text:
|General Membership Questions
How do I join NAEYC?
New members join online using the membership application. A printable membership application is also available, which can be mailed with payment to: NAEYC, P.O. Box 97156, Washington, DC 20090-7156.
Click here for the printable application in Spanish.
How much does membership cost?
Members join NAEYC with their community Affiliate Group. That way you receive all the benefits of NAEYC membership and enjoy the benefits of membership in local, state, and regional early childhood organizations at the same time! Your total dues amount reflects dues for each organization to which you belong, depending on how your state is organized. Dues vary by state and community. Click here for more information about the groups in your area and their dues.
How long does it take for a membership to become active?
Members who join online or renew by phone are automatically activated. Members who mail their application should have their membership activated within 2–3 weeks of the receipt of payment.
When will I receive my Membership Welcome Package?
Members can expect to receive their welcome package with membership ID card approximately 3–4 weeks after their membership has been activated.
How long is my membership good for?
An NAEYC membership is good for one year from the time the application is processed.
What is the cost of membership? Why are there no fees on the membership application?
Membership dues vary by state and community. For information about the groups in your area and their dues, click here.
Who can register as a student member?
In order for a new or existing member to join or renew their membership at the student level, they must be registered as a full-time student at a college or university, obtain a valid student ID from their institution, and register with a .edu e-mail address. Members taking non-degree seeking courses must register at the regular membership level.
My center is accredited by NAEYC. Are all the staff of the center automatically members of NAEYC?
No. Membership to NAEYC is on an individual basis and it is not included as part of accreditation. NAEYC does not offer group or organizational membership.
|Receiving Your Benefits
How do I access my membership account and view my benefits?
Login in to our Members Only area. From there, you can review your contact information and benefits you receive. Check "View Benefits Received" to see when the items shipped. Please allow 3–4 weeks from the shipping date for delivery. If you do not receive a benefit within this time frame, please contact NAEYC Member Services via e-mail or call 800-424-2460.
When do Comprehensive Members receive their book benefits?
Comprehensive Members receive five professional resources during their membership year. Benefits are typically mailed upon their publication. New Comprehensive members receive subsequent publications following their join date. The publication schedule varies throughout the year. Members can track the books mailed to them within their online Membership Account by clicking the "View Benefits Received" tab after logging into their membership account via our Members Only area.
How do I make sure that my journal was mailed?
You can check the benefits you should have received by logging into our Members Only area. First check your mailing address to make sure it is correct. Then view the "View Benefits Received" tab to see the date of benefit distribution. Remember to allow 3-4 weeks from this date for delivery. If you do not receive a benefit within this time frame, contact NAEYC Member Services via e-mail or by calling 800-424-2460.
As a new member, when should I begin receiving benefits?
Members can expect their first periodical within the first ten weeks of membership. Young Children and Teaching Young Children are each published five times per year. To view the latest issue, visit: www.naeyc.org/yc or www.naeyc.org/tyc.
Can I receive both Young Children and Teaching Young Children?
Yes, members may choose to receive both Young Children and Teaching Young Children upon joining or renewing their membership for an additional cost of $20 per year.
|Changing your Membership
What does it mean to upgrade your membership?
Upgrading your membership involves a change in membership level (Regular to Comprehensive or Student to Regular or Comprehensive). Your expiration date will not change.
I've moved. How do I update my address or change my Affiliate?
Update your mailing address by logging into our Members Only area and clicking on "Membership Account." Make sure to review your affiliation, because dues vary from one Affiliate group to another, and affiliations do not change automatically when a member moves. Members may "Add an Affiliation" within the first three months of their membership year to join the group in their new area. Please note, however, that NAEYC does not process refunds for Affiliate memberships.
What is NAEYC's cancellation policy?
Refunds for cancelled membership are prorated based on the length of membership remaining. NAEYC does not refund payments for Affiliate memberships, as these payments are collected as a service to the affiliated group. Cancelled memberships are subject to a processing fee. Contact NAEYC Member Services at firstname.lastname@example.com for details.
|Affiliate Membership Questions
What is the difference between an Independent and an Affiliate membership?
An Independent membership is membership only at the national level, whereas an Affiliate membership is membership at the local/chapter, state, and the national level.
NAEYC no longer accepts new applications for Independent memberships. However, existing Independent members are able to renew as Independent members. Upon joining, all new members must select a local Affiliate. Non-U.S. residents may join as International Independent members (go to the International membership application to download a copy of the form).
As a Life member, why am I no longer a member of my Affiliate group?
Life memberships pertain only to the national membership. Independent members can "Add an Affiliation" in their Membership Account in the online Members Only area to renew an Affiliate membership; Affiliate dues will apply.
Can I join more than one Affiliate group?
Yes. You can join multiple groups at the beginning of a membership year. If you "Add an Affiliation" during your membership year, you are responsible for paying the local and state dues, if not already paid (that is, a member who joins two Affiliate groups in the same state has already paid for the state membership, so they are responsible only for the additional local dues). Your your membership dues in the new Affiliate are not prorated, and your expiration date remains unchanged.
I've moved. How do I change my Affiliate group?
Please be sure to update your mailing address by logging into our Members Only area. Because dues vary from one Affiliate group to another, affiliations do not change automatically when a member moves. Members may "Add an Affiliation" during their membership year to join the group in their new area. Please note, however, that NAEYC does not process refunds for Affiliate memberships.
