Taking Care of a 'Hairy' Situation

Taking Care of a 'Hairy' Situation - It's funny how something so natural and universal can lead to so much discussion and opinion: why we have it; what we should do with it; why we even care -- all seem to be topics of discussion. The thing is, it’s not exactly appropriate dinner conversation.

Over the years, its style has certainly changed -- in the 1970s, it was cool for a woman to have ‘unkempt’ hair down there; today, she would never go on a date without waxing first (or at least shaving). These days, even men are known to trim things up in that area.

It can be hard to discuss even with your partner, let alone friends or family. Still the questions remain. So, here’s a little insight when it comes to five of the most commonly asked questions regarding pubic hair.

1. Why do we have it?

Even the experts can’t agree on this one. Warmth? Maybe. But then it would make sense for it to be on the shaft of the penis. To trap pheromones? Perhaps. But even without it, the pheromones still manage to do their job. To keep germs out? Could be. But then it should probably be present at the tip of the penis too. Evolution is a funny thing. Maybe we did need it at one time. But these days, no one has proved it to be a necessity.

2. Why do some choose to leave it be?

Some people prefer the natural look and feel, and there’s not a thing wrong with that. It’s certainly easier, of course, as it doesn’t require the maintenance and care that trimming, shaving and waxing do. Folks who prefer this look and feel often say that anything else seems fake -- or even bizarre. Some people take particular issue with the complete removal of the hair, as it leaves the person looking, to their mind, pre-pubescent. Followers also often say that the natural look adds to a natural musk of sorts that can develop when the hair is there, something that people either love or hate. But, the truth of the matter is, it’s all about personal preference.

3. Why do others choose to trim, shave or wax it?

One reason to trim, shave or wax some or all of the hair is purely for aesthetic reasons. There are men and women alike who simply prefer a manicured look. Some argue that this preference is based on pornography, which often portrays this look. But that’s really a question of whether life imitates art or art imitates life, you know? But, regardless of the impetus, tending the hedges has simply become part of our culture, just as it is not a part of other cultures throughout the world.

Of course, looks are not the only reason the bare or nearly bare look has garnered popularity. It’s also because it allows direct access to one’s naughty bits both for solo and partner play. A tongue, a touch, or a toy on bare skin creates a much different -- and many argue far better -- sensation than one that results when the natural look is sported. Some women say they really enjoy how it feels during the day to be bare, saying it makes them feel sexier and experience more sensation that inspires a desire for even more sensation when they get home. (If you get my drift).

Some also suggest that a man’s “package” appears larger when it is free of hair…

4. How do I tell my partner I'd like him or her to try a new ‘do’ or that I'd like to try something new myself?

It can be tough to talk to your partner about wanting to change the look of your personal ‘do’ or wanting them to change theirs. The key is to come at it from a place of “I” and to assure your partner that it has nothing at all to do with how much you love them and being intimate with them. It’s simply something you’d like to explore.

Here are some suggestions:

• “Honey, I would like to get a Brazilian wax. I love having sex with you and I’m curious what it would be like if you could see and feel me without distraction.”
• “Sweetheart, I was wondering if you’ve ever considered trimming, shaving or waxing your nether regions. I think it could be really sexy. And even if either or both of us don’t end up preferring it, it certainly would be a fun experiment!”

The point is to keep the conversation light and assure that it really is just about something as simple as hair and not about control or other deeper issues.

5. So, what are the options?

The sky’s the limit, my friends. Some people simply tidy things up. Others wax it bare. Some people take care of business themselves. Others go to spas or salons that will take care of the dirty work. Women sometimes leave a small patch of hair in a shape as simple as a triangle or a thin line. (The latter of which is commonly called a Brazilian). Others get various designs shaved into their pubic hair.

Believe it or not, there are even dyes made specifically for pubic hair. Do not, however, use bleach or any product designed for the hair on your head.

You can even decorate around the hair or where the hair once was with a practice called Vajazzling, where crystals in various designs are glued to the skin.

The bottom line is this -- it’s yours, it grows back; and no one has to see it but you and those you choose to show it to. So, there’s no reason not to do whatever turns you on. Besides, what a fun and sexy little way to express yourself and a great secret to carry with you and keep you feeling in the mood! ( foxnews.com )

READ MORE - Taking Care of a 'Hairy' Situation

Designer clothes can help you bag a better job

Designer clothes can help you bag a better job - They may burn a bigger hole in your wallet – but designer clothes are a sound investment, a study suggests.

Wearing well-known brand labels makes you appear wealthier, more worthy of respect and can even help you bag a better job, the research found.

In one test, women who wore a well-known brand on their polo shirt were given almost twice as much money when they solicited for charity than when they wore non-designer outfits.

Interview: Wearing branded clothes not only increased a man's chances of being judged suitable for a job but even increased his salary

In another, wearing branded clothes not only increased a man’s chances of being judged suitable for a job, but even increased the salary those surveyed would offer him by 9 per cent.

The study, at Tilburg University, in the Netherlands, involved four experiments. They tested reactions to well-known brands when judging status and wealth, responding to an invitation to take part in a survey, assessing a potential employee and being asked to give to charity.

Researchers Dr Rob Nelissen and Dr Marijn Meijers said humans are failing to see beyond the surface and that we are being sucked in by advertising for designer brands. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Designer clothes can help you bag a better job

Why No Nukes? The Real Cost of U.S. Nuclear Power

Why No Nukes? The Real Cost of U.S. Nuclear Power - The chaos at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant — explosions, fires, ruptures — has not shaken the bipartisan support in partisan Washington for the U.S.'s so-called nuclear renaissance. Republicans have dismissed Japan's crisis as a once-in-a-lifetime fluke. President Obama has defended atomic energy as a carbon-free source of power, resisting calls to halt the renaissance and freeze construction of the U.S.'s first new reactors in over three decades.

But there is no renaissance.

Even before the earthquake-tsunami one-two punch, the endlessly hyped U.S. nuclear revival was stumbling, pummeled by skyrocketing costs, stagnant demand and skittish investors, not to mention the defeat of restrictions on carbon that could have mitigated nuclear energy's economic insanity. Obama has offered unprecedented aid to an industry that already enjoyed cradle-to-grave subsidies, and the antispending GOP has clamored for even more largesse. But Wall Street hates nukes as much as K Street loves them, which is why there's no new reactor construction to freeze. Once hailed as "too cheap to meter," nuclear fission turns out to be an outlandishly expensive method of generating juice for our Xboxes.

Paulo Fridman/Corbis; Pallava Bagla/Corbis; AFP/Getty; Getty

Since 2008, proposed reactors have been quietly scrapped or suspended in at least nine states — not by safety concerns or hippie sit-ins but by financial realities. Other projects have been delayed as cost estimates have tripled toward $10 billion a reactor, and ratings agencies have downgraded utilities with atomic ambitions. Nuclear Energy Institute vice president Richard Myers notes that the "unrealistic" renaissance hype has come from the industry's friends, not the industry itself. "Even before this happened, short-term market conditions were bleak," he tells TIME.

