Consumers Digest

What types of things should one consider when buying major household appliances?

Major household appliances? I need to buy new fridge, dishwasher, he top load washer, he front load dryer. If anyone would kindly advise me what brand to, or not to, buy and why I'd appreciate it. Perhaps you could tell me what to look for when looking for these items. I'm not looking for "cheap" in this matter, I want good quality items that will last and hopefully not need many repairs. I'm looking for white, and the dishwasher could be white or stainless inside and I'd like the top rack to adjust and a good size cutlery tray. The fridge I'd like automatic icemaker and a dispenser for the ice and water. Any and all comments would be most welcome.

Does anyone know of a consignment business that will accept household appliances? I'm going to be moving across the country later this year and I want to take as few posessions as possible. Since I'd like to use my W/D and refridg. up to the last minute, does anyone know of a consignment business that would accept major appliances?

Remodeling in San Diego, where can I donate household & appliances? I am doing a major remodel in North County San Diego, does anyone know of a service that will come out and remove kitchen, bath etc to donate for tax deduction?

What's the average daily power consumption for a small household of two people? Everything else we have in our house is quite compact ( fridge 248L, Oven 40L, water heater 90L) as our household is such a small one with only me and my partner, we uses about 6.15KWh/day. Is it normal considering the sizes of all the major appliances we have?

best home owners warranty,plsss suggest.? wht is the best home owners warranty for all major household appliances like plasma tv,washer-dryer,refrigerator,air and heat conditioner,pls suggest some with no gimmicks attached.

Am I overreacting? I know it's a very sweet gesture, but I'm genuinely pissed off about it.? I've been dating this guy for all of two days, but he's lived at my house for three months (it started as a he just needed a place to stay thing, but for the past month we started to move into a different sort of relationship that we didn't really decide to acknowledge until new years) and another roommate just broke the laundry machine... so today he went out a bought a brand new $800 one while I was out. When I found out I was really mad and wasn't shy about telling him that and now he's confused as to how I could be so upset. I've tried explaining that I had told him I was planning to buy one myself and it's not his responsibility to buy major household appliances for the home, but he's trying to say that he considers it his rent (nobody in the house pays rent-- I own it and just make everyone split my water bill when it comes in). My other roommate says that it's stupid that I could be mad because we needed a washer, but I feel like she's just saying that because she doesn't want me to insist that he returns it like I plan to. So is it crazy to be upset that he'd do something that nice? And is it crazy to insist that he returns it if I'm only going to go out and buy another one in a day or two anyway? Just to clarify as to the whole rent issue-- I only mentioned it to show how it's silly for him to consider it a rent payment. Everyone who stays in the house contributes-- they buy the groceries because I'm usually to busy and also a terrible cook, one of them is finishing the basement that he's living in, they all help out, I just don't charge them actual rent payments. And I'm not saying that it wasn't really sweet-- I just feel like it's way too much from him (he wasn't the one that broke it) and also something that I should not only be responsible for, but also have at least some say in.

Should we have a dedicated socket installed? Currently our household water softener outdoor unit is plugged into the A/C's outdoor unit, drawing electricity from it rather than from its own socket. I didn't know this and just found out from the workers who are here installing a new A/C system. I called my husband about it and he knew... he says he was told about it by the water softener company and that previous A/C repairmen have also advised him that the softener doesn't draw much power and that it won't affect anything. But it just sounds iffy to me to have such a large appliance piggybacked onto another one like that. Please let me know if you're an electrician or work with major appliances! Thanks in advance. :)

i need help in a small thesis statement? hello i have i research paper with the title (radiation from household applinces ) and the techer ask us to write a one sentence thesis statement and that is what i come up with Radiation from household appliances is a major problem in our lives , most people are clueless about it on the other hand scientist split to two different opinions and that’s because plenty of studies have showed contradictory results. help in making it better or give anothor way yo start it

If you were forced to give up your washing machine or dishwasher - which would you keep? A radical left-wing government has come to power and is implementing it's energy conservation law. All households can only have one major washing appliance... either a washing machine or a dishwasher - but not both. A sophisticated electricity monitoring system is in place to detect if any household is secretly using both. Penalties for violating this law is 5 years in a re-education prison on a small cold barren island off Scotland. Would you keep your washing machine or your dishwasher ? (I love both and haven't decided which I could easiest live without) This question isn't for peasants or New Age grungy types who don't have either.

What is the title of that Walt Disney's cartoon where it's about society, home appliances? I'm searching that WD cartoon where it's about society, household, families presented in a funny, comparison way, without any major character. I saw it in my childhood, early 90's, but i think it was made way before. I can't find it, somebody knows? there is narrator and when talking about situations, stuff and we see that in different families.

Which engineering degree should I get? The decision of choosing a type of engineering major has been bugging me for a long while. I would like to design consumer electronics and household appliances like cell phones, TVs, refrigerators, computers, etc. I can't decide between electrical engineering or computer engineering that sets emphasizes on electrical engineering. Which degree would suit my needs better?