How do I join an Affiliate group?
New members with a U.S. address select the Affiliate group of their choice when they join NAEYC.
How do I find the dues to my local Affiliate online?
The Affiliate dues are available here. Click on "Join NAEYC/Membership Options" and select your state under Affiliate group Information.
How can I contact my local or state Affiliate?
Local and state Affiliate contact information is available on NAEYC's website by clicking "Affiliates." For contact information of Affiliate offices in your area, click here.
|Support Questions
How can I get proof of my NAEYC membership payment?
Log into our Members Only area. Click "Membership Account," then "View Account History." A printable receipt of your payment is available.
How can I reset my password for the Members Only section of the NAEYC website?
With your password, you may request to have an e-mail sent to the e-mail address on your membership record. Or contact NAEYC Member Services via e-mail or by phone at 800-424-2460. (Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. Eastern).
Where do I locate my membership ID number?
The NAEYC membership ID number appears on the NAEYC membership card and key tag, mailed the first month of the membership year. It also appears just above the name on the mailing label of Young Children and Teaching Young Children.
How do I update my mailing address?
Log onto our Members Only area. Click "Membership Account," then "Change Information" to update your mailing address or to change other personal information (phone number, e-mail, areas of interest, and so on).
Additional Support
For additional support or to ask questions, please contact NAEYC Member Services at email@example.com or via telephone at 800-424-2460 (Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.–5 p.m. Eastern).


text:
You won't be able to dismiss this by usual means (escape or click button), but you can close it programatically based on user choices or actions.
"My save the date cards came out perfect! I sent in a special request to have the right side have 2 smaller pics instead of just 1 pic on the ride side and the design team did an awesome job! I was very impressed at the quality. I cannot be more pleased!"
"My fiancée actually picked this design for our save the dates! I wasn't sold on it at first, but it was his favorite, and after we personalized it and made it look exactly how we wanted it to, I started to love it. Once they arrived in the mail, I was so impressed with the quality and how cute they turned out! I'm definitely glad we chose this design, and that we were able to do some things to make it our own. We will absolutely be returning to personalize and purchase formal invitations!"
"These are perfect, our photo was perfect on the cards! Great quality. Would be nice for the cards to be a little thicker, but I would buy them again if I needed to! Don't forget, using postcards means postcard stamps,which will also save you money since they are only 35 cents each vs the 49 cents for traditional letter stamps!"
"My fiancé and I love this product. We had to swap out a photo, and the communication with WPD was easy! There were other places that would print our save-the-date postcards at a lower cost, but we were so pleased with the quality of the cards that it was worth the little bit of extra funding!"
"This was delivered quickly with the highest quality paper! The design was fantastic and was exactly what we wanted. This simple yet classy save the date is sure to impress our guest."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
He was outstanding in his rookie season, throwing for nearly 4,400 yards and leading the Colts to a playoff berth. But is Andrew Luck really an elite fantasy option at quarterback?
Kay Adams of Rotoworld says absolutely, placing the Colts' signal-caller in front of Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick on her draft board. Brad Evans, who has Luck at No. 13 in his quarterback rankings, would disagree. Evans also reveals his affinity for a certain Oakland Raider, and Adams tells you which Patriots' wide receiver to reach for in your draft.


text:
I have a manual Skutt kiln and just installed a pyrometer and used it for the first time for a bisque firing--mainly out of curiosity, just to see what my kiln is doing and make sure it is doing what it is supposed to be doing (I'll be more concerned with glaze firings, as I'm just starting to make my own glazes; so far, with commercial glazes, everything has been firing just fine). Problem is, I can't figure out, looking at what I recorded, what it means. I used 03, 04, and 05 cones, with an 03 junior cone in the kiln-sitter (my kiln seems to want a kiln-sitter one one cone higher than my goal of ^04 for bisque and ^6 for glaze). I follow the Skutt manual firing schedule: approx. 3 hours on low, approx. 3 hours on medium, then shut the lid all the way and turn the switches to high until the kiln shuts itself off. This time I tried to remember to run out hourly (I was only partly successful in terms of regularity!) to check the pyrometer. Here are my results:
10:30am: turn kiln on low
11:20am: 230 degrees F
12:40pm: 411 degrees F
1:45pm: turn kiln to medium, temp 507 degrees F
2:45pm: 730 degrees F
3:40pm: 857 degrees F
5:00pm: turn kiln to high (lost track of time!), temp 990 degrees F
6:10pm: 1762 degrees F
6:38pm: 1911 degrees F
Looks like the kiln shut off at about 6:45, but I wasn't there to check the temp
7:01pm: kiln off, temp 1838 degrees F
7:31pm: 1576 degrees F
8:00pm: 1372 degrees F
8:30pm: 1199 degrees F
9:00pm: 1058 degrees F
9:30pm: 932 degrees F
After which I got tired and decided to stop checking.
I'm wondering if someone can decipher all this for me. Is that seemingly slow rise to a sudden jump in speed to high normal? Will that cooling rate be too fast for a good glaze firing (though it will likely be different when it starts cooling from the much higher ^6 temps.
Just trying to understand. Any help will be welcome! Thanks!
First Use of Pyrometer for Bisque Firing (Manual Kiln)
Started by SunsetBay, Nov 06 2012 12:37 PM
3 replies to this topic
Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:37 PM
Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:32 PM
Check it against the next firing, but it's probably all fine. The temperature drops really fast when the kiln is off. That rate will be different depending on how much ware is in the kiln.