Around the world, governments (led by China, with Russia a distant second) are financing 65 new reactors through more explicit nuclear socialism. But private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill.

In fact, the economic and safety problems associated with nuclear energy are not unrelated. Trying to avoid flukes like Fukushima Daiichi is remarkably costly. And trying to avoid those costs can lead to flukes.

The False Dawn

In 1972 a federal safety regulator, worried that GE's Mark 1 reactors would fail in an emergency, urged a ban on containment designs that used "pressure suppression." His boss was sympathetic but wrote in a memo that "reversal of this hallowed policy, particularly at this time, could well be the end of nuclear power" and "would generally create more turmoil than I can stand thinking about." Four decades after this bureaucratic pressure suppression, Fukushima Daiichi's Mark 1 reactors seem to have failed as predicted. And while newer reactors don't have those problems, 23 Mark 1 reactors still operate in the U.S., including a Vermont plant that was relicensed for 20 more years the day before the disaster in Japan.

When Karl Marx, who would have appreciated nuclear economics, wrote that history unfolds first as tragedy, then as farce, he got U.S. nuclear history backward. America's initial experiment was a cartoonish disaster, with construction timelines doubling and costs increasing as much as 1,000% even before the Three Mile Island meltdown. In the 1980s, the industry required bailouts before bailouts were cool. But the U.S. industry has matured and learned from its mistakes. It still runs the world's largest nuclear portfolio, and it hasn't had a serious accident since 1979. Meanwhile, global-warming fears have positioned nuclear power as a proven alternative to fossil fuels that works even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing, producing 20% of our electricity and 0% of our emissions. No-nukes outrage has burned out, with a recent poll registering 71% support.

The result has been an extraordinary political coalition. Right-wingers who don't accept climate science and didn't even want the word french in their fries now wax lyrical about French reactors that reduce French emissions. Left-wingers who used to bemoan the industry's radioactive waste and corporate welfare now embrace it as an earth saver. So Congress has approved lucrative subsidies for construction, production, waste disposal, liability insurance and just about every other nuclear cost. It also approved "risk insurance" to compensate utilities for regulatory delays, even as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has worked closely with the industry to streamline its licensing process. And nuke-friendly states have required ratepayers to front the costs of any new construction — even if the reactors are never turned on.

Nevertheless, investors refuse to bet on nukes. The steady increases in electricity demand that were supposed to justify new reactors have been wiped out by the global recession, and energy-efficiency advances could keep demand flat. Natural gas prices have plummeted, Congress appears unlikely to put a price on carbon, and the U.S. still lacks a plan for nuclear waste. It also turns out that building safe places to smash atoms is hard, especially after such a long hiatus. The U.S. has lost most of its nuclear manufacturing capacity; it would have to import Japanese steel forgings and other massive components, while training a new generation of nuclear workers. And though industry lobbyists have persuaded the NRC to ease onerous regulations governing everything from fire safety to cooling systems, it's still incredibly tough to get a reactor built.

New nukes would still make sense if they were truly needed to save the planet. But as a Brattle Group paper noted last month, additional reactors "cannot be expected to contribute significantly to U.S. carbon emission reduction goals prior to 2030." By contrast, investments in more-efficient buildings and factories can reduce demand now, at a tenth the cost of new nuclear supply. Replacing carbon-belching coal with cleaner gas, emissions-free wind and even utility-scale solar will also be cheaper and faster than new nukes. It's true that major infusions of intermittent wind and solar power would stress the grid, but that's a reason to upgrade the grid, not to waste time and money on reactors.

Anyway, there aren't many utilities that can carry a nuclear project on their balance sheets, which is why Obama's Energy Department, a year after awarding its first $8 billion loan guarantee in Georgia, is still sitting on an additional $10 billion. A Maryland project evaporated before closing, and a Texas project fell apart when costs spiraled and a local utility withdrew. The deal was supposed to be salvaged with financing from a foreign utility, but that now seems unlikely.

The utility was Tokyo Electric.

Another Perfect Storm

Pundits keep saying the mess in Japan will change the debate in the U.S., but the BP and Massey disasters didn't change the debates over oil drilling and coal mining. And the nuclear debate seems particularly impervious to facts. Obama wants to triple funding for the already undersubscribed loan guarantees, but Republicans still accuse him of insufficient nuclear fervor. So don't expect the U.S. to copy German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who just shut down seven aging plants. GOP Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has already rejected the idea of "a nuclear problem," suggesting that "once in 300 years, a disaster occurs." That's true if you don't count Chernobyl and you're sure nothing will happen for the next 250 years.

The industry's defenders may ignore Fukushima Daiichi, but the industry will not. It's serious about public safety, and meltdowns are bad for business; no company wants to lose a $10 billion reactor overnight. But additional safety measures cost money: in 2003 industry lobbyists beat back an NRC committee's recommendation for new backup-power rules that were designed to prevent the hydrogen explosions that are now all over the news.

It may sound unrealistic to require plants to withstand a vicious earthquake and a 25-ft. tsunami, but nobody's forcing utilities to generate power with uranium. One lesson of the past decade, in finance as well as nature, is that perfect storms do happen. When nukes are involved, the fallout can be literal, not just political. ( time.com )

READ MORE - Why No Nukes? The Real Cost of U.S. Nuclear Power

Why Preschool Shouldn't Be Like School

Why Preschool Shouldn't Be Like School - New research shows that teaching kids more and more, at ever-younger ages, may backfire.

Ours is an age of pedagogy. Anxious parents instruct their children more and more, at younger and younger ages, until they're reading books to babies in the womb. They pressure teachers to make kindergartens and nurseries more like schools. So does the law—the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act explicitly urged more direct instruction in federally funded preschools.

There are skeptics, of course, including some parents, many preschool teachers, and even a few policy-makers. Shouldn't very young children be allowed to explore, inquire, play, and discover, they ask? Perhaps direct instruction can help children learn specific facts and skills, but what about curiosity and creativity—abilities that are even more important for learning in the long run? Two forthcoming studies in the journal Cognition—one from a lab at MIT and one from my lab at UC-Berkeley—suggest that the doubters are on to something. While learning from a teacher may help children get to a specific answer more quickly, it also makes them less likely to discover new information about a problem and to create a new and unexpected solution.

What do we already know about how teaching affects learning? Not as much as we would like, unfortunately, because it is a very difficult thing to study. You might try to compare different kinds of schools. But the children and the teachers at a Marin County preschool that encourages exploration will be very different from the children and teachers in a direct instruction program in South Side Chicago. And almost any new program with enthusiastic teachers will have good effects, at least to begin with, regardless of content. So comparisons are difficult. Besides, how do you measure learning, anyway? Almost by definition, directed teaching will make children do better on standardized tests, which the government uses to evaluate school performance. Curiosity and creativity are harder to measure.