How energy efficient are you? Please feel free to answer the following questions... I am a student from the University of Ulster currently undergoing research on attitudes towards energy saving measures and climate change/ green consumerism in the current economic climate. The importance of behavioural change is needed and should be encouraged for individuals to ‘change their habits’ and be better ecological citizens to prevent the consequences of our consumer behaviour, damaging the environment. The questions that are used in this questionnaire are solely for the use of my research for my dissertation. The questionnaire is to be completed anonymously and you will not be treated as an individual participant. Please answer as truthfully as possible. Many thanks PART 1 Personal Details 1) Male/ Female 2) Age- under 18 18-35 36-59 60+ PART 2 Q3) Please state how you feel to the following statements Climate change is a major issue that needs to be addressed now There needs to be greater public awareness and understanding of energy generation and consumption Responsibility for combating climate change starts in the HOME Q4) Please state if you do any of the following in your household. (a) Do you use energy saving light bulbs Yes No Sometimes b) Do you re-use plastic bags/use environmentally friendly bags Yes No Sometimes c) Do you turn off appliances/lights when not in use Yes No Sometimes d) Do you recycle Yes No Sometimes If yes what do you recycle and how often? e) Leave appliances on standby Yes No Sometimes f) Leave the water running while washing/brushing teeth Yes No Sometimes g) Wash clothes at 40 rather than 30 degrees Yes No Sometimes h) Use public transport more than driving a car Yes No Sometimes Q5) Do you feel that it is due to Habits which makes you reluctant to change your routine to be more environmentally friendly? Agree Disagree Not sure (please explain briefly your answer) Q6) a) Do you feel you could do more to reduce you carbon footprint? ( Yes No Not sure b) If YES will you do anything in the near future to reduce your energy consumption? Q7) Have you adopted or would consider Energy saving measures in your home? Power from Renewable energy resources Yes No Would consider it Home improvements E.g. (Double glazing, loft insulation Yes No Would consider it Energy efficient appliances Yes No Would consider it Q8) Which of the following options matches reasons for not implementing more measures for being more environmentally friendly. (May stste more than one option) Lack of awareness Too expensive Too much effort No interest in the environment Difficult to change routine Other (please state) Q9) Which of the following would be the main incentives for you to manage your consumption patterns (May tick more than one option) Financial Eco- Friendly home Feel good factor Positive influence on others Better for the environment Other (please state) Part 3 The questions below are related to changing attitudes and consumption patterns. Please state whether you agree/ disagree or are not sure to the statements. Please circle appropriate answer and you may give a brief explanation Q10) A) Individual action alone will not make any difference so why bother being an ‘ecological citizen’ Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure B) I encourage penalties/ fines and enforcement actions upon large companies that are substantial carbon emitters Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure C) Breaking habits is difficult for an individual, being part of a group and encouraging community citizenship would encourage me to change consumption patterns Agree/Disagree/Not sure D) Green consumerism and Green products is just a money making scheme for large companies as opposed to being ‘environmentally friendly’ Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure E) The Government should support local community action by funding programmes for behavioural change Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure F) Value for money/the quality of the product/the function of the product is more important than energy saving Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure G) Telling people how to behave is not always practical; people buy what is within their budget limitations regardless of the consequences on the environment Agree/ Disagree/ Not H) The products that I buy are what as an individual I Prefer regardless of the consequences on the environment Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure I) The current economic recession is more of a worry for me than preventing climate change Agree/ Disagree/ Not sure PART 4 Q11) Overall do you believe that ‘Going Green’ could be advertised and encouraged more in the UK? If so how? Q12) Do you believe that sustainable consumption/better consumer behaviour is achievable even during the current economic recession? Have you found yourself buying more ‘green products’? Q13) Do you have any intentions to change your behaviour and have a ‘greener attitude’ towards your consumption and daily patterns in the foreseeable future? What measures are you willing to take/not willing to take? Have you got any further views on issues raised in this questionnaire? Thankyou very much for your cooperation. Much appreciated.

How does the U.S. make money? Most major products that Americans buy are foreign made. All electronics, including high selling TVs, phones, video games and the computer that's in front of you are foreign made. I'd guess about 75% of clothing, toys, and household appliances and household goods are foreign made. Much of the furniture American people have is foreign made. If there is an American company based in the U.S. many of them outsource their work to another country so in reality, those American products are foreign made. Much of what you see in an American automobile is foreign made. The U.S. surely doesn't provide anyone with oil. What American businesses are making all the money selling what product to who and how do we afford to give or loan trillions of dollars to other countries? I know we sell military equipment to different nations, but I don't see that as our major commodity. So again, where is the money made? Millions of obese Americans chowing down on McDonalds?

please help with some true or false career questions? 21. If you want to live in the same place you live now, it is easier to figure out housing costs than if you want to move. (1 point) True False 22. Budget experts suggest using research rather than your own knowledge to help put together a budget. (1 point) True False 23. The services that keep household appliances running are called utilities. (1 point) True False 24. Friends and family are often handy sources of valuable information about costs of living. (1 point) True False 25. Insurance is intended to protect you against major financial setbacks. (1 point) True False

Will i get any insurance money? My house burned down last week. I have renters insurance. People have donated a lot of household furniture. The insurance company said they will replace most of my things. NOW I have most of what i need and the insurance company it will only replace what i need { sotve refrigerator. etc. My policy is for $20,00 What if i don't use all of the allowance? and what happens to the rest of the money on my policy. they said they will not give my cash. Just replace lost furniture. My question is " will i get any cash?? because people have donated a lot and i only need my major appliances. Am i losing out on my insurance? by not getting any cash???