- BRL likes this
Neil Estrick
Kiln Repair Tech
L&L Kilns Distributor
Owner, Neil Estrick Gallery, LLC
Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:07 PM
I had the same kind of results on my Cress manual. I used a pyrometer the first couple loads of bisque and glaze. The long ramp up seems to lead to a fairly quick cone bend at full temp. Results were good. Stopped using the meter. I go with 4 hours on low, 4 hours on medium then max till the kiln sitter does its thing. For bisque I do let it candle an extra hour or two. The cooling time until its safe to open is the hard part. Anxious to see the results!
Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:50 PM
Thanks for the responses. Unfortunately, it will be a while before I can mix my new glazes and do a firing, but when I do, I'll try to record the same kind of temp info and see what it looks like. I wonder if it makes sense to try to do two identical (well, as close as possible) versions of each test tile, and do two glaze firings--one the usual way, and one trying to slow down the cooling phase. Am I over-thinking things?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


text:
Gillislee, Nixon play in Senior Bowl
Published: Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 8:49 p.m.
Last Modified: Saturday, January 26, 2013 at 8:49 p.m.
MOBILE, Ala. — Two Florida seniors, running back Mike Gillislee and offensive lineman Xavier Nixon, participated in the 2013 Senior Bowl on Saturday afternoon.
Gillislee nearly led the South team on the ground with ten carries for 46 yards, with his longest run of 15 yards occurring on his first touch of the game. Gillislee did garner the most carries for the South team.
"I proved my point that when I've gotten opportunity I can make things happen," Gillislee told the South Florida Sun Sentinel. "I want to standout and show people that I am that complete back they are looking for."
Nixon also saw time on the offensive line for multiple series throughout the game and helped the South team to 235 yards of offense and a 21-16 win over the North team.
Gillislee and Nixon were the 17th and 18th players in UF history to participate in the Senior Bowl. Their selections mark the fourth consecutive year Florida has been represented in Mobile. In 2010, Riley Cooper and Tim Tebow took part in the Senior Bowl, followed by Ahmad Black, Marcus Gilbert, Chas Henry and Mike Pouncey in 2011 and then Chris Rainey and Jaye Howard in last year's contest.
Gillislee was the fourth running back to compete in the Senior Bowl for the Gators. Nixon was the sixth offensive lineman to compete in the all-star game.
Linebacker Jon Bostic was slated to play in the game as well, but suffered an injury in the days prior to the game and was forced to back out.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT: The Only Card That Mattersby Derek Wilson on 10/29/2007 9:00 AM EST
- Posted in
- GPUs
90 Comments
Back to Article
Nick388 - Wednesday, September 24, 2008 - linkNever thought the 8800 GT was this good! I found some really low prices at this website (http://www.videocardemporium.com)">http://www.videocardemporium.com), but I'm still unsure if I want to try to get two of these in SLI or go for the 9600 GT. Or maybe just slurge for the GTX 280 >.< Reply
sickish - Monday, February 25, 2008 - linkJust ordered mine Friday, should be here Wednesday.
I was lucky, ordered it from Newegg at $239.99 and it seems totally worth it after reading these comments.
Oh and I checked again today and it seems Newegg is all sold out =]]
mgambrell - Monday, November 12, 2007 - linkgeforce 8800 gt: the only card that crashes my PC in nv4_disp over and over and over.
no matter which motherboard it is in or which OS is installed or which other expansion cards are installed
no matter whose 8800 I use.
nvidia you are now on my shitlist. Reply
gleblanc - Friday, November 09, 2007 - linkIt'd be awfully nice to have the axes of the graphs labeled. For the first set, I can guess that they are screen resolution on the horizontal axis, and frames per second on the vertical, but I could be wrong, since there's no labels.
I also couldn't follow the page on comparing the 8800 GT to the 8800 GTX. Your conclusion seems to state that, "the 8800 GT doesn't touch the GTX." However, I can't come up with that conclusion from the graphs. They look roughly comparable in most of the tests that you've shown, with only a slight advantage to the GTX at very high resolutions.
On the "Out with the old..." page, there is a typo in the second paragraph. In the last sentence, "fasted" should be "fastest".
True Strike - Thursday, November 08, 2007 - linkFrom what I have read here and else where this seems to be THE card to get. Before I make a purchase though, I would very much like to see more data comparing the cards offered by the different card manufacturers.
Is Anandtech going to be doing an 8800 GT roundup any time soon? Do I have to beg? Reply
Manch - Monday, November 05, 2007 - linkHow much of an improvement if you SLI'd a 8800GT with a GTX? I know mix n matching is not optimal but the price difference makes me wonder. Would it fall between two GT's and two GTX's? I dont have any experience with SLI. I've avoided it because it's never been a decent upgrade path. Reply
hydrasworld - Friday, November 02, 2007 - linkOrdered mine from Scan.co.uk - Gainward Bliss - £170 GBP
O.M.G - it really is amazing.
I bought 2x 7800GTX's (just before the 7900GTX's came out) at £660 for the pair and this card just blows them away.
On my 24" dell monitor at 1920x1200 with 4xAA on an opteron 175 @ stock 2.2ghz i get average 125fps in Team Fortress 2. Everything else I've tried has been very smooth - world in conflict, bf2142. A *very* noticable performance increase at a billiant price!