Developmental scientists like me explore the basic science of learning by designing controlled experiments. We might start by saying: Suppose we gave a group of 4-year-olds exactly the same problems and only varied on whether we taught them directly or encouraged them to figure it out for themselves? Would they learn different things and develop different solutions? The two new studies in Cognition are the first to systematically show that they would.

In the first study, MIT professor Laura Schulz, her graduate student Elizabeth Bonawitz, and their colleagues looked at how 4-year-olds learned about a new toy with four tubes. Each tube could do something interesting: If you pulled on one tube it squeaked, if you looked inside another tube you found a hidden mirror, and so on. For one group of children, the experimenter said: "I just found this toy!" As she brought out the toy, she pulled the first tube, as if by accident, and it squeaked. She acted surprised ("Huh! Did you see that? Let me try to do that!") and pulled the tube again to make it squeak a second time. With the other children, the experimenter acted more like a teacher. She said, "I'm going to show you how my toy works. Watch this!" and deliberately made the tube squeak. Then she left both groups of children alone to play with the toy.

All of the children pulled the first tube to make it squeak. The question was whether they would also learn about the other things the toy could do. The children from the first group played with the toy longer and discovered more of its "hidden" features than those in the second group. In other words, direct instruction made the children less curious and less likely to discover new information.

Does direct teaching also make children less likely to draw new conclusions—or, put another way, does it make them less creative? To answer this question, Daphna Buchsbaum, Tom Griffiths, Patrick Shafto, and I gave another group of 4-year-old children a new toy.* This time, though, we demonstrated sequences of three actions on the toy, some of which caused the toy to play music, some of which did not. For example, Daphna might start by squishing the toy, then pressing a pad on its top, then pulling a ring on its side, at which point the toy would play music. Then she might try a different series of three actions, and it would play music again. Not every sequence she demonstrated worked, however: Only the ones that ended with the same two actions made the music play. After showing the children five successful sequences interspersed with four unsuccessful ones, she gave them the toy and told them to "make it go."

Daphna ran through the same nine sequences with all the children, but with one group, she acted as if she were clueless about the toy. ("Wow, look at this toy. I wonder how it works? Let's try this," she said.) With the other group, she acted like a teacher. ("Here's how my toy works.") When she acted clueless, many of the children figured out the most intelligent way of getting the toy to play music (performing just the two key actions, something Daphna had not demonstrated). But when Daphna acted like a teacher, the children imitated her exactly, rather than discovering the more intelligent and more novel two-action solution.

As so often happens in science, two studies from different labs, using different techniques, have simultaneously produced strikingly similar results. They provide scientific support for the intuitions many teachers have had all along: Direct instruction really can limit young children's learning. Teaching is a very effective way to get children to learn something specific—this tube squeaks, say, or a squish then a press then a pull causes the music to play. But it also makes children less likely to discover unexpected information and to draw unexpected conclusions.

Why might children behave this way? Adults often assume that most learning is the result of teaching and that exploratory, spontaneous learning is unusual. But actually, spontaneous learning is more fundamental. It's this kind of learning, in fact, that allows kids to learn from teachers in the first place. Patrick Shafto, a machine-learning specialist at the University of Louisville and a co-author of both these studies; Noah Goodman at Stanford; and their colleagues have explored how we could design computers that learn about the world as effectively as young children do. It's this work that inspired these experiments.

These experts in machine learning argue that learning from teachers first requires you to learn about teachers. For example, if you know how teachers work, you tend to assume that they are trying to be informative. When the teacher in the tube-toy experiment doesn't go looking for hidden features inside the tubes, the learner unconsciously thinks: "She's a teacher. If there were something interesting in there, she would have showed it to me." These assumptions lead children to narrow in, and to consider just the specific information a teacher provides. Without a teacher present, children look for a much wider range of information and consider a greater range of options.

Knowing what to expect from a teacher is a really good thing, of course: It lets you get the right answers more quickly than you would otherwise. Indeed, these studies show that 4-year-olds understand how teaching works and can learn from teachers. But there is an intrinsic trade-off between that kind of learning and the more wide-ranging learning that is so natural for young children. Knowing this, it's more important than ever to give children's remarkable, spontaneous learning abilities free rein. That means a rich, stable, and safe world, with affectionate and supportive grown-ups, and lots of opportunities for exploration and play. Not school for babies. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - Why Preschool Shouldn't Be Like School

Take years off your face

Take years off your face - Our skin is a mirror of our inner health and well-being. The right diet, combined with the right exercise and a simple beauty routine does wonders to the way we look and feel every day.

The skin has a dual role of protection (from foreign, toxic substances) and the transfer point (for the release of toxins from our bodies becomes) and in the process it tires out when there is a work overload. It then craves a little more care than just the regular cleansing-toning-moisturising routine.

This is where facials come in: a deep and thorough cleansing procedure that is known to remove impurities embedded within the pores while replenishing essential nutrients to the skin!

Why facials are so good

Research reveals facials come with several benefits, both physical and psychological. "Facials counteract the effects of pollutants and sun exposure, helping cleanse, rehydrate and rejuvenate skin.

They can also be used as a mild treatment to take care of skin blemishes, dead skin and early wrinkles. It's best to start them at 25, when the skin begins to undergo its first round of wear and tear. Regular facials also ensure better penetration of anti-ageing skincare products," explains Mumbai-based dermatologist Dr Apratim Goel.

According to beauty expert, Shahnaz Hussain, one of the pioneers of facials in India, "Facials help maintain the oil-moisture balance of the skin, along with the acid-alkali balance. And since facials aid in the toning of both skin and muscles, it also doubles up as an effective anti-ager, when done on a regular basis, ideally once every month beyond the age of 30. Besides, it helps relax every muscle on the face and neck, bringing about a soothing effect." Every facial follows a few basic steps, each of which comes with individual benefits.

Deep cleansing and toning: The skin is deeply and thoroughly cleaned with a gentle cleanser to remove impurities and pollutants thereby improving blood circulation to the face almost immediately. This also helps products penetrate the skin faster, during the facial as well as later. Toning on the other hand aids in faster cell renewal preserving firmness and elasticity of the skin.

Exfoliation: Exfoliation with specific products (depending on the facial one opts for) boosts renewal of skin cells, making skin appear brighter and more translucent. This is mostly done with anti-oxidant creams used to help prevent free radical damage. This apart, it also helps remove blackheads significantly opening the clogged pores and allowing skin to breathe.

Massage: The most relaxing part of a facial, the gentle and rhythmic strokes relaxes muscles, thus increasing blood circulation, which in turn aids the removal of toxins and waste from the body and delays the onset of wrinkles.