home business/work from home suggestions? I currently work as a shipping and receiving supervisor on third shift at a 50 acre major appliance warehouse. I am expecting my first child in April 2012 and my superior has made it quite clear that absence due to pregnancy and in the future bc of my child will not be tolerated. This alone is causing me a great deal of stress and some pregnancy complications. However, id rather be proactive and find a solution rather than dwell on it. After the baby arrives I would like to work days a the the very least but am exploring "at home" options. I am under no illusions that I will be able to make millions from KY computer but some supplemental income would be nice. I have some skills and certifications and broad work experience including: childcare director,catering, clerical skills, phlebotomy, home care and some marketing. I'm also pretty crafty and my friends and family rave about my letter writing/ opinion writing skills. I'm looking for suggestions not snide comments. My fiance's income is more than sufficient for our needs but I do not like to feel dependent or like I'm not contributing in any way. Honestly my income is typically used for pleasure shopping other luxuries or it goes into savings. My main interest in this idea is simply to be able to balance sharing time with our new baby and still feel like a contributing partner in our household. Thanks for reading

Opinions needed and please be constructive.? Ok i have an invention i just created and i need opinions and thoughts? I invented a crystal that can be used in wireless transmission of power and wireless receiving of power. Now this crystals ability to receieve wireless power is independent of the size. My question to you is this, i plan on using those crystals to create a wireless and portable power transmitter that can be plugged in like a charger and also a wireless crystal socket to plug in your appliance. The goal is to cut the cost of power consumption per household. How? Well when you have ten appliances in your home inctead of plugging it into the grid, You buy my wireless crystal transmitter to transmit the power and with the wireless crystal socket, you receive the power transmitted. So, in this case you eliminate having 10 appliances drawing enormous amounts of power from the grid instead you have one appliance in thsi case my transmitter, transmitting power to the wireless crystal socket, which by the way is portable..So, will you purchase such a product?? PS you wil be able to cut ur power usage by 80 percent without really sacrificing any equipment or appliance. * 27 minutes ago * - 4 days left to answer. Additional Details Well first of all i cant tell you the composition of the crystal because Ill be killing my invention...And yes i swear by my life that it is real...I have a working prototype. 21 minutes ago Ohh and i will be working on a video to show the power transmission and reception of the crystal, i already have a video of me transmitting and receiving power using an antenna.. 19 minutes ago And by the way i am a physics major in my 2nd year and NO am not breaking any laws of physics....In my research i found a secret ingredient that gives a crsytal the ability to temporarily retain power in form of waves..It is carbon..I wont tell ya with what but thats all i can say 15 minutes ago Well i know you might have ur doubts but trust me it is real..See wireless transmission of power by tesla is easy but the problem is people always work with coils to produce intense magnetic coupling.My invention removes that, instead the crystal i created are susceptible to magnetic coupling..I think it has to do with the spin reoreintation of the atoms when it comes close to the field. let me ask you when you have an antenna transmitting signals and you ahve cell phones int he vicintiy, does the amount of cellphones diminsh the signal strenght, well NO> it doesnt..the same thing with wireless power transmission. 10 minutes ago The distance of transmission using the crystals is about 3ft but the real usage is that is eliminates the power consumption as i outlined above. 7 minutes ago One other thing, the composition of the crystal is soo easy to make it will blow your mind...In my line of work there is a saying: " Nature speaks to us in its own language, and the structure of nature is simplicity" Why do you know about the laws of thermodynamics?? You cant just say it isnt compatible with the laws of thermodynamics the thing freaking works..i hve a prototype and dnt tell me to post a video...Ill soon. Secondly, the laws of thrmodynamics has nothing to with with magnetic coupling....And the crystal does obey the laws of thermodynamics because the field in no or form remains in the crystal indeifinitely, it is like a transmission bridge, when the power is cutoff, it fails transmitting..So i dnt not understand what the hell ya mean by thermodynamics..Third do you even know how the grid system works..Read up and comment as i said I need constructive no blind arguments. Well i think i made it clear somewhere that the transmission of power in the crystal is 80 percent effective when it is 3ft from the transmitter..And yes i dnt think you understand, the purpose is not the transmit power across vast distance, the purpose to to eliminate the number of appliances connected to the grid per household by using the system of wireless transmission and receiving..Thats why the reciever is a wireless socket..eliminates the purpose of connecting to the grid Let me give you a math task...I transmit about 150 volts AC and recieve about 85 volts across 3 ft...do the math @michael let me dispute your claim: I can get that 500W if i have 5crystals or more connected in series as my receiver see the key to it is the retention capability of the crystal..however it is limited but that retention capability allows for the increase in wattage by series connection.I have tested this actually. I do understand your skepticism because I would too as a scientist..I am however still deciding if i should make a video first..First i have gotten my patent approved yet so until i do that i wont be able to convince you...Does make a good argument anyways. I meant i havent* @ electronics engineer you claim can easily be challenged if i say well i can just build 5 wireless crystal sockets to be place 3ft fromt eh transmitter..Each socket is connected to 5 appliances..well that my friend is cutting across your claim...it is exactly like signal generation just without the signal and limited range.. @michael, i know what you mean by you can get more than what you put in..ya i know laws of thermodynamics..Well i am telling you that not if the crystals strutuce is arranged in such away tha waves passing across it can be imprinted that the crystals atomic arrangement..Have you heard of paramagnetism..It is similar to it.. but imagine it to be temporary in such a away that you have a limited energy build up..The effect i saw is limited but with ur argument, you can easily go against it by building 5 sockets instead of 1.. Anyways good argument the reality is this works..now any new invention always has some technical or measuring problem.. the reality i do not understand how the crystal buffers the energy received there temporary increasing the output..I do not..But I can as well make money but suggesting people to buy more of the sockets for more appliances simple as that..Instead of going against century old laws... Yes i have i see spike in voltage like about 5 volts..but you might argue that it is insignificant , which i subscribe to also. As i said instead of arguing that the laws of thermodynamics are flawed, i might as well shut up and tell people to buy sockets for each appliance that way i make my money..no harm no foul