If you're considering an upgrade buy one of these NOW, play todays games at awesome speeds. then get a nice new intel 45nm quadcore + x38 + ddr3 in january when the products are released and prices will be lower.. Then if needed sell the gfx card and buy whatever nvidia are offering in january - if you really need too (which i doubt you will).
Highly Recommended. Reply
rap - Friday, November 02, 2007 - link
First, our understanding is that the RV670 based AMD part will not be any faster than the 2900 XT (and will likely be at least a little bit slower).
Info on the RV670:
http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/so3d/q4_2007/so3d...">http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/so3d/q4_2007/so3d... Reply
ksherman - Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - linkA great review, and a great part! Finally a video card that excites me. Too bad I ditched the desktop in favor of a laptop. Reply
Screammit - Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - linkMost online retailers have pulled these items off their websites entirely, as I'm sure these cards have been picked up ravenously by gamers wanting The Holy Grail of video cards, as it seems this is.
My question is, "Why so cheap, and why now?" for injection into the market, NVIDIA could have raised the price at least $50 (which most retail shops have already done to capitalize on its popularity) and still have a product that sells like crazy. This makes me wonder what is next, and if a better product is in the works that makes them want to get rid of this inventory as quickly as possible before the next big thing comes out. It may be (and yes, I'm reaching) that this card is on the low side in NVIDIA's new product line, and they can clear inventory at a price premium now as opposed to when the full line is released. They have little reason to throw out their best until AMD has shown their hand, and are playing the same game that Intel is, with their 3.0ghz processor that can easily be clocked higher.
With this in mind, I plan on holding on to my money for now, partially because I can't even find one in stock yet, and partially because having this card at this price point doesn't seem to make much sense unless a full line refresh is coming, and this card is the weakest link, which is an incredible thing to think about, considering how good this card appears to be Reply
bob4432 - Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - linki have been waiting for this card :) my old x1800xt will soon be retired once these guys get to ~$180 AR!!!! :) :) Reply
R3MF - Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - linkI am deeply impressed with the card, but i have a severe aversion to cut-down products.
A 128 SPU version clocked at 640MHz with 2000MHz GDDR memory would go down a treat.
How about it? Reply
mpc7488 - Thursday, November 01, 2007 - linkAbout one month.
"A G92-derivative will appear later this year with even more shader units. According to company guidance, the new G92 will launch in early December and feature 128 shader units as opposed to the 112 featured on GeForce 8800 GT. ... In addition to the extra shaders, the new G92 will also feature higher core frequencies and support for up to 1GB GDDR3." Reply
varia - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkRE: Wow by EODetroit on: Oct 29, 2007 3:06 PMRating: 2
When I was checking out around 1pm today at newegg, they got 4 diff. cards, all $249-269
Now, they listed 2, all back order, price: $289-299
Pffff not gonna but from them, for sure. Reply
varia - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkForget newegg, Fry's will have it at this friday.
EVGA GeForce 8800GT Video Card (512MB DDR3, PCI-E 2.0, DX10, OpenGL 2.0)
FRYS.com #: 5434329
Price: $ 229.99 Reply
gplracer - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkAre these results running the 8800gt as a single or in sli? Reply
gplracer - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linknever mind it is single i miss read it Reply
Shlong - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkAwesome, been waiting for something like this to come around. Right now at most places the cheapest I've found is $260 with $6 shipping. I'll wait for it to drop down to around the $199 mark & I'll be all over it. Reply
clandren - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkhow long before we start seeing something like this in a laptop? i think there was a brief mention that it might be possible to make one with passive cooling.. so that makes me hopeful. the 8600 series in laptops doesnt really impress me
AggressorPrime - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkPage 3
"We aren't including any new tests here, as we can expect performance on the same level as the 8600 GTS."
Let us hope the GeForce 8800 GT is on the same level as the GeForce 8600 GTS. Reply
AggressorPrime - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI made a typo. Let us hope they are not on the same level. Reply
ninjit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkThis page has my very confused:
The text of the article goes on as if the GT doesn't really compare to the GTX, except on price/performance:
We would be out of our minds to expect the 8800 GT to even remotely compete with the GTX, but the real question is - how much more performance do you get from the extra money you spent on the GTX over the GT?
But back to the real story, in spite of the fact that the 8800 GT doesn't touch the GTX, two of them will certainly beat it for either equal or less money.
Yet all the graphs show the GT performing pretty much on par with the GTX, with at most a 5-10fps difference at the highest resolution.
I didn't understand that last sentence I quoted above at all. Reply
archcommus - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkThis is obviously an amazing card and I hope it sets a new trend for getting good gaming performance in the latest titles for around $200 like it used to be, unlike the recent trend of having to spend $350+ for high end (not even ultra high end). However, I don't get why a GT part is higher performing than a GTS, isn't that going against their normal naming scheme a bit? I thought it was typically: Ultra -> GTX -> GTS -> GT -> GS, or something like that. Reply
mac2j - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI've been hearing rumors about an Nvidia 9800 card being released in the coming months .... is that the same card with an outdated/incorrect naming convention or a new architecture beyond G92?
I guess if Nvidia had a next-gen architecture coming it would explain why they dont mind wiping some of their old products off the board with the 8800 GT which seems as though it will be a dominant part for the remaining lifetime of this generation of parts. Reply
MFK - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkAfter lurking on Anandtech for two layout/design revisions, I have finally decided to post a comment. :D
First of all hi all!
