News

[Scheherazade]

The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart, now plans to hold on to customers even after they die - by selling coffins.

Prices range from a "Mom" or "Dad Remembered" steel coffin for $895 (£540), to a bronze model at $2,899.

The retailer is allowing customers to plan ahead by paying for the caskets over 12 months for no interest. They can be dispatched within 48 hours.

Catering for cradle-to-grave needs, Wal-Mart already sells everything from baby wear to engagement rings.

A spokesman for the supermarket giant, Ravi Jariwala, said the new coffin range was "a limited beta test to understand customer response".

The retailer is offering caskets at prices that undercut many funeral homes, say correspondents.

But an industry spokesman said it was not gravely concerned about Wal-Mart's move because he said the firm could not offer bereaved families the human touch.
...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8333198.stm

[Paulclem]

The might be digging a hole for themelves...

I wonder if the poundshops will start doing the cardboard ones..

Do you have dollar shops over the pond?

[kasie]

....But an industry spokesman said it was not gravely concerned........

But surely an undertaker of all people should be gravely concerned......



(Sorry - it's been one of those Fridays. I'll try and behave from now on.)

[Paulclem]

I wonder if they'll start to diversify the use of the freezers...

[Scheherazade]

A code of ethics for the use of mobile phones has been launched by Egypt's official telecoms regulatory body.

The 16-point guide includes advice about when to switch phones off and warns against annoying others with ringtones and loud conversations.

Mobile phone technology is "considered one of the greatest technologies (to) emerge in the last few years to serve humanity," it says.

But it should not be used to "annoy or tease" others, the guide continues.

The code was prepared by the country's National Telecom Regulatory Authority and the Consumer Rights Protection Committee.

"This Ethics Code aims to regulate the users' behaviours on using mobile phones especially with the increasing and intense problems and irresponsible behaviour of some users of mobile technology," reads the introduction.

Putting pictures or videos of somebody on the internet without their consent is punishable by law, warns the guide.

Mobile phones should never be used to "violate others' privacy".

It also says that mobile phone users will face legal action for sending text messages that include "inappropriate words or indecent photos".

Users are told to be patient with wrong numbers and not to answer calls from unknown sources.

"Use your mobile phone to report something or receive important information," instructs the code.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8331614.stm

[Paulclem]

No happy slapping there then...

[Jozanny]

I could not have made the Fort Hood story up if I tried. I am writing up some cynical commentary on it this morning as I post.

[Virgil]

I could not have made the Fort Hood story up if I tried. I am writing up some cynical commentary on it this morning as I post.

I think the question remains, was this man deranged or was he a true believer terrorist?

[Jozanny]

I think the question remains, was this man deranged or was he a true believer terrorist?

Setting the profile issue aside, for the moment, if his military evaluations were so poor, I think an important question is why was he being deployed?

Stereotyping is a dangerous thing, but these cycles of confirming the worst of latent fears do not help.

[Hurricane]

Setting the profile issue aside, for the moment, if his military evaluations were so poor, I think an important question is why was he being deployed?

While there are lots of billets and tours in the military that are more competitive and better for your career, deployments don't really work that way.
Unless he was being sent as an IA (individual augmentee...basically if you have a certain skill set needed overseas, you get attached to a unit over there without being sent with your own unit), he would just be deploying with whatever unit he was attached to. With the operational tempo being what it is, getting deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan has a very high likelihood.

This hits really close to home for me. I hope we get to the bottom of this quickly and this guy gets the worst our legal system can give.

[Virgil]

Setting the profile issue aside, for the moment, if his military evaluations were so poor, I think an important question is why was he being deployed?

Why wouldn't he be deployed? He had actually gotten out of being deployed since he was in the service. With all troops doing multiple deployments, he got away with not going for years. Perhaps he should not have been in the service in the first place.

From what I'm hearing today, this guy was not deranged at all. He expressed ideological ideas both in person and on the internet. He proably is not connected to any terrorist organizations, but this was a cold, calculated terrorist act.

[Jozanny]

From what I have been following on the aftermath, none of this makes sense. I started writing something for a blog submission to a news magazine, if they take it, but I am going off on another tangent and not attempting to offer any insights. He was devout, and apparently lacked the degree of professionalism one normally expects from American medical personnel, but no one saw this coming, from what I can gather.

[TheFifthElement]

Posted especially for Virgil

A recent study by the University of Bath has shown that cyclists are more likely to be hit by other road users if they're wearing a helmet. The less professional you appear, the more room you're given on the road. Info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

[Paulclem]

Disturbing news as I cycle to work each day. I'm not going to give up wearing it though. My wife has decribed the common cyclist's injury - the scalp. Unpleasant.

[Virgil]

Posted especially for Virgil

A recent study by the University of Bath has shown that cyclists are more likely to be hit by other road users if they're wearing a helmet. The less professional you appear, the more room you're given on the road. Info here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

Thanks. Why would motorist pass closer if they're wearing a helmet is beyond me. I frankly think cycling in traffic is just way too dangerous, helmet or not. But then I live in a big city with complicated traffic. Be safe Fifth. I still think you should wear a helmet.