Marine Debris question? i am doing some research on marine debris and need to assume what I think are the most polluted beaches... What would you consider major risks in the marine debris list below? (Meaning which would be the top 5-10 debris that would damage marine ecosystems, animal health as well as human health) Land based/ recreational Balloons/balls Batteries Beverage bottles (glass) Beverage bottles (plastic) Beverage cans Broken glass Caps, lids Clothing/shoes Cups, plates, forks, knives, spoons Food wrappers/containers Six-pack holders Straws/stirrers Plastic bags Plastic pieces Plastic sheets/tarps Pull tabs Toys Water-based/ Fishing source Bait containers/packaging Buoys/floats Fish/lobster traps Fishing line Fishing nets Rope Shotgun shells Strapping bands Personal Hygiene Condoms Nappies Syringes Tampons Smoking Related Cigarette lighters Cigarettes/cigarette filters Tobacco packaging/wrappers Industrial/Dumping Appliances (parts of) Building materials Cars/car parts Crates Containers/drums/oil/lube bottles Household cleaning products Light bulbs/tubes Tyres thanks guys!

What should we do in this situation? After 6 years of looking we have finally found a home in the area we want. I found it in the local paper and called the number. The landlord told me where it was and that the door was unlocked and we were more than welcome to look around. I will make a long story short-the outside is trashed. Furniture everywhere, household garbage dumped everywhere, the stove is on the front porch burnt up, the fridge is also on the porch full of rotten food and the grass is a foot tall and just really grown up. The inside isnt bad-no major damage, a window busted in the basement allowing some water in and they left things, theres cat poop in the floor and they smoked cigarettes and threw the butts everywhere. It needs a fresh coat of paint and some new appliances and carpet. And a really good bug bombing and scrub. The landlord had no idea and said that he would send someone over and we should call in a week. We really want the house and in the time it takes to clean it up should have all the money together to turn on utilities, pay rent etc. Most people we tell say its going to be too much work and others say we should make an agreement with the landlord that if he replaces the appliances and cleans up the yard and the leftover furniture in the house that we will paint, put down carpet and make it beautiful and liveable if he lets us have the first month free provided we show receipts. We are at a loss. We dont want to lose this beautiful old home in our area. What would you do? Anyone been in a situation similar?? All help appreciated! The home itself is beautiful even though the yard isnt. Its an old home that is large with a full basement. It has new siding on it and a fairly new roof. It still has original windows and doors, none of which are broken or beat up. The house looks out of place because of yard is so awful. The inside is dirty because people didnt respect their home but there are no holes in the wall, no cabinets missing, nothing of major disrepair-it just needs to be cleaned up basically.

What is the smart thing to do in this situation? My problem: I currently work full time as an assistant manager for a popular national retail chain (think along the lines of aeropostale or holister), I currently make $1300 a month after taxes and I live in rural NC - and 33 miles away from my job (one way). My job requires that I be available to work any time of day any day of the week (as we very frequently have to stay late or work overnight with about a days' notice). My rent AND utilities (gas/water/electric) come to $670 a month (one bedroom apt, and is the absolute cheapest in my city - I've checked). Because I live in a different state from my family and so far from my job I have to have a cell phone, which also serves as my internet access- $99.67 a month - I'm in a contract and can't change anything about the cell phone until July. My car insurance is $74.30 a month and I do not have any extras such as internet access for the home or cable. I drive a car that is quickly breaking down (15 years old - 199,000+mi.). Gas to and from work runs me about $160 a month - and because there is so much wrong with my car I have been putting about $150 - 200 worth of repairs in it monthly since august. This has left me with about $90 a month left over which goes into groceries and personal / household items. My car still has MAJOR issues wrong with it - it cut off on interstate 95 today while traveling at 60mph and the rest of the repairs are going to cost me about $1500 total. I have not had the opportunity to save any $$$ to put towards a newer / more reliable car because I have to keep fixing my old one so that I can continue to get a paycheck. I cannot get a second job because of the erratic and unpredictable schedule of my first. The town I live in is a very small town with minimal job opportunities, especially those that pay more than I currently make (I check everyday). There are job opportunities in the nearest major city but that is over an hours drive and I cannot count on my car to make it back and forth to interviews - let alone for a few weeks until I start receiving a paycheck. I am not in a position to finance a car as I have a credit score of 513 (as of last month), and the "low credit / no credit / bad credit" places I've gone to want me to have at least $1500 down with a credit score that low. My mothers' financial situation is worse than mines and I have not had any luck finding a co-signer who would back someone with a low 500's credit score - and I can't say that I blame them. I've tried to look into ways to reduce my expenses (eating store brand foods, not buying meats or fresh fruits / veggies, not turning on the heat until the temp outside hits in the 30's, taking showers every other day, not watching television or using any appliance that is not absolutely necessary for my survival, etc.) and while I am not a huge fan of the idea of being on government assistance of any kind, I have even inquired about food stamps, etc but I make too much money (not by much) to qualify for those programs. It is only a mater of time before something SUPER MAJOR goes wrong with my car and I can't drive it at all... without any money in savings, no help able to come from any family / friends, no available co-signers, and no private sellers who would sell me a car on a payment plan how on Earth do I get myself out of this situation????? *if you have taken the time to read through all of this I applaud you, and welcome ANY suggestions that you may have, thanks*

