Bill R wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
symplastless wrote:

No one has answered by original question yet. The two
suggestions,
thank you, were not the correct answer. I would like to make a
short
cut to turn off a computer with vista rather than that little
button
at the far lower right corner of the start menu. Anybody have a
clue?


Hold down the button on the front of the computer for five seconds.


That is an extremely bad suggestion.

The moron wouldn't listen to any of the good ones. If he didn't like
that one I was going to suggest that he shoot it.

Vista is always doing something
in
the background and not going through the proper shutdown procedure
could
result in corrupt files and/or lost data.

This site:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2006/1...lick-shortcut/
has some information on creating a shortcut to shutdown Vista.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

enigma wrote:
Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in
:

Vista has been out for a year now and I had waited 6 months
before buying a new computer with it. There were a lot of
software conversion problems and driver updatings but now
system works great and I prefer to XP pro on older computer
that I still use.

well, you bought it on new hardware, so presumably it has
enough ooomph to run the bloatware. i'm sure tyou wouldn't be
so charmed if you were trying to run it on your older
computer.
but still, what programs are you running on it & did they
also come on the new computer or are they programs you
purchased before you bought the Vista computer? does Vista run
games & if so, which ones?
my uses for a computer are graphics design (Windows sucks),
games (Windows is passable) & email/usenet (Linux is better).
in what way would a Vista "upgrade" help me, who detests
bloatware?

lee

Upgrading an old computer to Vista is not a wise thing to do.

--

Travis in Shoreline Washington

symplastless wrote:
No one has answered by original question yet. The two suggestions, thank
you, were not the correct answer. I would like to make a short cut to turn
off a computer with vista rather than that little button at the far lower
right corner of the start menu. Anybody have a clue?


Push the power button on the computer and hold it in until it shuts down.

--

Travis in Shoreline Washington

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:29:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...onsbox1&sub=AR


I didn't have to read the whole article because I've been saying this
same thing for years now. You go into a theater waiting for the show
to start and people are so dependant on constant stimulation they are
either on their phones, playing on their phones, watching television
on their phones, typing on their phones, surfing the web on their
phones, or talking incessantly. There is virtually no down time, yet,
there is not much production either. It's a vast wasteland of
business and motor movements which do not really require the skills of
self entertainment. Mostly mindless blather provided to the XBox land
of killing images and sexually inappropriate ideas.

When I was a kid, an only child, I'd play for hours and hours alone
with my Give A Show Projector, Barbie dolls with home made (by me)
houses or accessories. Now you go buy Barbie Hummers and houses. I
played with tinker toys, erector sets, Etch a Sketch, and my favorite
Flintstone Building Blocks.

When it snowed we'd be out in it from morning till night, frozen.
We'd build forts, and snowmen and run around in it, throw snowballs at
everything, laugh and play. Mindless playing with actual fun. Today
kids have so much stress being busy doing nothing they need
medications to keep their legs from moving at night! I know someone
who couldn't stand their son moving his leg from nervousness, so they
finally got their ADD diagnosis and put him on Ritalin (sp?) and as a
side effect he stopped growing. His teeth couldn't fit in his stunted
mouth and he needed to wear this incredibly disgusting stretching
device. Still, he is only about a bear five foot and by now he is
about 14 or so? I left that friend in the dust for all sorts of
reasons, but mainly for being a lunatic.

Oh, then there were very long days in summer when we'd ride our bikes
which had foot brakes and no gears for hours and hours. Our parents
had to drag us inside when it got dark around nine thirty at night.
Those were the days when parents actually did things with kids. We'd
go to the fireworks every Tuesday night at Coney Island and have a
Nathan's hot dog, go on the Bobsled ride and ride the horses around
the track at Steeplechase (long gone now).

So, I don't need an article to see how far down this country has gone
and what is being produced in our sorely lacking elementary school
systems and the rates they pay teachers is so retched nobody of any
mind is taking a teaching position that fast any more. It used to be
a great job. No more. Sad really.

None of this applies to those of you who are actively involved in your
children's' lives. I applaud anyone who even has kids these days.

Victoria

Pretty much same/similar experiences here. No, not a Barbie doll guy.

My perception is that children are guided by their peers, not their parents.
TV and their peers require certain stuff for children to be fulfilled, if
you will. Thereby, deem it a necessity. Their parents consent to all the
accessories you mention, plus others not mentioned. Thus, the child's peers
guide their parents.


Parents should actively guide their children. Spending alot of time with
them playing video games, watching the latest DVD or pay-for movie, and such
is not active involvement. Not saying you intended to communicate contrary
to that, but, that others do not perceive that notion.