Face masks: Available in various types such as firming, whitening, Vitamin C, etc., they are known to remove oiliness, shrink pores and add moisture to the skin, lending it a translucent feel. Herbal masks, on the other hand, improve cell renewal signficantly.

Choose your own beauty routine
With a flurry of options, it is important you choose your facials with care for maximum benefits.

Extremely sensitive/Acne-Prone Skin: "Facials are best avoided for people with very sensitive skin, acne or very oily skin or those with skin conditions such as rosacea. Clean-ups work best for such skin types which comes with the benefits of a facial, but reduced massage time, which is considered harmful for those with such skin types. Scrubbing is also a complete no-no for such skin," says Delhi-based dermatologist Charulata Bose.

Normal to oily skin: Go for a basic facial (a fruit facial, an oxygen-based facial) that stresses on cleansing, toning and a good face mask, advises Hussain.

Dry skin: Opt for facials that focus on massage and thick creams. This will help the cream penetrate deep in, thereby providing necessary hydration, suggests Bose.

What you should look out for

While facials come with a host of benefits, they are effective only when done the right way by qualified, experienced professionals and in completely hygienic conditions, with safe, high-quality products, cautions Goel. "Wrong massage techniques can cause skin to sag, leading to more prominent wrinkles," says Bose.

1. Know the ingredients and the brands being used on your face.
2. Test if you are allergic to any ingredient in the products. If you're experimenting with a new kind of facial, do a patch test of the major ingredients well in advance in order to rule out allergies.
3. Ensure your therapist uses only fresh products, especially in case of natural/organic/fruit facials.
4. Never peel away pimples as these could leave painful sores and permanent scars.
5. Make sure the spa/salon maintains good hygiene standards to avoid any kind of infection. ( yahoo.com )

READ MORE - Take years off your face

What is a tsunami and what causes it?

What is a tsunami and what causes it? - In the wake of the 8.9 Sendai earthquake that affected the northeastern portion of Japan, the BBC reported that a massive tsunami took shape and drove a deluge of water inland. Even though the quake itself was centered off the Japanese coast, the resulting waves reached heights of up to 33 feet. Here are some must-know facts and figures about the creation and impact of tsunamis.

What is a tsunami?

It is a common misconception that a tsunami is one gigantic wave that destroys everything in its path before sweeping back into the ocean. Instead, the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) describes a tsunami as a "series of waves." The dangerous wave heights are coastal manifestations; an open ocean tsunami actually only rises up to a few inches or feet.

Earthquake-triggered tsunami washes away warehouse - An earthquake-triggered tsunami washes away a warehouse and vehicles in Kesennuma, Miyagi prefecture (state), Japan, Friday March 11, 2011. The ferocious tsunami spawned by one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded slammed Japan's eastern coasts

What causes tsunamis?

The series of waves that make up a tsunami is caused by a sudden disturbance that alters the seafloor. United States Search and Rescue Task Force officials note that earthquakes and occasionally also landslides force the upheaval of the water. Not every earthquake results in a tsunami; in fact, for these waves to form, the event must take place underneath the ocean floor or very close to it. Secondly, the earthquake must result in vertical seafloor movement.

How tall do tsunami waves get?

Depending on the size of the seafloor disturbance, its location and also the force of the energy that caused it, wave heights vary greatly. The NGDC compiled the characteristics of 26 tsunamis falling between 1906 and 1998; wave sizes ranged from approximately five feet to more than 175 feet. Combine this with a speed of about 500 miles per hour, and it stands to reason why these devastating waves are so dangerous to coastal communities.

What should I know if I live in a coastal area?

When moving into a home near the coast, learn about local tsunami evacuation routes and warning systems. If there are no officially marked routes or designated safety areas, know how far away from the ocean your residence is located and how high above sea level you actually are. Emergency alerts -- usually conveyed via radio and television -- alert of evacuations for residents by using these values. If an evacuation order is issued, do not head to the beach, pier or scenic outlook. Instead, head inland for higher ground.

Are there warnings signs I can see?

In the absence of official warnings, there are natural signs that the seafloor has been disturbed and a tsunami might be imminent. An unexplained rumbling sound, a sudden withdrawal of the waters past the usual coast line and also a rapid rise in water level are indicators of a possible series of waves coming in. ( news.yahoo.com )

READ MORE - What is a tsunami and what causes it?

The best Christmas present ever

The best Christmas present ever - When Hayley and Mike Jones adopted a beautiful baby boy in December 2001, they described it as "the best Christmas present ever".

But the proud-as-punch parents had no idea of the traumatic years ahead - as angelic-looking Jason, now nine, turned into a tiny terror.

He hit and bit his parents and other children and even attacked the family's pet cat.

But this is not a simple case of a child being naughty for the sake of it.

Experts believe little Jason misbehaves because he was not hugged or cradled in the first crucial hours after he was born.

This resulted in Jason having reactive attachment disorder and psychologists believe such "attachment issues" could affect thousands of children across the country.

Even a divorce or bereavement could be enough to trigger it.

Unconditional love ... brain disorder affects kids' behaviour

Full-time mum Hayley, 45, says: "Because our son was abandoned at birth by his mother, he can't bond with others.

"Due to Jason's condition, we have been told he is a ticking timebomb.

"I'm terrified he will be in prison in his teens if he doesn't get some help.

"But his behaviour is not his fault. His brain was wired up wrongly from the beginning and now, as his parents, we need to help re-wire it."

Hayley and factory worker Mike, 51, brought home nine-week-old Jason on December 17, 2001, after waiting two years on the adoption list. Hayley says: "Holding him in my arms for the first time took my breath away.

"He was such a beautiful baby. Having him was like winning the lottery a hundred times over for us - and we still firmly believe that."

But Jason had a traumatic start in life. His biological mother abandoned him in the hospital immediately after birth without even holding him.

Hayley explains: "Jason's first cries went unanswered. At one point he was put in a broom cupboard in the ward because they had nowhere to put him.

"For the first two days of his life - when bonding with mum is crucial - he wasn't even cuddled."

As Jason grew up, the couple, from Lincolnshire, feared this trauma had left a lasting mark on their son.

Hayley says: "He was a very naughty child. He would lash out and hit or bite us and other children.

"He spat and pulled great chunks of my hair out. But at the same time he was incredibly charming. Everyone on our street soon adored Jason.

"He'd hug complete strangers. He would walk up to people in the supermarket and say, 'Hello pretty lady' then cuddle them.

"And he's very funny and popular at school - he's got a great sense of humour.

"But he becomes angry very quickly - like someone has flicked a switch inside his head."

One day in 2006, when Jason was five, Hayley walked into their kitchen to find blood over the floor.

She recalls: "I couldn't work out where it had come from - then I saw our cat Molly.