Why should the American consumer be forced to pay for the transition from analog to digital TV? LET’S TALK A LITTLE ABOUT TV EVOLUTION: I am referring to the old “low-tech” household fixture that used to be in the living room for the family’s quality time, entertainment, information, education, and other such beneficial to the family services. No, I am not talking of today’s “high tech” idiot box that is found in every room of a house and it has been transformed into an exclusive accomplice of commercial advertisements, deception, violence, porn and vulgarity; let alone of being the prime brainwashing agent for the exploitative corporate America as well as for the public’s deception by the two major political parties. Now, as if this detrimental evolution of an instrument that was for the benefit of the family was not enough, the corporate greed is forcing the American public to convert it into something totally unnecessary for the consumer but a lot more profitable for any and all of those who control and manipulate the nation’s TV industry fields. In closing, my question is: Since in my opinion, the digital transformation of this once useful electronic home appliance is nothing more than just a face lift that benefits only the TV corporate America and not at all the public, why should the American consumer be forced to pay for the transition to digital from analog? Why not the real beneficiaries (The TV industry manipulators) pay for it? Thank you, N. D. S.

Every day, in every way, we're urged to pay our bills online, by utility companies, credit card companies, etc Yet six days a week, we receive junk mail which must be disposed of & is not readily recyclable! In addition, almost every newspaper we buy contains "sales" ads. Many of these multipage ads are printed on slick, magazine-like paper, so the paper cannot readily be recycled like newsprint & ends up in landfills! Who else finds it difficult to take the conservation of paper & wood seriously when we are innundated with these slick, glossy, multipage "sales" ads at least *every* week (I only subscribe to weekend newspaper editions)? In addition, every magazine received contains *multiple* subscription cards & other cards to send for something! Weekly, most households where I live receive "The Bag", which contains mostly classified ads, grocery & other ads. Forty years ago, all of the many discount & major dept, auto parts, lumber, appliance, electric supply firms, hardware & plumbing suppliers, etc., put out ads only when they were having *real* sales! Aren't weekly grocery ads enough?

If you were forced to give up your washing machine or dishwasher - which would you keep? A radical left-wing government has come to power and is implementing it's energy conservation law. All households can only have one major washing appliance... either a washing machine or a dishwasher - but not both. A sophisticated electricity monitoring system is in place to detect if any household is secretly using both. Penalties for violating this law is 5 years in a re-education prison on a small cold barren island off Scotland. Would you keep your washing machine or your dishwasher ? (I love both and haven't decided which I could easiest live without) This question isn't for peasants or New Age grungy types who don't have either.

How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in...? low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an “unalienable” right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on “Happiness and Public Policy.” Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes. Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: “How satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?” The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: “The very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.” 8 So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years. Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier. Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to one’s relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

true && false answers.. help if u can. thank u? True/False please help me by answering true or false.. thank u 16. Imaginary scenarios are of little use in helping you define your real-world values. True False 17. Your lifestyle values are useful in helping you target your career choices. True False 18. Serious online personality tests that are based on social-science theories are easier to find than "just for fun" tests. True False 19. How much time you spend with hobbies and friends are two important elements of your intrinsic career values. True False 20. It is shallow and useless in career planning to even consider what you would like to wear to work. True False 21. If you want to live in the same place you live now, it is easier to figure out housing costs than if you want to move. True False 22. Budget experts suggest using research rather than your own knowledge to help put together a budget. True False 23. The services that keep household appliances running are called utilities. True False 24. Friends and family are often handy sources of valuable information about costs of living. True False 25. Insurance is intended to protect you against major financial setbacks. True False

help with some true or false in career exploration? 21. If you want to live in the same place you live now, it is easier to figure out housing costs than if you want to move. (1 point) True False 22. Budget experts suggest using research rather than your own knowledge to help put together a budget. (1 point) True False 23. The services that keep household appliances running are called utilities. (1 point) True False 24. Friends and family are often handy sources of valuable information about costs of living. (1 point) True False 25. Insurance is intended to protect you against major financial setbacks. (1 point) True False

