Profile

  • OpenEyesUSA
  • Member Since May 13th, 2008

Are you OpenEyesUSA? If So, Login Here.

Recent Comments:

Jobs Hiring Now: 7 Industries That Need You {AOL Jobs}

Sep 11th 2010 3:15AM While some fields of engineering MAY be growing, there are massive layoffs of engineers right now. The STIMULUS package has done NOTHING to insure the jobs of most engineers because we are in the DESIGN business and the stimulus required SHOVEL READY, meaning money did not go into engineering of FUTURE infrastructure needs.

All over the country Civil Engineers are losing their jobs...I am one of them. Been an engineer for 20 years and just got laid off, along with 7 other engineers at the firm where I worked! I also know MANY manufacturing engineers that are laid off and have been for over a year.

Engineering is NOT a field where there is a massive over-abundance of available jobs. It's more likely there is a major abundance of job seekers without jobs for them.

In addition, it's just a LIE to say the salary of engineers (especially when you mention infrastructure jobs) is over 6 figures. While there are some engineers with those kinds of salaries, that is WAY above the average for Civil Engineers...most are in the 70's-90's even with YEARS of experience.

Don't sugar coat the truth and investigate the facts better!

While Career Builder has LOTS of software engineering jobs and other IT type engineering jobs, those jobs are VERY specific in the experience they are looking for...you'd almost have to have been working for THAT VERY COMPANY to have the skill set they list in the job postings.

21-Year-Old Genius Offers Solution to the Oil Crisis {Lemondrop}

Jun 3rd 2010 3:06PM Transpower-

You are a PhD Engineer and you make such a stupid comment? I am also an engineer and I'm not going to put degrees to degrees, but some common sense is in order here.

First, the slick has ALREADY had dispersants put on it, so much that the oil is not salvagable (not meaning that they cannot centrifuge it, but that it's so contaminated and degraded that it's no longer refinable). There is NO value in the oil that is floating out there.

Second, as already pointed out, the slick will just continue to grow if the well is not capped. It is flowing freely from the ocean -- apparently the pressure of the oil in the ground is naturally greater than the pressure of the column of water that is pressing upon it (as pointed out by "Tom" earlier). If the pressure of the oil in the ground were less than the water pressure at the bottom of the sea, then the water pressure alone would prevent the oil flow. It's just like an artesian well above ground -- if you don't have a valve on the well, it just flows freely until the hole is plugged. Ever seen Old Faithful spout? The pressure of this oil flow may just be as high as that. At this pressure, this "spout" would not be easy to contain even if it were above ground, but since it is over 5000 ft below ground and most equipment (and no humans) can survive in those pressures, this is a true catastrophe.

These things SHOULD have been thought out well ahead of a well being drilled at that depth. All of the "what ifs" should have been addressed, particularly because well heads do blow (so it is a realistic "potential" event).

Second guessing now does nothing to help alleviate the problem -- we need the world's smartest thinkers to figure out how to STOP this leak.

Once this is resolved then, in the future, we might address this point -- "Just because we can, does not mean we should." This is true in all kinds of areas, including putting wells 1000's of feet deep into the ocean, genetic manipulations, extending human life beyond it's natural end....We are only beginning to realize the impact that man's arrogance may have on our own ability to survive. It's not science fiction anymore!

Breast Cancer Vaccine Shows Promise in Early Trials {AOL Health}

Jun 1st 2010 7:03PM Did any of you READ this article with any level of discernment?

Re-Read the following: "Researchers' primary concern about the new vaccine is that it might prove to be harmful to humans, according to Tuohy, but they don't anticipate any toxicity issues based on what they saw in the lab animals.

"We think it could translate very closely," he told AOL Health. "There's certainly a big jump ... but we never saw any damage to the mouse. We think it could be relatively safe."

OK- they are concerned that the vaccine might be harmful to humans, they are not "sure" about the toxicity, but "think" it will be OK, the "think" it could be "relatively" safe.

I would not sign up for this vaccine if you PAID me to, even after it is approved. I don't have familial risk factors, which puts my cancer risk well below the 1 in 8 women that develop breast cancer in their lifetime. What is the chance of developing a serious side effect? They don't know and it might even precipitate other cancers. Stopping proteins might be devastating to other metabolic functions. Our body functions through all kinds of protein synthesis.