"Jason had snipped at her ears with a pair of scissors from the drawer.

"I was horrified but he didn't seem to understand what he'd done wrong. He said, 'Will that hurt her, Mummy?' " The family sought help from their GP and local social services but no support was offered.

The youngster was also incredibly anxious and started suffering panic attacks from the age of seven.

Hayley explains: "We have never been able to take him to any after-school clubs as he wouldn't let us leave him. He became very distressed and said, 'If you leave now will you ever come back for me?'

"He doesn't trust anybody and is so worried all the time. The other day he said, 'Mummy, if I die before you, will you promise me you'll kill yourself because I don't want to go to heaven on my own'.

"And I promised him I would - I couldn't let him be abandoned again."

The couple fostered children for ten months when Jason was three, but when one was arrested after threatening them with a knife, they decided it was too disruptive for Jason.

Desperate for help, in May this year Hayley, Mike and Jason visited a specialist camp in Colorado run by American child psychologist Nancy Thomas. They enrolled in a treatment programme for families affected by reactive attachment disorder - at a cost nearly of £10,000.

Hayley explains: "They taught us that shouting at Jason was pointless. This just pushes him away further. Instead we have to help him understand the consequences of his actions.

"If he hurts someone, instead of making him say sorry, we ask him to do something nice for that person, to pay them back for hurting them."

In the summer, the couple were extremely upset to find Jason had wrapped an elastic band around the mouth of Molly the cat, who they have since given away.

But Hayley explains his behaviour is slowly improving.

A change of school has helped him but despite more desperate pleas to social services for counselling for Jason, the family were told the earliest officials can see him is next year.

Hayley says: "I'm petrified for his future. We are begging for help from social services but are being offered nothing. We can't afford private therapy as it would cost £8,000.

"We are immensely proud of Jason and love him with all our heart, but mentally we're on our knees.

"But he was placed in my arms for a reason. I'm his mother and I'm going to protect him. People say he's simply a naughty boy but that's not true - he's got a brain disorder."

Hayley believes they should have been warned of attachment disorders when they adopted Jason.

She says: "It's so important adoptive parents know this early on so that they can take steps to tackle it.

"We should have been told to have six hours a day of skin to skin contact with him as a baby, to always have him facing us in the buggy and carry him in a sling close to the body rather than a carry cot and not allow him to watch TV for the first two years of his life."

Hayley also believes there could be other children out there with this condition who have not been diagnosed.

She says: "I firmly believe this disorder is behind some of the worst crimes where children commit violence. It is also triggered by trauma such as a bereavement or a divorce.

"This is our next generation. We need to help them before they go on to have children of their own and this cycle continues." ( thesun.co.uk )

READ MORE - The best Christmas present ever

Ten Healthy Careers

Ten Healthy Careers. Every year, one of the most popular New Year's resolutions is to "be healthy and lose weight." Easier said than done. Of course, everyone wants to be healthy, but when it comes time to put in the effort, it's hard for many to find the time.

For others, however, finding the time to be healthy is all in a day's work. If you're interested in a career that lends itself to staying active or promoting a healthy lifestyle and environment, check out these 10 careers and the requirements you'll need to meet to get started:

1. Activities coordinator

Why it's healthy: Activities coordinators plan and conduct recreation activities with groups in public, private or volunteer agencies or recreation facilities. They focus on keeping individuals fit and active, whether they are in a nursing home or day camp.

Requirements: Educational and training requirements vary based on the institution in which you will be working. They range from a high-school diploma to a bachelor's degree.

Salary: $31,390

2. Athletic trainer

Why it's healthy: Athletic trainers specialize in the prevention, assessment, treatment and healing of injuries for athletes. They usually focus mostly on the rehabilitation and reconditioning of injured athletes, but can spend time educating them on preventing injuries.

Requirements: A bachelor's degree and, in most states, certification.

Salary: $46,049

3. Chiropractor

Why it's healthy: Chiropractors deal with conditions of the spine, but their approach is more holistic in that it's focused on a patient's overall health. They are concerned with diet, exercise and other issues related to well-being, and they provide natural, drugless and nonsurgical health treatments.

Requirements: Chiropractors must be licensed, which requires two to four years of undergraduate education, completing a four-year chiropractic college course, and earning passing scores on national and state examinations.

Salary: $115,289

4. Dietitians and nutritionists

Why it's healthy: Dietitians and nutritionists constantly think about foods they put in their clients' bodies and in their own. They promote healthy eating habits by recommending dietary modifications, planning food and nutrition programs, supervising meal preparation and overseeing the serving of meals.

Requirements: At least a bachelor's degree. Licensing, certification or registration requirements vary by state.

Salary: $52,911 and $54,301

5. Exercise instructor

Why it's healthy: Exercise instructors are constantly moving their own bodies and teaching others to do the same and how to do so correctly. Multiple days of the week, hours at a time, are spent sweating, so there is no question you'll be in tip-top shape.

Requirements: Depend on the specific type of fitness work. For most fitness workers, certification is critical and you are expected to know how to do your job without any on-the-job training.

Salary: $30,189

6. Health educator

Why it's healthy: Health educators must practice what they preach, as they work to encourage healthy lifestyles and wellness. They educate people and communities about healthy living, disease prevention, proper nutrition and the importance of exercise.

Requirements: A bachelor's degree is required for entry-level positions; other employers prefer a bachelor's degree and some related experience. A master's degree and even a doctorate may be required for some positions and is usually required for advancement.

Salary: $63,817

7. Personal chef

Why it's healthy: Personal chefs offer meal preparation to clients for a fee and can personalize your menu to any special nutritional needs you may have.

Requirements: Most culinary schools offer personal chef training; you may also choose to be certified by the American Personal & Private Chef Association.

Salary: Varies

8. Personal trainer

Why it's healthy: A personal trainer's job is to help individuals lose weight, get in shape and lead a healthier lifestyle. They get tons of exercise through working out with clients, and part of their training is to learn about nutrition.

Requirements: Personal trainers usually must be certified to work with clients or with members of a fitness facility.

Salary: $46,049

9. Massage therapist

Why it's healthy: Massage therapists promote their clients' general health, helping people become more aware of their body and taking care of it better. They focus on relaxation, muscle recovery, treating painful ailments and reducing stress.

Requirements: Most states require massage therapists to complete a formal education program and pass a national certification examination or a state exam.

Salary: $32,399

10. Weight reduction specialist

Why it's healthy: Weight-loss specialists help clients devise and carry out a weight-loss plan, using established dietary programs and positive reinforcement procedures.

Requirements: At least a bachelor's degree. Licensing, certification or registration requirements vary by state.