Anyone intrested in writing a two page summary of this? FIBER KEEPS ITS PROMISE BY GEORGE GILDER "Today, I await the death of television, telephony, VCRs, and analog cameras with utter confidence as Moore's law unfolds." Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner, John Malone, are you listening?" Get ready. Bandwidth will triple each year for the next 25, creating trillions in new wealth. Editor's note: Four years ago, Forbes ASAP published its first issue with a stunning prophecy by contributing editor George Gilder. Fiber optics, said George, had the potential to carry 25 trillion bits per second down a single strand. This represented a ten-thousandfold leap in carrying capacity over the 2.5 billion bits "barrier" long assumed by most experts in the field. What did George see that others had missed? One, a little-recognized (at the time) breakthrough called an erbium-doped amplifier, which keeps optical signals pure and strong over long distances. The other was a deep technical shift, with roots in the 1940s-era work of information theory pioneer Claude Shannon. If you believed Shannon, his logic dictated a new messaging scheme called wave division multiplexing. Though scorned by the experts four years ago, WDM now is emerging as the winner George had prophesied. The real winners will be all of us, as the coming world of cheap, unlimited bandwidth unfolds and at last fulfills the true potential of the information age. Here is George with an update. IMAGINE THAT IN 1975 YOU KNEW that Moore's law--the Intel chairman's projection of the doubling of the number of transistors on a microchip every 18 months--would hold for the rest of your lifetime. What if you knew that these transistors would run cooler, faster, better, and cheaper as they got smaller and were crammed more closely together? Suppose you knew the law of the microcosm: that the cost-effectiveness of any number of "n" transistors on a single silicon sliver would rise by the square of the increase in "n." As an investor knowing this Moore's law trajectory, you would have been able to predict and exploit a long series of developments: the emergence of the PC; its dominance over all other computer form factors; the success of companies making chips, disk drives, peripherals, and software for this machine. With a slight effort of intellect, you could have extended the insight and prophesied the digitization of watches, records (CDs), cellular phones, cameras, TVs, broadcast satellites, and other devices that can use miniaturized computer power. If you did not know precisely when each of these benisons would flourish, you would have known that each one was essentially inevitable. To calculate approximate dates, you had only to guess the product's optimal price of popularization and then match its need for mips (millions of instructions per second) of computer power with the cost of those mips as defined by Moore's law. Merely by using this technique of Moore's law matching--and holding to it with unshakable conviction for nearly 20 years--I became known as a "futurist." Today I await the death of television, telephony, VCRs, and analog cameras with utter confidence as Moore's law unfolds. You can tell me about the 98% penetration of TVs in American homes, the continuing popularity of couch-potato entertainments, the effectiveness of broadcast advertising, and the profound and unbridgeable chasm between the office appliance and the living-room tube. But I will pay no attention. Just you wait--Jack Welch, Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch, John Malone, and David Jennings--the TV will die and you may be too late for the Net. It is now 1997, and a stream of dramatic events certifies that another law, as powerful and fateful and inexorable as Moore's, is gaining a similar sway over the future of technology. It is what I have termed the law of the telecosm. Its physical base lies in the same quantum realm of eigenstates and band gaps that governs the performance of transistors and also makes photons leap and lase. But the telecosm reaches beyond components to systems, combining the science of the electromagnetic spectrum with Claude Shannon's information theory. In essence, as frequencies rise and wavelengths drop, digital performance improves exponentially. Bandwidth rises, power usage sinks, antenna size shrinks, interference collapses, error rates plummet. The law of the telecosm ordains that the total bandwidth of communications systems will triple every year for the next 25 years. As communicators move up-spectrum, they can use bandwidth as a substitute for power, memory, and switching. This results in far cheaper and more efficient systems. In 1996, the new fiber paradigm emerged in full force. Parallel communications in all-optical networks became the dominant source of new bandwidth in telecom. Like Moore's law, the law of the telecosm will reshape the entire world of information technology. It defines the direction of technological advance, the vectors of growth, the sweet spots for finance. AMERICA'S DARK SECRET FOR MORE THAN A DECADE, American companies have been laying optical fiber strands at a pace of some 4,000 miles a day, for a total of more than 25 million strand miles. Five years ago, the top 10% of U.S. homes and businesses were, on average, a thousand households away from a fiber node; now they are a hundred households away. However, the imperial advance of this technology conceals a dark secret, which has led to a pervasive underestimation of the long-term impact of photonics. Sixty percent of the fiber remains "dark" (unused for communications) and even the leading-edge "lit" fiber is being used at less than one ten-thousandth of its intrinsic capacity. This problem has prompted leaders in the industry, from Bill Gates and Andy Grove to Bob Metcalfe and Mitch Kapor, to underrate drastically the impact of fiber optics. Restricting the speed and cost-effectiveness of fiber has been an electronic bottleneck and a regulatory noose. In order for the signal to be amplified, regenerated, or switched, the light pulses had to be transformed into electronic pulses by optoelectronic converters. For all the talk of the speed of light, fiber-optic systems therefore could pass bits no faster than the switching speed of transistors, which tops out at a cycle time of between 2.5 and 10 gigahertz. Meanwhile, telecom companies could not deploy new low-cost fiber products any faster than the switching speed of politicians and regulators, which tops out roughly at a cycle time of between 2.5 years and a rate of evolution measurable only by means of carbon 14. Nonetheless, the intrinsic capacity of every fiber line is not 2.5 gigahertz. Nor is it even 25 gigahertz, which is roughly the capacity of all the frequencies commonly used in the air, from AM radio to kA band satellite. The intrinsic capacity of every fiber thread, as thin as a human hair, is at the least one thousand times the capacity of what we call the "air." One thread could carry all the calls in America on the peak moment of Mother's Day. One fiber thread could carry 25 times more bits than last year's average traffic load of all the world's communications networks put together: an estimated terabit (trillion bits) a second. Over the last five years, technological breakthroughs and legislative loopholes have begun to open up this immense capacity to possible use. Following concepts pioneered and patented by David Payne at the University of Southampton in England, a Bell Laboratories group led by Emmanuel Desurvire and Randy Giles developed a workable all-optical device. They showed that a short stretch of fiber doped with erbium, a rare earth mineral, and excited by a cheap laser diode can function as a powerful amplifier over fully 4,500 gigahertz of the 25,000 gigahertz span. Introduced by Pirelli of Italy and popularized by Ciena Corporation of Savage, Maryland, and by Lucent and Alcatel, today such photonic amplifiers are a practical reality. Put in packages between two and three cubic inches in size, the erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) fit anywhere in an optical network for enhancing signals without electronics. This invention overcame the most fundamental disadvantage of optical networks compared to electronic networks. You can tap into an electronic network as often as desired without eroding the voltage signal. Although resistance and capacitance will leach away the current, there are no splitting losses in a voltage divider. Photonic signals, by contrast, suffer splitting losses every time they are tapped; they lose photons until eventually there are none left. The cheap and compact all-optical amplifier solves this problem. It is an invention comparable in importance to the integrated circuit. Just as the integrated circuit made it possible to put an entire computer system on a single sliver of silicon, the all-optical amplifier makes it possible to put an entire system on a seamless seine of silica--glass. Unleashing the law of the telecosm, it makes possible a new global economy of bandwidth abundance. Five years ago when I first celebrated the radical implications of erbium-doped amplifiers, skepticism reigned. I was summoned to Bellcore, where the first optical networks had been built and then abandoned, to learn the acute limits of the technology from Charles Brackett and his team. I had offered the vision of a broadband fibersphere--a worldwide web of glass and light--where computer users could tune into favored frequencies as readily as radios tune into frequencies in the atmosphere today. But Brackett and other Bellcore experts told me that my basic assumption was false. It was no simpler, they said, to tune into one of scores of frequencies on a fiber than to select time slots in a time-division-multiplexed (TDM) bitstream. Indeed, electronic switching technology was moving faster than optical technology. In the face of the momentum and installed base of electronic switching and multiplexing, the fibersphere with hundreds of tunable frequencies would remain a fantasy, like Ted Nelson's Xanadu. In 1997 the fantasy is coming true around the world. Xanadu has become the World Wide Web. The erbium-doped fiber amplifier is an explosively growing $250 million business. Electronic TDM seems to have topped out at 2.5 gigabits a second. TDM gear has suffered a series of delays and nagging defects and so far has failed in the market. Electronic TDM failed not only because it pushed the envelope of electronics but also because it violated the new paradigm. In single-mode fiber, the two key impediments are nonlinearities in the glass and chromatic dispersion (the blurring of bit pulses because even in a single band different frequencies move at different speeds). Chromatic dispersion increases by the square of the bit rate, and the impact of nonlinearities rises with the power of the signal. High-powered, high-bit-rate TDM flunked both telecosm tests. By contrast, wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM) follows the laws of the telecosm; it succeeds by wasting bandwidth and stinting on power. WDM takes some 33% more bandwidth per bit than TDM, but it reduces power to combat nonlinearity and divides the bitstream into multiple frequencies in order to combat dispersion. Thus it can extend the distance or increase capacity by a factor of four or more today and can lay the foundations for the fibersphere tomorrow. In 1996 the new fiber paradigm emerged in full force. Parallel communications in all-optical networks, long depicted as a broadband pipe dream, crushed all competitors and became the dominant source of new bandwidth in the world telecom network. The year began with a trifold explosion at the Conference on Optical Fiber Communication in San Jose when three companies--Lucent Technologies' Bell Labs, NTT Labs, and Fujitsu--all announced terabit-per-second WDM transmissions down a single fiber. Sprint confirmed the significance of the laboratory breakthroughs by announcing deployment of Ciena's MultiWave 1600 WDM system, so called because it can increase the capacity of a single fiber thread by 1,600%. The revolution continues in 1997. At the beginning of January, NEC declared that by increasing the number of bits per hertz from one to three, it had raised the laboratory WDM record to three terabits per second. During 1996, MCI had increased the speed of its Internet backbone by a factor of 25, from 45 megabits a second to 1.2 gigabits. On January 6, Fred Briggs, chief engineering officer at MCI, announced that his company is in the process of installing new WDM equipment from Hitachi and Pirelli that increases the speed of its phone network backbone to 40 gigabits per second. Accelerating MCI's previous plans by some two years, the new system will use a more limited form of wavelength-division multiplexing to put four 10-gigabit in-cause formation streams on a single fiber thread. The first deployment will use existing facilities on a 275-mile route between Chicago and St. Louis, but the technology will be extended to the entire network. This move will consummate a nearly thousandfold upgrade of the MCI backbone, from 45 megabits per second to 40 gigabits, within some 36 months. Ciena, meanwhile, has announced technology that allows transmission of 100 gigabits per second. Its February IPO was the most important since Netscape (market cap at the end of the first trading day: $3.4 billion). Why? Ciena is the industry leader in open standard WDM gear. During the first six months the MultiWave 1600 was available, through October 1996, the firm achieved $54.8 million in sales and $15 million in net income. (Lucent is believed to be the overall leader with more than $100 million of mostly proprietary AT&T systems.) At the same time, the trans-Pacific consortium announced that it would deploy 100-gigabit-per-second fiber in its new link between the United States and Asia. A powerful new player in these markets will be Tellabs, currently the fastest-growing supplier of electronic digital cross-connect switches and other optical switching gear. In a further coup, following its purchase of broadband digital radio pioneer Steinbrecher, Tellabs has signed up all 12 principals in IBM's all-optical team. Headed by Paul Green, recent chairman of the IEEE Communications Society and author of the leading text on fiber networks, and by Rajiv Ramaswami, coauthor of