Having a child is a result of performing a bodily function. Promoted by
hormones and personal perceptions of the partner. Then, as now, teens still
get pregnant, and have children. I would hardly applaud that.
Dave

No. Its a question that comes up from time to time on every windows system.
The user doesn't want to "waste" time clicking the double sequence of icons
to effect a shutdown of the PC. One double click on a desktop icon shortcut
is what he's asking for. And, to boot, he's asking for someone else.

Anal, yes. Users still ask for it from time to time irregardless.

--
Dave
"Not@home" wrote in message
news
Vista has a help section that would give pertinent information if you
looked there.

Basically, the system comes with the start button configured to put the
system in the sleep mode; if you want the button to do a complete
shutdown, you reconfigure it as the help section describes. I rather
prefer the sleep mode, as it saves what you were doing and facilitates
restarting. I only shut down the pc completely when I will not be using
it for a day or longer.

symplastless wrote:
I am just starting with Windows Vista. When shutting down I go to the
start menu and down in the far left corner is a little itty bitty button
that if I tag it with the pointer a menu comes up which allow me to shut
down the computer. Is there not a larger button or another way to shut
down the computer. I am trying to teach a client how to use her new
computer. Thanks in advance.

Travis wrote:
symplastless wrote:
No one has answered by original question yet. The two suggestions,
thank you, were not the correct answer. I would like to make a
short cut to turn off a computer with vista rather than that little
button at the far lower right corner of the start menu. Anybody
have a clue?


Push the power button on the computer and hold it in until it shuts
down.

Actually, under Vista a quick tap of it should do an orderly shutdown.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Jangchub wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:57:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


The kid will likely have a growth spurt shortly--they discovered a
while back that one of the side effects of ADHD is that the teenage
growth spurt is delayed, regardless of whether the kid is
medicated.
OTOH, Ritalin wouldn't be the right med for moving legs at night,
which is called "Restless Leg Syndrome" and which among others
Ingmar
Bergman had (no cite--saw him say it to Dick Cavett in an
interview)--he was Swedish and this would have been the '60s or
early
'70s and he apparently had had it for a long time, so I don't think
that one can blame it on anything unique to modern Amercan society.
In any case stimulants are not normally used for its treatment.

Possibly. Not definitely. RLS is not what I was talking about,
though RLS doesn't need a drug either. We use too many friggin
drugs
for everything. Try meditation and relaxation techniques. People
have turn into neurotics.

As a person with ADHD I've _tried_ "meditation and relaxation
techniques". Doesn't work. Too much noise inside the head. "Quiet
it" you say. HOW?

The movement of the legs I'm talking about are when he's on the
couch
and his leg jiggled as he watched television. A jiggling leg on a
kid
is not something which needs medication.

I agree with you there.

Teaching has never been "a great job". Them as can, do; them as
can't, teach. And the pay in Connecticut is hardly "wretched". at
an average of 56K a year. Is New York that much lower?

None of this applies to those of you who are actively involved in
your
children's' lives. I applaud anyone who even has kids these days.

--

Teachers make similar salaries in NY Metro area. Do you know the
cost
of a house in the NY Metro area? I have a friend who teaches SE and
has for three decades. She makes 90,000 dollars a year and scrapes
by
with three kids and a working husband on Long Island. I live in
Texas
for the last 14 years where teachers make barely 25,000 and they
spend
on average 500 dollars a year for supplies in their rooms which are
not supplied by the school. They do it to make their job easier.

So how does that 90K compare with other occupations in the area?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Jangchub" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:04:16 -0600, "Dioclese" NONE wrote:


Pretty much same/similar experiences here. No, not a Barbie doll guy.

I'm a girl. I loved Barbie.

My perception is that children are guided by their peers, not their
parents.
TV and their peers require certain stuff for children to be fulfilled, if
you will. Thereby, deem it a necessity. Their parents consent to all the
accessories you mention, plus others not mentioned. Thus, the child's
peers
guide their parents.

Whose fault is that, the peers?

My thinking is its the parents again...


Parents should actively guide their children. Spending alot of time with
them playing video games, watching the latest DVD or pay-for movie, and
such
is not active involvement. Not saying you intended to communicate
contrary
to that, but, that others do not perceive that notion.

If I inferred it, it certainly was not my intention and by your reply
I think you know what I was getting at. However, the same dullards
will once again pound the doors down next Christmas to buy the latest
600 xbox and the kids suffer.


2 of my grandsons fall in that category. Have 5 grandchildren. My former
son-in-law, their father, is more like a play partner and friend to those
boys. They are spoiled rotten by my daughter and him regarding the latest
toys, gadgets, first run movies every 2 weeks at the theatre, and yes, they
went to Disneyland 2 years ago. This occurred during their marriage and
afterwards. They barely made ends meet financially in both situations. The
2 boys demanded an Xbox 360 per their own research and peers. They got it
last Christmas from my daughter. Between the 2 of the boys, they have 2
playstations, a PSP, and the prior version of Xbox as well. The older
grandson got his own cell phone of course as well.