Salary: $32,368

( msn.com )

READ MORE - Ten Healthy Careers

When Job Search Desperation Kicks In

When Job Search Desperation Kicks In. Desperation isn't an attractive trait in most people -- maybe anyone. If you've ever witnessed desperation in a relationship, you know how unappealing it can be to see someone willing to settle for something. Anything. It makes you wonder just how much that person values himself or herself.

A job search isn't the same as a quest for true love, but it can often result in desperation. Think about it: If you don't have a job, you don't have money to pay the bills. For many people, a job search is linked to survival. Who wouldn't get desperate after awhile?

Just like in a romance, however, being too eager and needy can backfire. Even if you're feeling as though you'll take any job that comes your way, don't let employers know that. You might be desperate for a job, but you don't have to act like you are.

Why desperation doesn't help you

You might think, "Won't I impress my future boss if I prove I'm willing to do anything to get the job?" You would be wrong. To help you understand what hiring managers think when they come across desperate interviewees, we went straight to the source.

Tony Deblauwe is the founder of HR4 Change and has 15 years of human resources experience. In his career, he has seen more desperate job seekers than most people. Sometimes things go so wrong they're almost criminal.

"I had a case once where after not hearing from the recruiter (from just a résumé submission), the candidate came to the office and waited in the parking lot for the CEO," Deblauwe remembers. "It was easy, since the CEO's picture was online. [The candidate] felt that HR and staffing were a roadblock and the best way to prove his 'inventiveness' was to approach the CEO directly. It turned out badly, as you might imagine -- we had to get security involved."

Not all candidates are as extreme. In fact, desperation is so common that Deblauwe sees certain traits appear time after time.

• "I'm willing to take any job."

"People who have been searching a long time or who have limited leads respond to job posts that they will take any job even if it's clearly a step down," he says. "Sometimes this is due to the economy; sometimes they want to get into a company at whatever the cost. I have personally known of candidates doing this to get into Apple or Google."

• "I'm willing to temp first."

"Sometimes [starting as a temp] works, but when a candidate offers it first against a full-time posted job, it's a turnoff," Deblauwe cautions. "Rather than show confidence that you can do the job as presented, you offset the discussion by saying you will be a temp. Not a good move and very desperate."

• "Money doesn't matter."

"It's one thing to say your salary is negotiable, but making a point in the phone screen or first-round interview about not caring about the pay not only reflects bad judgment but low self-esteem," Deblauwe warns. "I ask myself, 'What else will you cave on if you had this job?'"

• "Why haven't you called me back?"

According to Deblauwe, being pushy is one of the most classic signs of a desperate job seeker.

"After sending in a résumé or getting an initial call back, a candidate loses all sense of how staffing process timing works," he says. "They will e-mail [or call] after one or two days. Candidates forget that many back-end processes slow job updates -- not because people forgot about you or don't care. This behavior doesn't show you are determined and eager; rather it makes you appear annoying and distracting. Almost always, people who do this, even if they appeared to be a great fit in the beginning, get eliminated."

What you can do

First off, don't say any of the above phrases. More importantly, prove that the company would be lucky to have you, and not vice versa. Don't be cocky, but act like you're ready for the job because it's the right fit, not because it's available now. Even if you are desperate for a job, remember these tips because they're important to every job search.

• Have proof of your accomplishments so you can show the hiring manager that you deliver results.
• Show interest in the company. Employers like to know that you care about more than dollar signs, so do a little research on the company and even the interviewers if possible.
• Practice your interview answers so you don't blurt out a bad answer. For example, your answer to "Why do you want this job?" shouldn't include the low balance of your checking account.
• Make a list of the reasons you are the best candidate for the job. You can't convince a hiring manager that you're the best choice for the position if you don't believe it yourself. The best way to convince yourself is to look at all your best qualities. ( msn.com )

READ MORE - When Job Search Desperation Kicks In

Should You Fake Your Job References?

Should You Fake Your Job References?. Every day, William Schmidt gives job seekers with a not-so-great job history, a gap on their résumé or even a criminal record, a second chance. How does he do it? He fabricates job references to cover up their sordid pasts.

Schmidt is the founder of CareerExcuse.com, a Web site that says it will fill any gap on your résumé by acting as your past employer. It will go as far as creating a new company with an accompanying phone number, logo, Web site and LinkedIn profile. He says the site is designed to "help our subscribers meet the needs of the modern day job market."

"Many of our subscribers tell me how a bad reference from a previous employer is akin to having a criminal record and is preventing them from providing for their family. All they ask is for a second chance," Schmidt says.

While Schmidt says he feels good about the service he provides for job seekers, naturally, not everyone shares his opinion. After all, not only is it unethical to lie about anything on your job application, but some argue that it puts those who have legitimate references at an unfair disadvantage.

"It's like using a professional photographer, who helps you look your best, versus using someone else's photo. One is enhancing your appearance, while the other is blatant misrepresentation," says David Wright, author of "Get a Job! Your Guide to Making Successful Career Moves." "People do make mistakes and bad choices. Winners learn from the mistakes while losers try to cover them up, hide them or keep making the same mistakes over and over while expecting different results."

Is the economy to blame?

Many people can agree that finding a job today is difficult and that not having anyone in your corner to toot your horn could be detrimental. Schmidt said he got the idea for his company after perusing posts on Twitter, where he said he saw many users asking strangers for references.

"We understand that there are over 12 million workers who have been fired or let go from former employers in the last eight years. With six applicants for every job today, anyone with a blemish in their career can be left out," Schmidt says.

Lauren Milligan, résumé expert and job coach for ResuMayday, says that it's sad that job seekers would think they had to fake their references, but that she can see how the poor economy could lead to making desperate choices.

"If a candidate was previously turned down because of a lack of reference, that otherwise honest person may decide to unethically stack the deck in his or her favor," she says. "It's kind of pathetic that anyone would have to [use a service for a reference], but perhaps it could be that 'rock bottom' that turns around bad behavior."

Is it worth it?

Some job seekers may think they need to use a fake reference because they were fired or need to cover a gap in their employment history. Experts say that paying someone to do that for you is likely a waste -- especially since many employers ignore the references you give them anyway.

"Having consulted on hundreds of hires, I don't care about the three personal references the candidate has given. Anyone can find three people that will swear they can turn water into wine," says Barry Maher, career consultant and owner of Barry Maher & Associates. "I check everything else I can. And not just the last job, which may be a service that will vouch for them, but the job before that and the one before that, all the way down the line."

Checking references all the way down the line has also become much easier with the advent of social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, which provide a place for you to list your employment history. Employers aren't stupid -- if a few things don't match up, they'll catch on pretty quickly.

"The good thing about social networking is that the world has become a much smaller, accessible place. The bad thing about social networking is that the world has become a much smaller, accessible place," Milligan says. "Within a few minutes, I believe that anyone with a mid-level of expertise in LinkedIn or Facebook (combined with an elementary-level [Internet] search) could identify fake information. Hiring mistakes are so costly; due diligence can really pay off in a company's recruiting process."