Do not kid yourself. None of this is about finding a cure. It is about making money. And apparently, too many people are willing to be herded like cattle to get "cancer vaccines" because of the "FEAR" that has been sold regarding cancer in the first place. This will be another billion dollar boondoggle for sure. We'll only know the repercussions a generation from now -- how about all those babies that will be drinking milk from mothers who have had the vaccine? Will their children have birth defects like all the babies born in the 60's to mothers who took that anti-miscarriage drug or maybe it was a drug to dry up their milk? I don't remember which. Medical science did not figure out the link for that until the children of these women were of child-bearing age themselves! Then, the dangerous drug got pulled off the market.

THINK - we cannot be in such a hurry to accept ANY possible hope in the fight against cancer. Clean up your diet, eat less sugar and refined carbs - lose weight so that you are in the healthy range for body fat. Doing this alone will greatly reduce your risk of getting any type of cancer. Obesity raises the risk tremendously. Now, that is a preventive that I can wrap my head around!

Dennis Quaid Sues Drugmaker Over His Babies' Overdoses {ParentDish}

May 25th 2010 5:18PM Not really someone trying to get something for nothing. My Aunt died from a heparin overdose caused by this same labeling problem (also in a Los Angeles hospital -- it might have even been the same hospital where Dennis' children were treated).

Yes, the nurse should read the labels more carefully, but in the hospital environment, I can see how easily this could happen. NO reason at all that the labels are not obviously different -- like different colors, so that a mix up is not EASY!

My Uncle was advised by medical personnel, that he should sue. He didn't want to because nothing would bring his wife back and he didn't need the money. He was told that the point of the suit was punitive, so that the error would not recur. He ended up winning the suit, but nothing changed. The money was not enough to make anyone in the hospital administration change SOPs (or at least it didn't bring it to the attention of any other hospitals so this wouldn't happen again) and certainly the drug maker was not held culpable. This is frustrating because the family hoped that a lawsuit would prevent this tragedy from occurring in another family.

If these changes had been made after my Aunt's overdose, then Dennis Quaid and his family never would have had to suffer. SOOOO...do you think Dennis should be quiet and just let this continue to happen to other people? BECAUSE he is famous this issue has FINALLY gotten the attention it deserves. No one else needs to die because of a labeling issue and if the manufacturer is so callous that they know this happens (over and over again, it has occurred) and they do nothing, then they should be culpable. This is NOT a one time thing.

I would be surprised if Dennis really cares about the money. He is using whatever he can to force the manufacturer to make important safety changes in their labeling. Just bringing the story into the public light when it occurred should have been enough.

Woman Calls Off Wedding, but Won't Give Up $17,000 Ring {Lemondrop}

May 4th 2010 3:39PM It's just a ring, albeit a very expensive one...move on and grow up. This guy is right in wanting the ring back, in my opinion, regardless of the circumstances under which the ring was offered (and regardless of it's price). An engagement ring is always offered as a question (that's why they call it a "proposal") whether it is given on a traditional gift-giving occasion or not. If you accept it, you are saying yes to the question...not "thank you for the gift and I will think about that and let you know".

Years ago I broke off an engagement and returned the ring. I had received the ring as a "gift" on Valentine's Day. I accepted it, with some misgivings that I did not communicate. Due to some volatile outbursts from him after the engagement, I decided my doubts were correct and my safety was more important than keeping my promise. He wanted me to keep the ring, saying it was his gift to me. I preferred to return it to him as it had no real meaning to me anymore and I knew he could return it to where he bought it, for credit towards a purchase of 50% more value (that's the return policy at many major jewelers on engagement rings).

About a year later, my sister ran into his new girlfriend whom she knew. The girlfriend proudly showed off her new engagement ring. My sister was surprised to see that it was "my" ring. The girlfriend, now wife of 20 years, does not know "her" ring was bought for anyone besides her. She thinks it was picked out specially for her and she was so proud of him for doing that (I wear a size 4.5 ring and fortunately he was smart enough to at least have it sized up to a 7 for her!).

My opinion - Any woman with dignity will return an engagement ring if the marriage does not occur. What he does with the ring after that is his decision, whether you think it's strange or not. My ex said it was a financial decision. He thought spending more on a ring, when he already owned a perfectly acceptable 1 ct. ring was just financially stupid. More power to him if that works for him!



House in foreclosure? Set it on fire! {WalletPop}

May 13th 2008 2:48PM Some people have NO conscience. And to think that they will risk going to jail too. With their financial problems, this is certainly not going to solve anything. The piper has come calling for those living a "borrowed" standard of living and it is time to pay up. Instead of making more bad decisions, people need to just buck up. No pity here.