Second of all, is it okay that nVidia decided not to introduce a proper next gen part in favour of this mid range offering? Okay so its good and what not, but what I'm wondering is, something that the article does not talk about, is what the future value of this card is. Can I expect this to play some upcoming games (Alan Wake?) on 1600 x 1200? I know its hard to predict, but industry analysts like you guys should have some idea. Also how long can I expect this card to continue playing games at acceptable framerates? Any idea, any one?
Thanks. Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkthat's a tough call ....
but really, it's up to the developers.
UT3 looks great in DX9, and Bioshock looks great in DX10. Crysis looks amazing, but its a demo, not final code and it does run very slow.
The bottom line is that developers need to balance the amazing effects they show off with playability -- it's up to them. They know what hardware you've got and they chose to push the envelope or not.
I konw that's not an answer, sorry :-( ... it is just nearly impossible to say what will happen. Reply
crimson117 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkHow much ram was on the 8800 GT used in testing? Was is 256 or 512? Reply
NoBull6 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkFrom context, I'm thinking 512. Since 512MB are the only cards available in the channel, and Derek was hypothesizing about the pricing of a 256MB version, I think you can be confident this was a 512MB test card. Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkcorrect.
256MB cards do not exist outside NVIDIA at this point. Reply
ninjit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI was just wondering about that too.
I thought I missed it in the article, but I didn't see it in another run through.
I see I'm not the only one who was curious Reply
vijay333 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkjust activated the step-up on my current 8800GTS 320MB -- after shipping costs and discounting the MIR from back then, I actually get the 8800GT 512MB for -$12 :) Reply
bespoke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkLucky bastard! :) Reply
vijay333 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkhehe...great timing too. only had 5 days remaining before the 90day limit for the step-up program expired :) Reply
clockerspiel - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkGenrally, Anandtech does an excellent job with it's reviews and uses robust benchmarking methodology. Any ideas why the Tech Report's results are so different?
Frumious1 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkSimply put? TechReport is doing some funny stuff (like HardOCP often does) with their benchmarking on this one. I have a great idea: let's find the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the 8800 GT vs. the 8800 GTS 640 and then ONLY show those resolutions! 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF? Ignoring the fact that 16xAF isn't noticeably different from 8xAF - and that 4xAA is hardly necessary at 2560x1600 there are just too many questions left by the TR review. They generally come to the same conclusion that this is a great card, but it's almost like they're struggling to find ANY situation where the 8800 GT might not be as good as the 8800 GTS 640.
For a different, more comprehensive look at the 8800 GT, why not try http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce...">the FiringSquad review? They test at a variety of resolutions with a decent selection of GPUs and games. Out of all of their results, the only situation where the 8800 GTS 640 comes out ahead of the 8800 GT is in Crysis at 2xAA/8xAF at 1920x1200. Granted, they don't have 2560x1600 resolutions in their results, but how many midrange people use 30" LCDs? For that matter, how many highend gamers use 30" LCDs? I'm sure they're nice, but for $1300+ I have a lot of other stuff I'd be interested in purchasing!
There are a lot of things that we don't know about testing methodology with all of the reviews. What exact detail settings are used, for example, and more importantly how realistic are those settings? Remember Doom 3's High Quality and Ultra Quality? Running everything with uncompressed textures to artificially help 512MB cards appear better than 256MB cards is stupid. Side by side screenshots showed virtually no difference. I don't know what the texture settings are in the Crysis demo, but I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people are maxing everything out and then crying about performance. Being a next gen title, I bet Crysis has the ability to stress the 1GB cards - whether or not it really results in an improved visual experience.
Maybe we can get some image quality comparisons when the game actually launches, though - because admittedly I could be totally wrong and the Crysis settings might be reasonable. Reply
Frumious1 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkSimply put? TechReport is doing some funny stuff (like HardOCP often does) with their benchmarking on this one. I have a great idea: let's find the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the 8800 GT vs. the 8800 GTS 640 and then ONLY show those resolutions! 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF? Ignoring the fact that 16xAF isn't noticeably different from 8xAF - and that 4xAA is hardly necessary at 2560x1600 there are just too many questions left by the TR review. They generally come to the same conclusion that this is a great card, but it's almost like they're struggling to find ANY situation where the 8800 GT might not be as good as the 8800 GTS 640.
For a different, more comprehensive look at the 8800 GT, why not try Reply
Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI just dont like being fed by the same site to tell 2 totally different things when picking my new GPU card. Reply
Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkIve been following anandtech testresults very carefully since the UT3 demo was released. What i can find comparing these results to the others in UT3 just doesnt make any sense ;
Looking at : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
shows the new 8800GT card beating 2900XT by, almost 120fps vs 105fps or so, in 1280*1024 @ UT3.
Looking at the first & second GPU test : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128...
Shows the 2900XT being on top with about 108,5fps, vs 8800 ULTRA, GTX and GTS, with 104,2 98,3 and 97.2 @ 1280 * 1024.
Prett close nr.s you see.
Looking at the new test again, 8800GT VS 8800GTS : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
Shows the 8800GT beating 8800GTS. @ 1280 * 1024 = close to 120fps vs 105fps. The GTS still over 100, when being below a 100 on the previous test.