And while employers cross-reference information that candidates provide them, including references, services like CareerExcuse.com have an answer for that, too.

"CareerExcuse.com uses [social networks] to our advantage," Schmidt says. "As a matter of fact, it is the Internet and the reliance of the Internet by human resource managers that make our services work so successfully."

Consequences of your actions

Every action has a consequence, including providing a fake job reference to a potential employer. Although you may not get caught, you'll likely have to deal with trying to cover up your lies and forever worrying about if you'll get caught.

"Liars are always going to use lies to try and put themselves at an advantage over honest people," Wright says. "This may be effective in the short run, but over time, honesty wins out because eventually lies do get found out, and liars are exposed for who they really are. As in a great quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.'"

The truth will set you free

If you feel the need to use a fake job reference, try these three tips from our experts instead:

1. Turn your negatives into positives

"Nothing builds credibility like exposing your own negatives. You can turn them into positives, selling points, even bragging points," Maher says. He gives the example of Clyde Thompson, who "provided us with all the reasons why we may not want to hire him; all the ones that we probably would have brought up on our own once he was out of the room, and a few more we might never have come up. Clyde presented his unemployability in a light made it appear that he'd be a more reliable employee. And his honesty gained him a massive amount of credibility."

2. Don't give up

Before giving up and resigning yourself to having no references, Milligan suggests scouring LinkedIn and Facebook to try to reconnect with former colleagues. Or, consider if you've volunteered anywhere, played on a sports team or been a member of industry associations. Reach out to peers from these organizations for a reference.

"References don't only have to come from supervisors or co-workers," she says. "Perhaps company clients or vendors would have a few good things to say about you."

If you still can't find anyone to give you reference by the time an employer asks for one, Milligan suggests saying, "Unbelievably, I wasn't able to connect with any of my former supervisors or co-workers after ABC Co. shut down unexpectedly. Thanks to social networking, I'm in the process of trying to find people, but it just hasn't panned out yet. In lieu of that, I would assure you that I wouldn't have been able to achieve (insert career success here) if I wasn't good at my job and I fully expect to create more successes like that one, for you."

3. Tackle the issue head-on

Instead of trying to sweep the issue under the rug, be the first one to address it, Wright suggests.

"If you know you've got something bad that would probably show up on a background check, it can help to be proactive, particularly when you've established some degree of rapport with the hiring manager," he suggests. "Tell them that you want to be upfront with them -- you made a mistake in the past and they'll probably find out anyway, but you'd rather them hear it from you first. By being proactive, you have the opportunity to position it better as well, emphasizing your strengths or how you overcame that experience." ( msn.com )

READ MORE - Should You Fake Your Job References?

Not Getting Hired? 10 Reasons Why

Not Getting Hired? 10 Reasons Why. You don't understand. You updated your résumé, you're applying to jobs every day, you've cleaned up your digital dirt and you network every day. Yet here you still are on the unemployment list. What is wrong with employers?

Unfortunately, many job seekers don't stop to consider that the problem might not be employers but themselves.

It's a hard concept that most job seekers have trouble wrapping their heads around, but applicants frequently (and inadvertently) display signs that tell an employer that they're not the best fit for the job.

According to a 2009 CareerBuilder survey, 47 percent of employers said that finding qualified applicants is their biggest hiring challenge. When asked to identify the most valuable characteristics in new hires, employers cited multitasking, initiative and creative problem-solving.

Do you lack what employers want? Yes, there are fewer jobs and there is more competition, but are you doing everything you can? Here are 10 reasons why employers might have passed you by.

1. You lie

Any lies you tell in your job search, whether on your résumé or in an interview, will come back to haunt you. In a 2008 CareerBuilder survey, 49 percent of hiring managers reported they caught a candidate lying on his or her résumé; of those employers, 57 percent said they automatically dismissed the applicant. Everything you tell an employer can be discovered, so it behooves you to be honest from the get-go. If you're concerned about something in your past, invention is not the answer. Use your cover letter to tell your story, focusing on your strengths and accomplishments and explaining any areas of concern if needed.

2. You have a potty mouth

It's certainly tempting to tell anyone who will listen how big of a (insert expletive here) your current boss is, but a hiring manager for a new job is not that person. A 2009 CareerBuilder survey showed that 44 percent of employers said that talking negatively about current or previous employers was one of the most detrimental mistakes a candidate can make. Find a way to turn those negative things job into positives. If you can't get along with your co-workers, for example, tell the prospective employer that you're looking for a work environment where you feel like you're part of a team and your current position doesn't allow for that kind of atmosphere.

3. You don't show long-term potential

Employers want people in their organization to work their way up, so it's best to show that you want to and can grow with the company. If you were asked where you see yourself in five years and you gave an answer that wasn't related to the position or company you're interviewing with, kiss your chances goodbye. Ask questions like, "What type of career movement do you envision for the most successful candidate in this role?" It shows that you have envisioned your future at the company.

4. You have serious digital dirt

Social networking sites and online searches are the newest way that many employers are checking up on prospective hires. A 2009 CareerBuilder survey showed that 45 percent of employers use social networking sites to research candidates. Thirty-five percent of those employers found content that caused them to dismiss the candidate. Make sure to remove any photos, content or links that can work against you in an employer's eyes.

5. You don't know ... well, anything

In two separate 2009 CareerBuilder surveys, 58 percent of employers said that coming to the interview with no knowledge of the company was a turnoff, and 49 percent said that not asking good questions cost candidates a job offer. Plain and simple, do your homework before an interview. Explore the company online, prepare answers to questions and have someone give you a mock interview. The more prepared you are, the more employers will take you seriously.

6. You acted bored, cocky or disinterested

A little enthusiasm never hurt anyone, especially when it comes to a potential new job. Forty-five percent of employers in a 2009 CareerBuilder survey said that the biggest mistake candidates made in the interview was appearing disinterested and 42 percent said appearing arrogant cost applicants the job. Every business wants to put their most enthusiastic people forward with important clients and customers, so acting the opposite will get you nowhere.

7. You were a little too personal

Seventeen percent of employers said that candidates who provided too much personal information in the interview essentially blew their chances at the job, according to a 2009 CareerBuilder survey. Not only does personal information offend some people, but anytime you talk about topics such as your hobbies, race, age or religion, you're setting yourself up for bias. Though it's illegal for employers to discriminate against applicants because of any of these factors, some will do so, regardless.

8. You were all dollars, no sense

As a general rule of thumb, you should never bring up salary before the employer does. Doing so is tacky and makes the employer think that you care about the money involved, not about helping the employer succeed. If the topic does arise, however, be honest about your salary history. Employers can verify your salary in a matter of minutes these days, so lying only makes you look bad.

