the 21st Century reveals that China has made vast technological strides in its so-called inferior military. She also has a burgeoning space program with the not so subtle name and message for its booster rockets--the Long March, which symbolizes an historical one year march by Mao Zedong and his army into the mountains fleeing Chiang Kai-shek and his army allowing a rag-tag defeated army time to regroup and prevail over a more modern equipped army. In a further demonstration of China's improved military prowess, for the first time in its history, China has outfitted an abandoned Soviet aircraft carrier enabling it to project its military might far from its tethered shores. China's gains, economically and militarily, have allowed it to modernize in all facets of its military. She appears, for the time being, to be content with improving its defenses, making money while simultaneously improving the quality of life for its people.

Works Cited (MLA)

Bernstein, Richard and Munro, Ross H, "China I: The coming conflict with America,"
Foreign Affairs, March/April 1997, V76, No. 2, pg. 18

Robert S. Ross, "China II: Beijing as a Conservative Power," Foreign Affairs,
March/April 1997, V76, No.2, pg 33.

Logistics software can help operate any business that requires you to have a warehouse streamlining even the toughest of businesses.

One of the reasons for this is there are so many items you have to keep track of in order to make sure things are running the way they are supposed to be. Losing track of any one of these things can mean disaster and it can set you back for a long time. Warehousing software is the perfect way to help avoid such problems.

Understand that this particular inventory software offers a lot in the name of value, not just basic capabilities. How often are you able to go through every product you have in your warehouse in order to keep track of how much the item is selling for? Granted, you probably have a pretty good idea of what these items cost because you have to buy them on a regular basis.

However, the market is always changing. You may have some items that have actually gone up in value and then you may have some items in your warehouse that have gone down in value.

With this being the case how would you know which individual items were costing you way more money than what you had to pay for them? How would you know which items you can get a better deal on if you do not understand which items are constantly going up in price?

Warehousing software will allow you to keep track of costs in this regard. In just about any business, your ability to know price is very important. The majority of the time various suppliers offer discounts depending on the quantity of items you purchase. Using this logistics software can allow you to catch items that have been steadily going up in price.

Once you noticed this trend you can decide to make a change and go with either a different supplier or negotiate a lower price for ordering larger quantities. This is the way real businesses operates, and having the right tools at your disposal will ensure you're able to keep prices down. Warehousing software can help you in other ways as well.

Odds are you are probably purchasing particular items that you have been offered a discount on, even though the current customer demand does not require them. Now what does this do to a business? It leads to you having to carry excess inventory that is going to sit in your warehouse for a long period of time.

This is not to say that carrying excess inventory is always going to be a bad thing. However, you would need a way to understand what the associated costs are so you will know if buying a certain product in bulk is a smart business decision.

Whatever discount you might get offered to buy certain items in bulk will cost money to store and as a result have to be carefully analyzed.

Analyzing the different components you need to using outdated methods is going to be extremely time-consuming and complex.

Warehousing software will help you analyze whether or not carrying excess inventory in your warehouse is sufficient enough to offset the associated costs such as extra holding costs, insurance, etc.

It is going to be much easier for you to justify a purchasing decision when you're able to carefully analyze every phase in a carefully organized fashion. The way you are doing things now may be effective, but odds are you are making mistakes that can easily be corrected. You cannot afford to keep making these mistakes.

Look into the right type of warehousing software today for your business. It is only going to allow your business to function more effectively.

Quick Weight Loss Diets

There are several diet plans that promise fast or speedy results if dieters use their strategies.

Many of those quick weight loss plans have some kind of hook like a special ingredient, supplement, or eating routine. These diets are common as a result of the desire for instant gratification that is ingrained in our fast-paced and fashionable society.

Is Speedy Weight Loss Possible?

Most of the time, if you see through all the fluff, these speedy diets are simply low calorie diets, with some being terribly low in calories. Very Low Calorie Diets (VLCDs) usually start with a decent amount of water weight loss, which give the dieter the illusion of fat loss. Whereas this may be sensible motivation, many people on speedy weight loss diets get annoyed when that trend doesn't continue.

Detoxing and Your Health

Everyone ought to detox for a time. Some ought to detox more than others. If you're attempting to lose weight or simply create a more robust management of your health, detoxing can start to expel the surplus of poisons which are being stored in your body.

People become toxic from the processed foods they have a tendency to eat or from the chemicals they have a tendency to use. Their shortage of water intake and their lack of fiber intake can also make them more toxic. People should have some sort of detox routine as a regular way of life.

To prepare for a three-day detox you need to have certain items. This can include various foods, juices, and herbal teas depending on which detox you decide to use. You can even plan to be at home for these three days if you have no knowledge of how your body will react to your detox procedure because it may be necessary to remain near a bathroom.

Day One:

As soon as you rise in the morning drink an oversized glass or bottle of water. This will help in digestion. Obese individuals are dehydrated; therefore drink at least a half to one gallon of water throughout the day.
Breakfast:

Have one to 2 servings of contemporary fruit. Selections can be pears, grapefruit, apples, bananas, or some grapes. Fifteen to twenty minutes later have a bowl of whole grains. Selections can be millet, oatmeal, brown rice, buckwheat. Give it a little flavoring by using a teaspoon of virgin, raw coconut oil. Coconut oil is one of those sensible fats which stimulates your metabolism and improves digestion.