But the huge difference is @ 1600 * 1200. 8800GT right above 100fps, when the GTS around 90? On the previous test GTS showed results as low as 77fps, cmon something smells wierd.
See where im going?
just showed the 8600GTS performing alot worse in this new test compared to the old one, @ all resolutions.
and again
8800GT and 8800GTX performing about the same, at the highest almost 120fps. compared to the previous test thats like 20 fps better than the GTX performed last time. Why dont these tests corresponde at all to the one just made?
Seems like all the 8800GT, GTX, ULTRA cards just got awhole freaking lot better, and making the 2900xt looking worse. WHICH I FIND DOUBLTY.. Someone bring the facts to the table.
dont tell me 2extra gb of ram made the nvidia cards play alot better, and the ati card alot worse!
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkWe used a different driver version this time -- in fact, we've gone through two driver revisions from NVIDIA here.
The AMD card didn't slip significatnly in performance at all (differences were all within 3%).
We did rerun the numbers, and we really think its a driver issue -- the new NV driver improved performance. Reply
Parafan - Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - linkWell clearly a graphics issue this must be. But I read nvidia 169.xx drivers were made for optimizing the performance, but lowering the quality of the graphics.
This was prooved when the water was less nicer in crysis etc with 169.04 and 169.01, than with their previous 163.xx drivers. Reply
Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkIt's hard to tell what you are getting when you compare the results from one article to those of another article. Ideally, you would like to be able to assume that the testing was done in an identical manner, but this isn't typically the case. As was already pointed out, look at the drivers being used. The earlier tests used nvidia's 163.75 drivers while the tests in this article used nvidia's 169.10 drivers.
Also, not enough was said about how Unreal 3 was being tested to know, but I wonder if they benchmarked the the game in different manners for the different articles. For example, were they using the same map "demo"? Were they using the game's built-in fly-bys or where they using FRAPS? These kind of differences between articles could make direct comparisons between articles difficult. Reply
spinportal - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkHave you checked the driver versions? Over time drivers do improve performance, perhaps? Reply
Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkWell the 'new' drivers made the GF 8600GTS Perform alot worse. But the higher ranked cards better. I dont know how likely that is Reply
Regs - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkTo blacken. I am a big AMD fan, but right now it's almost laughable how they're getting stepped and kicked on by the competition.
AMD's ideas are great for the long run, and their 65nm process was just a mistake since 45nm is right around the corner. They simply do not know how to compete when the heat is on. AMD is still traveling in 1st gear. Reply
yacoub - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link"NVIDIA Demolishes... NVIDIA? 8800 GT vs. 8600 GTS"
Well the 8600GTS was a mistake that never should have seen the light of day: over-priced, under-featured from the start. The 8800 GT is the card we were expecting back in the Spring when NVidia launched that 8600 GTS turd instead. Reply
yacoub - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkFirst vendor to put a quieter/larger cooling hsf on it gets my $250. Reply
gamephile - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkDih. Toh. Reply
CrystalBay - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkHi Derek, How are the Temps on load? I've seen some results of the GPU pushing 88C degrees plus with that anemic stock cooler. Reply
Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI may be a bit misinformed on this, but I'm getting the impression that Crysis represents the first game that makes major use of DX10 features, and as a consequence, it takes a major bite out of the performance that existing PC hardware can provide. When the 8800GT is used in a heavy DX10 game context does the performance that results fall into a hardware class that we typically would expect from a $200 part? In other words, making use of the Ti-4200 comparison, is the playable performance only acceptable at moderate resolutions and medium settings?
We've seen something like this before, when DX8 hardware was available and people were still playing DX7 games with this new hardware, the performance was very good. Once games started to show up that were true DX8 games, hardware (like the Ti-4200) that first supported DX8 features struggled to actually run these DX8 features.
Basically, I'm wondering whether Crysis (and other DX10 games that presumably will follow) places the 8800GT's $200 price point into a larger context that makes sense. Reply
Zak - Monday, November 05, 2007 - linkI've run Vista for about a month before switching back to XP due to Quake Wars crashing a lot (no more crashes under XP). I've run bunch of demos during that month including Crysis and Bioshock and I swear I didn't see a lot of visual difference between DX10 on Vista and DX9 on XP. Same for Time Shift (does it use DX10?). And all games run faster on XP. I really see no compelling reason to go back to Vista just because of DX10.
Zak Reply
Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkTest Reply
EateryOfPiza - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkWhat kind of G92 variants can we expect by Christmas 07?
Or Summer 08? Reply
mpc7488 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkardOCP is reporting that nVidia is increasing the 8800GTS stream processors to 112. Reply
Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkTesting ;-) Reply
Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkIt appears that it was the bracketed h that was hiding all subsequent text. It needed a bracketed /h to close that "feature". Reply
mpc7488 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkHaha - thanks. I guess if anyone wants the explanation of the stream processors they can highlight the 'hidden message'. Reply
mpc7488 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI'm not sure why the first post lost my text unless it was the bracket I used around the H - but HardOCP is reporting that nVidia is changing the 8800GTS 640 MB to have 112 stream processors. Reply
mpc7488 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkGreat article Derek - I think you can tell you're mildly excited about this product :)
Is there a reason that you didn't do any tests with anti-aliasing? I would assume that this would show more deviation between the 8800GTX and the 8800GT? Reply
chizow - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkNice job as usual Derek!