9. You didn't -- or can't -- give examples

Hiring managers want people who can prove that they will increase the organization's revenues, decrease its costs or help it succeed in some way. If all you give to an employer is a bunch of empty words about your accomplishments, you don't demonstrate how you can help the company. In fact, 35 percent of employers said that the most detrimental mistake candidates make is not providing specific examples in the interview. The more you can quantify your work, the better.

10. You don't have enough experience

Managers don't have as much time as they used to to train and mentor new employees. The more experience you have, the more likely you are to hit the ground running without a lot of hand-holding. The best way to show that you know what you're doing is to give the employer concrete examples of your experience in a given job duty. ( msn.com )

READ MORE - Not Getting Hired? 10 Reasons Why

Four Ways to Simplify Your Job Search

Four Ways to Simplify Your Job Search. It seems like everyone is obsessed with doing things faster and more efficiently these days. Consider, for example the 30-minute meal or 15-minute workout programs that have taken the country by storm.

Why the craze? Because these routines cut out the fluff, are easy to follow and promise positive results. While preparing a delicious meal in under an hour or toning your abs in five easy steps may save you time in your personal life, how about a program that benefits your professional prospects? Job searching can be an overwhelming and time-consuming task, so take heed of the following fundamentals, which can help make the process more efficient and productive:

1. Avoid verbosity when writing your résumé.

Job seekers can spend hours crafting their résumés, but according to a survey by Robert Half International, 56 percent of executives spend no more than five minutes reading the document, making it that much more important to present one that's succinct, relevant and free of copy errors. While the one-page rule is no longer strictly enforced, you don't want to inundate the reader with too much information. Use short bullet points when listing your skills and achievements, and avoid lofty and redundant language, puns, and clever wordplays. Remember, this isn't an exercise in creative writing. Also omit irrelevant facts about your personal life, such as your interests and hobbies, unless they relate specifically to the position.

2. Compose a clean, concise cover letter.

Similar to the résumé, brevity is key when it comes to crafting a cover letter. Skip cute introductions -- "Teamwork is my middle name" or "I am smart as a whip," for example -- and instead get to the point. Expand on one or two accomplishments from your résumé that align with the skills and responsibilities outlined in the job description. Painting a vivid picture of these select successes should compel hiring managers to learn about the rest of the achievements outlined on your résumé.

3. Network in a 'not-so-obvious' way.

Increasing your circle of professional contacts doesn't have to be a formal affair, but it should be an ongoing priority. In addition to getting involved in professional associations and other networking groups, focus on meeting people while doing everyday activities. Try striking up a conversation with those around you, from the coffee shop barista to the person sitting next to you at the doctor's office. These discussions can lead to job leads or other valuable contacts.

4. Don't be afraid to go overboard for the interview.

If there's one stage in the job search where you can pull out all the stops, it's the interview. You may have impressed the hiring manager on paper, but you'll have to shine in person, too, if you expect to land the job. Here are the essentials:

• Research the company and role-play with a partner beforehand.
• Arrive to the meeting on time, looking your professional best and armed with a copy of your résumé and references.
• Mention at least two key accomplishments that demonstrate hard-to-measure qualities -- like teamwork or leadership -- that aren't apparent on your résumé.
• Send a thank-you note to reinforce your interest and ability to excel in the role within a few days of the meeting. With everything from cell phones to computers becoming more complex, the last thing busy professionals need is for the job search to be overly complicated. While you don't want to rush through the process, paring each step down to the most important elements can help you focus your efforts and increase the likelihood of success. ( msn.com )

READ MORE - Four Ways to Simplify Your Job Search

The great computer software battle

Windows 7 versus Apple: The great computer software battle. Battling for your business: Should you go for Apple software for your computer or wait for Google?

There's no escaping it: Windows Vista was a disaster. Launched in 2007, Microsoft's follow-up to the massively successful Windows XP software, which powers the vast majority of the world's computers, met with lukewarm reviews and terrible customer satisfaction ratings.

It was simply too demanding of the computers it ran on – and the people who used it. Which is why Microsoft is going to great lengths to prove its new operating system, Windows 7, isn't just better than Vista – it's also simpler.

It takes up 40 per cent less disk space and has lower hardware requirements, so it runs faster on the new cut-price laptops known as netbooks. But it faces tough competition from two of the biggest names in technology: Apple and Google.

The Windows advantage

Microsoft Windows runs on over 90 per cent of all PCs and, despite losing a few percent in the last two years, it's reassuringly familiar for most computer users. What's more, the ubiquity of Windows means many applications – particularly business-critical ones – are written exclusively for Windows.

The Windows-only gaming market is massive, too.

But Windows' dominance comes at a cost: the vast majority of malicious viruses are created to target the system. Which is why Windows 7 builds on one of Vista's notable strengths – security.

Microsoft has produced its own anti-virus software, Security Essentials, which is available as a free download; the latest Internet Explorer browser will stop you giving personal data to spoof websites; and regular software updates will fix any problems as soon as they're discovered.

Just as important as security is simplicity. The new system borrows some of the best bits of the Apple Mac user interface – such as a taskbar at the bottom of the screen allowing you to launch software quickly. The taskbar will also allow you to view thumbnail images of the windows associated with each open application, which helps you navigate your way through email and web pages.

There are some cool features that are totally original to Windows, too – like the ability to drag two windows to either side of the screen and have them automatically resize so you can compare and contrast.

The built-in Media Center software makes it easy to enjoy music and video on a laptop that's hooked up to a TV, and you can even 'push' video from one computer to another – enabling parents to control what their children are watching in their bedrooms.

Return of the Mac

Two months before the launch of Windows 7, Microsoft's old rival Apple launched its own operating system update, called Snow Leopard. Rather than adding new features, most of the changes were under-the-bonnet performance improvements. But Apple has less to prove – sales of Macs have been steadily increasing, buoyed by the success of the iPod and iPhone.

Unlike Microsoft, Apple designs both hardware and software, which makes it easier to create stylish and stable systems. You'll pay more for a Mac, but the price includes brilliant software for managing your digital photos, editing home videos, recording music and even designing your own website.

While Apple's high prices mean its computers are unlikely to threaten the supremacy of Windows, the massive success of the iPhone – which offers web browsing, email and downloadable applications – suggests that the face of computing is changing. And in the world of mobile, Microsoft is struggling to keep up with the pace.

The threat of Google

Windows' biggest challenge will come when Google releases its own operating system, Chrome, next year. It's built on the same foundations as Linux – the free, open-source software that powers many netbooks.

But Google promises something altogether different: an operating system 'designed for people who live on the web'. Chrome will provide access to Google's free 'cloud computing' services – everything from email to photo galleries. Because the hard work is done by 'the cloud' – Google's vast server farms – computers running the Chrome operating system can be cheap and low-powered. dailymail

READ MORE - The great computer software battle