Lunch:

Have a bowl or up to four cups of steamed vegetables. Your alternative for potatoes can be beans, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, beets, and cabbage. Have a cup of organic tea. Also, make sure you keep and drink the water from the steamed vegetables.

Dinner:

Dinner ought to be between 5 and 6 pm. You'll have another bowl of steamed vegetables with a teaspoon of the coconut oil. You'll have a cup of caffeine-free tea. Day 2 and 3 are repeated in the exact same manner. Another thing that will augment your detox is a tablespoon of organic apple cider vinegar three times daily. This can stimulate metabolism and also cleans the inner organs. The use of cinnamon will help regulate your insulin and blood sugar levels.

Unless you're a hermit or an ostrich, you have noticed how mean, thoughtless, and rude today's kids are. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities.

Yes, we can compare them to us "perfect" kids of yesteryear, who routinely addressed adults as "ma'am" and "sir," and who behaved in many other ways contrary to the surly attitudes that prevail among today's youth.

Such comparisons, however, serve no purpose. Before a solution can ever be proffered to reverse the degradation into which these children have fallen, we need to identify the causes of it.

Just as in a nervous breakdown of an individual, I believe that there are multiple contributory reasons for the breakdown of this segment of society.

Basic reason #1 is the extreme condition of abuse of children that is so prevalent throughout the world today. Abuse takes multiple forms identified as physical, sexual, emotional, mental, and societal, which are the ones that come readily to my mind.

Just in our family alone, I know of four cases of sexual abuse. (Mind you, ours is what one would perceive of as a "normal" family, not one given to societal problems. We all are responsible citizens with all the "normal" trappings that entails.)

Of course, the multiple forms of abuse overlap and cause extensive psychological problems in later life that may never be overcome.

Chances are that the same children who endure abuse also suffer from neglect, which could fall into any of the categories of abuse cited above.

To me, children who suffer neglect are readily apparent all around us. They are the ones who stand out in public because of their lack of training and discipline. They are loud, obnoxious, inconsiderate, and extremely selfish. They are the ones who cause disruptions in schools, in restaurants, and other public places.

It's not the children's fault, of course. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of their "parents," who do not bother to take the time to teach them manners and how to act in public.

Many parents are simply abdicating their parental roles. They send their unruly offspring to public schools to be "taught" by the system.

There the children are labelled as A.D.D. or A.D.H.D., and their "parents" then whisk them off to the medical establishment to be drugged even more senseless with Ritalin or that ilk, only to become victims of substance abuse.

It strikes me as awfully peculiar that so many children suddenly have these "afflictions," when they were unheard of not so many years ago. (Many alternative health care practitioners have proven that these "conditions" are not medical, but the result of poor diets.)

Personally, I truly believe that, in many cases, these so-called "conditions" are not only diet related, but a direct result of a lack of discipline, consistently applied. Note the operative word: "consistently."

As one very wise preacher has stated, while endorsing the "spare the rod, spoil the child" axiom, applying the rod to the gluteus maximus gives the cerebral cortex a whole new revelation!

On the other side of the "extreme" kid coin are those who are pampered. No expense is spared to provide these little darlings with every imaginable device to protect their bodies.

It boggles my mind how we were allowed to ride our bikes all over the neighborhood with no helmets perched on our little heads-and we lived to tell about it! Helmets for bicyclists were unheard of until a few years ago, when someone in the bike gear industry introduced these fancy-looking things to produce more profits.

It always amazes me how gullible the public is. They will buy anything and everything, just because it's new, and they want to be the first in the neighborhood to have one.

Along that same line, kids no longer can wear a pair of just plain old tennis shoes (aka sneakers or gym shoes). Oh, no... they have to have shoes for running, a different pair for walking, another for playing, another for wrestling, etc., etc., ad nauseum-still another profit ruse thrust upon the dupable public.

It is so disgusting to hear one of these pampering parents talking the daylights out of their kids, begging and pleading with them to do or not to do something or other. They make idle threats and then fail to follow through. Morons! Instead of taking charge of the kids, they allow the kids to tell them how it's going to be.

Instead of firmly announcing to the child that "Dora, bedtime is in ten minutes; time for you to pick up your toys," one of these doting dummies will say, "Honey, are you ready for bed?" Now, what's the kid going to say? "Oh, yes. I thought you'd never ask!"

Has anyone ever watched "Super Nanny" or some such titled show on television lately? It's totally unbelievable to me that these so-called "parents" have abandoned their God-given roles and relinquished their authority to these little monsters.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that I'm in favor of beating the meanness out of them (although there sometimes is no alternative for effective discipline other than a good old-fashioned spanking). What I am saying is that, if people are going to bring children into the world, then they should be willing to be responsible for them and to them.

That means training them from the cradle and not waiting until "someday" when they're "old enough." Hogwash!

Sometimes I wonder which is worse, the blatantly abusive parent or the patently pampering one? I know, I know... at first take, it seems obvious. But think about it. At least abused children know where they stand. Pampered children are confused, to say the least.

Either way, extremes with children are not good. The Bible says to exercise moderation in all things. "Train a child up in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6. No one said it better than our Lord!