Just wondering though, if you were able to test the cards at the same clock speeds. The GT by default has @100MHz advantage on the core over the GTS, which is a common reason the GTS falls so far behind in head to head testing. I expect the GT to have more OC'ing headroom than the GTS anyways, but it would be nice to see an apples to apples comparison to reveal the impact of some of the architecture changes from G80 to G92. Of note, the GT has fewer ROPs and a smaller memory bus but gains 1:1 address/filter units and 16 more stream processors.
Also, I saw an early review that showed massive performance gains when the shader processor was overclocked on the GT; much bigger gains than significant increases to the core/memory clocks. Similar testing with the GTS/GTX don't yield anywhere near that much performance gain when the shader core clock is bumped up.
Lastly, any idea when the G92 8800GTS refresh is going to be released? With a 640MB GTS this seems more of a lateral move to an 8800GT, although a refreshed GTS with 128SP and all the other enhancements of the G92 should undoubtedly be faster than the GTX...and maybe even the Ultra once overclocked. Reply
Hulk - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI'm looking to build a HTPC and this would be a great card if it does video decoding? Reply
defter - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkYes it has VP2 processor for video decoding. But why would you need a fast gaming card for HTPC? Wouldn't 8400/8600 be a cheaper/cooler solution? Reply
Hulk - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkThanks for the reply.
This card looks to be pretty cool running and when not running 3D intensive apps I'm sure power consumption and noise is really low.
So it might be nice to be able to play a little on a 52"LCD! Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkalso, if you go with a less powerful card for HD HTPC you'll want at minimum the 8600 GTS -- which is not a good card. The 8800 GT does offer a lot more bang for the buck, and Sparkle is offering a silent version. Reply
spittledip - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkNothing like cherry picking the games... I don't understand why games like Stalker and Prey weren't tested as the 2900XT has superior performance on those titles, as well as other titles. Seems like a biased test. Reply
AssBall - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkThey didn't test The Sims2 or DeerHunter either... Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linklol ... stalker and prey?
we tested quake wars, which is effectively updated prey (id's engine).
and stalker runs better on nvidia hardware -- when tested properly (many people use demo flybys that point up at the sky way too much rather than fraps run throughs). Reply
abe88 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkHmmm I thought ATI's RV630 and RV610 chips both support PCI-E 2.0? Reply
Wirmish - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkYeah but it's not worth mentioning because theses GPU are not from nVidia. Reply
defter - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
The G92 is fabbed on a 65nm process, and even though it has fewer SPs, less texturing power
G92 has the same amount of SPs and MORE texturing power (twice as many addressing units) than G80. However, 8800GT card has some SPs and texture units disabled.
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkwell, first, if G92 has those units disabled, then it can't claim them.
second, NVIDIA would not confirm that the G92 as incarnate on 8800 GT has units disabled, but it is fair to speculate that this configuration was chosen to work out yields on their first 65nm part. Reply
gamephile - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkBased on benchmarks and price this card is finally in the sweet spot for me which means I can finally ditch my ATI X300! I only have one question remaining and that concerns the noise level. How does it compare to the 8800GTS? Why was this omitted from your review? Reply
Vidmar - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkDitto! Noise please!!! Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkwe didn't measure noise, as it's a reference board which doesn't necessarily reflect final boards available from OEMs.
of course, since you guys want this, we'll try to add it to future GPU launch articles.
For now, it'll have to suffice to say that it isn't a loud card, and it doesn't seem any louder than the 8800 GTS. Reply
Missing Ghost - Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - linkTheses times most retail cards are pretty much the same as the reference cards... Reply
michal1980 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI want to know too. If its bettern then my 8800gts 640. I'll ebay that card now for the 8800. esspically with the smaller cooler and quiter. Reply
Dantzig - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkTom's Hardware did a noise comparison and found that the 8800GT was as quiet or quieter than any of the other 8800 series cards, the 8600 series, and the 2900XT. Reply
gamephile - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkYeah I saw that, I would just like confirmation from a source I trust. Reply
mpc7488 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkLol - nice.
The Tech Report did a good review, they have noise figures on page 7. http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/7">Tech Report 8800GT Noise Levels Reply
gamephile - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkAlso the power consumption image doesn't load for me either. I'm not behind any firewall or proxy. Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linki'll look into the power graph thing Reply
DukeN - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkThis is unreal price to performance - knock on wood; play oblivion at 1920X1200 on a $250 GPU.
Could we have a benchmark based on the Crysis demo please, how one or two cards would do?
Also, the power page pics do not show up for some reason (may be the firewall cached it incorrectly here at work).
Thank you. Reply
Xtasy26 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkHey Guys,
If you want to see Crysis benchmarks, check out this link:
The benches are:
1280 x 1024 : ~ 37 f.p.s.
1680 x 1050 : 25 f.p.s.
1920 x 1080 : ~ 21 f.p.s.