a new 1997 text on the subject, the IBM group built the world's first fully functioning all-optical networks (AONs), the Rainbow series. Tellabs now owns the 11 AON patents and 100 listed technology disclosures of the group. The implications of the WDM paradigm go beyond simple data pipes. The greatest impact of all-optical technology will likely come in consumer markets. A portent is Artel Video Systems of Marlborough, Massachusetts, which recently introduced a fiber-based WDM system that can transmit 48 digital video channels, 288 CD-quality audio bitstreams, and 64 data channels on one fiber line. Aggregating contributions from a variety of content sources--each on different fiber wavelengths--and delivering them to consumers who tune into favored frequencies on conventional cable, the Artel system represents a key step into the fibersphere. It can be used for new services by either cable TV companies or telcos. The deeper significance of the Artel product, however, is its use of bandwidth as a replacement for transistors and switches. The Artel system works on dark fiber without compression. The video uses 200-megabit-per-second bitstreams (compare MPEG2 at 4 to 6 megabytes per second) that permit lossless transmissions suitable for medical imaging, and obviate dedicated processing of compression codes at the two ends. A move to massively parallel communications analogous to the move to parallel computers, all-optical networks promise nearly boundless bandwidth in fiber. According to Ewart Lowe of British Telecom, whose labs at Martlesham Heath in Ipswich have been a fount of all-optical technology, the new paradigm will reduce the cost of transport by a factor of 10. For example, the optoelectronic amplifiers previously used in fiber networks entailed nine power-hungry bipolar microchips for each wavelength, rather than a simple loop of doped silica that covers scores of wavelengths. As these systems move down through the network hierarchy, the growth of network bandwidth and cost-effectiveness will not only outpace Moore's law, it will also excel the rise in bandwidth within computers--their internal "buses" connecting their microprocessors to memory and input-output. While MCI and Sprint move to deploy technology that functions at 40 gigabits a second, current computers and workstations command buses that run at a rate of close to 1 gigabit a second. This change in the relationship between the bandwidth of networks and the bandwidth of computers will transform the architecture of information technology. As Robert Lucky of Bellcore puts it, "Perhaps we should transmit signals thousands of miles to avoid even the simplest processing function." Lucky implies that the law of the telecosm eclipses the law of the microcosm. Actually, the law of the microcosm makes distributed computers (smart terminals) more efficient regardless of the cost of linking them together. The law of the telecosm makes broadband networks more efficient regardless of how numerous and smart are the terminals. Working together, however, these two laws of wires and switches impel ever more widely distributed information systems, with processing and memory in the optimal locations. WHAT SHOULD THE MAJOR PLAYERS DO NOW? FOR THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES, the age of ever smarter terminals mandates the emergence of ever dumber networks. Telephone companies may complain of the large costs of the transformation of their system, but they command capital budgets as large as the total revenues of the cable industry. Telcos may recoil in horror at the idea of dark fiber, but they command webs of the stuff 10 times larger than any other industry. Dumb and dark networks may not fit the phone company self-image or advertising posture. But they promise larger markets than the current phone company plan to choke off their own future in the labyrinthine nets of an "intelligent switching fabric" always behind schedule and full of software bugs. Telephone switches (now 80% software) are already too complex to keep pace with the efflorescence of the Internet. While computers become ever more lean and mean, turning to reduced instruction-set processors and Java stations, networks need to adopt reduced instruction-set architectures. The ultimate in dumb and dark is the fibersphere now incubating in their magnificent laboratories. The entrepreneurial folk in the computer industry may view this wrenching phone company adjustment with some satisfaction. But computer firms must also adjust. Now addicted to the use of transistors to solve the problems of limited bandwidth, the computer industry must use transistors to exploit the nearly unlimited bandwidth. When home-based machines are optimized for manipulating high-resolution digital video at high speeds, they will necessarily command what are now called supercomputer powers. This will mean that the dominant computer technology will first emerge not in the office market but in the consumer market. The major challenge for the computer industry is to change its focus from a few hundred million offices already full of computer technology to a billion living rooms now nearly devoid of it. Cable companies possess the advantage of already owning dumb networks based on the essentials of the all-optical model of broadcast and select--of customers seeking wavelengths or frequencies rather than switching circuits. Cable companies already provide all the programs to all the terminals and allow them to tune in to the desired messages. But the cable industry cannot become a full-service supplier of telecommunications unless the regulators give up their ridiculous two-wire dream in which everyone competes with cable and no one makes any money. Cash-poor and bandwidth-rich, cable companies need to collaborate with telcos--which are cash-rich and bandwidth-poor--in a joint effort to create broadband systems in their own regions. In all eras, companies tend to prevail by maximizing the use of the cheapest resources. In the age of the fibersphere, they will use the huge intrinsic bandwidth of fiber, all 25,000 gigahertz or more, to simplify everything else. This means replacing nearly all the hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of switches, bridges, routers, converters, codecs, compressors, error correctors, and other devices, together with the trillions of lines of software code, that pervade the intelligent switching fabric of both telephone and computer networks. The makers of all this equipment will resist mightily. But there is no chance that the old regime can prevail by fighting cheap and simple optics with costly and complex electronics and software. The all-optical network will triumph for the same reason that the integrated circuit triumphed: It is incomparably cheaper than the competition. Today, measured by the admittedly rough metric of mips per dollar, a personal computer is more than 2,000 times more cost-effective than a mainframe. Within 10 years, the all-optical network will be thousands of times more cost-effective than electronic networks. Just as the electron rules in computers, the photon will rule the waves of communication. I know people would not write it..But worth a try:)