Having a child is a result of performing a bodily function. Promoted by
hormones and personal perceptions of the partner. Then, as now, teens
still
get pregnant, and have children. I would hardly applaud that.
Dave

I wasn't talking about teens.

Am glad.

Dave

Jangchub wrote in
:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:04:16 -0600, "Dioclese" NONE
wrote:


Pretty much same/similar experiences here. No, not a
Barbie doll guy.

I'm a girl. I loved Barbie.

i'm a girl. i hated dolls, Barbie in particular. but that
irrelevant
i agree that we played outside most of the time, but then, so
does my kid. i tend to shock a lot of parents. my son is 7. he's
quite "busy", as in scatterbrained & all over the place. running
around outside, building forts & climbing trees are great
outlets for all that energy.
i booted him out the door to play alone at around 18 months old
(he was walking at 6 months & climbing trees at 13 months). i
gave him verbal boundries of where he was allowed to play, so
that he would always be visible from a window, & let him go.
pampering kids isn't doing them a favor.
last summer he 'earned' the privilege of going to play at the
pond by himself. this summer he wants to learn whittling &
carving, so he's working on more self-control (oh my god! you
aren't thinking of giving a 7 year old a knife, are you?!).

My perception is that children are guided by their peers,
not their parents. TV and their peers require certain stuff
for children to be fulfilled, if you will. Thereby, deem
it a necessity. Their parents consent to all the
accessories you mention, plus others not mentioned. Thus,
the child's peers guide their parents.

Whose fault is that, the peers?

of course not. many parents are either spineless, or trying to
relive their childhoods vicariously through their kids. neither
is good for the kids.
of course, sitting inside playing mindless video games or
futzing on myspace isn't healthy either, especially if it's
unlimited or unsupervised.
BTW, peer influence isn't really a big thing under age 10 or
so, & hopefully by then the parents have instilled *some* values
into a kid...

Parents should actively guide their children. Spending
alot of time with them playing video games, watching the
latest DVD or pay-for movie, and such is not active
involvement. Not saying you intended to communicate
contrary to that, but, that others do not perceive that
notion.

If I inferred it, it certainly was not my intention and by
your reply I think you know what I was getting at.
However, the same dullards will once again pound the doors
down next Christmas to buy the latest 600 xbox and the kids
suffer.

it's only nominally for the kids, as i said...
lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

Jangchub wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 08:28:58 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

As a person with ADHD I've _tried_ "meditation and relaxation
techniques". Doesn't work. Too much noise inside the head. "Quiet
it" you say. HOW?

How long a period did you meditate and what was the duration of each
session?

As long as I could sit still without developing an urge to kill
something.

What did you meditate on and which technique did you use?

Whatever was before me at the time and when I was doing it there
wasn't discussion of "techniques", you just did it. At least those
around me were doing it. I was struggling to stay sane.

Meditation takes committment and practice over the long haul. It
doesn't work after several times. Calming the mind has been
achieved
by Buddhists for thousands of years. If you told a Tibetan they had
ADHD they'd laugh hysterically with wonder at what you were talking
about. The mind also can quiet when people don't have over
stimulation, which I described in my first post.

Perhaps no Tibetan suffers from ADHD. There is a small body of
evidence that suggests that it is hereditary.

You say that "calming the mind has been achieved by Buddhists for
thousands of years". While I am certain that that is true for _some_
Buddhists are you saying that all Buddhists everywhere have achieved
it?

I'm sorry, but saying that some technique is going to work for a
person with a neurological disorder because it has worked for others
who do not have that disorder is kind of pointless.

With regard to "over stimulation", I lived out in the sticks and my
folks didn't even have a radio, so where did I get this
"overstimulation"?

You really don't seem to know much about ADHD.

So how does that 90K compare with other occupations in the area?

A police officer makes about 70,000 a electronics solderer makes
about
35 to 40. Special Ed is paid at a much higher rate than teaching
students without special needs. Teachers do not make 90k in New
York.
Nurses make about 65 with a 10-15,000 dollar signing bonus. It's
all
screwey.

So it sounds like it was pretty good pay.

You can't buy a house on Long Island or anywhere downstate for that
matter without a minimum of a 20 percent down payment in cash. Even
then, they will opt for you to take a mortgage up to 110 percent of
the loan to help with the almost 15,000 in closing fees. It's
insane.
Add that to a car payment, 3.50 for a gallon of gas to sit in a
parking lot to and from work for hours in many cases and there, you
have not much left for anything.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)