This is on a test bed:
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 @2.93 GHz
Asetek VapoChill Micro cooler
EVGA 680i motherboard
2GB Corsair Dominator PC2-9136C5D
Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB/Zotac 8800GTX AMP!/XFX 8800Ultra/ATI Radeon HD2900XT
250GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 16MB cache
Sony BWU-100A Blu-ray burner
Hiper 880W Type-R Power Supply
Toshiba's external HD-DVD box (Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive)
Dell 2407WFP-HC
Logitech G15 Keyboard, MX-518 rat
Xtasy26 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkThis game seems real demanding. If it is getting 37 f.p.s. at 1280 x 1024, imagine what the frame rate will be with 4X FSAA enabled combined with 8X Anistrophic Filtering. I think I will wait till Nvidia releases there 9800/9600 GT/GTS and combine that with Intel's 45nm Penryn CPU. I want to play this beautiful game in all it's glory!:) Reply
Spuke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkImpressive!!!! I read the article but I saw no mention of a release date. When's this thing available? Reply
Spuke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkUmmm.....When can I BUY it? That's what I mean. Reply
EODetroit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkNow.
poohbear - Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - linkwhen do u guys think its gonna be $250? cheapest i see is $270, but i understand when its first released the prices are jacked up a bit. Reply
EateryOfPiza - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkI second the request for Crysis benchmarks, that is the game that taxes everything at the moment. Reply
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkwe actually tested crysis ...
but there were issues ... not with the game, we just shot ourselves in the foot on this one and weren't able to do as much as we wanted. We had to retest a bunch of stuff, and we didn't get to crysis. Reply
yyrkoon - Monday, October 29, 2007 - linkYes, I am glad instead of purchasing a video card, I instead changed motherboard/CPU for Intel vs AMD. I still like my AM2 Opteron system a lot, but performance numbers, and the effortless 1Ghz OC on the ABIT IP35-E/(at $90usd !) was just too much to overlook.
I can definitely understand your 'praise' as it were when nVidia is now lowering their prices, but this is where these prices should have always been. nVidia, and ATI/AMD have been ripping us, the consumer off for the last 1.5 years or so, so you will excuse me if I do not show too much enthusiasm when they finally lower their prices to where they should be. I do not consider this to be much different than the memory industry over charging, and the consumer getting the shaft(as per your article).
I am happy though . . . Reply


text:
Oh sure, that 550-square-foot, 200-year-old adobe casita you live in is chock full of character. The floors feature the familiar glow of ancient-looking orange tile. Vigas wheel across the ceiling like wooden baking pins. The walls are full of nichos; you like to fantasize that some mystical old abuela stored her votive candles in them. It's cute.
Too bad it's so damn cold.
Sure, adobe does its part to insulate and keep the hot side hot, but when the winter temps plummet south of double digits, there's no blocking the icy drafts that sweep under doors and through ill-fitting window frames.
You'd crank the heat, but the electricity needed to juice your baseboard heaters costs more than a Sarah Palin shopping spree. Your gas furnace is so expensive, it might as well be running on liquid gold. What do you do?
Burn, baby, burn.
Burn wood, that is. That's right—you buy your self a good old-fashioned, wood-burning stove. Well, kind of old-fashioned. The truth is, the wood-burning stoves available today aren't much different in theory from those of yore. They are one of the most efficient, aesthetic and—yep—cheap ways to heat a room.
If you're thinking of doing so, you're not alone. According to General Manager Rick Bastine of Premier Home Products (formerly Primetime Spas, Pools, Patios & Stoves), sales have "increased tremendously." Last year, Bastine says, folks began ordering wood-burning stoves in October. This year, due to the struggling economy and high cost of fuels, orders began in July.
Bastine knows his stuff and, if you speak with him for more than a minute, you'll quickly realize there's more to these things than metal, logs and a chimney. Wood-burning stoves are an investment—of both research and money—on the front end. First, you need to decide if you want a stove that burns wood pellets or cord wood. Wood pellets are small nubs of compacted sawdust and other wood-waste material, approximately the size and shape of a couple of PEZ candies stuck together. While maybe less traditionally quaint than a roaring wood fire, wood-pellet fires have a lot of pluses: Pellets are considered biomass—by-products that can be reused without having to waste nonrenewable fuels like natural gas or coal. Compared to cord wood, wood pellets also release the least amount of pollutants. Smoke from solid wood carries ash and larger particulates that tend to get caught up in heavy wintertime atmosphere, sometimes leading to increased instances of asthma and other ailments.
Wood-pellet by-products, however, are so minimal that the US Environmental Protection Agency doesn't even monitor them. Wood pellets come in two types, by the way: standard, which is cheaper but burns quicker and premium, which is pricier but burns slower and cleaner, thus giving off the least amount of by-products of all.
Bastine notes, however, that many new solid wood stoves feature a second air chamber, or even catalytic converters, "so unburned particles reignite." Both the chamber and the converter "allow for a much more complete burning of fuel," Bastine says, thereby greatly reducing pollutants.
Both solid wood and pellets will save you money on your heating bills. According to Consumer Reports, the US Department of Energy estimates it costs $14.39 to produce a million BTUs of heat with pellets and around $16 with wood. Both are much cheaper than natural gas, oil, propane and electric heating methods, which can range from $19 to around $40 per million BTUs.
Speaking of BTUs, you'll need approximately 25-30 BTUs per hour to heat a square foot of space. So bust out the tape measure and a calculator.
There are other factors too: Will your stove be the primary source of heat? How well insulated is your house? How high are the ceilings? What type of wood are you planning on using? Do you want the heat from your stove to circulate throughout the house or in just one room? Make as specific a list as you can of what you want so you can start looking at what's in your price range.
Ah, yes, price range. That's where it gets tough. Stove prices vary according to make, model, size and bling factor (did you know you can get gold handles?), of course, but you're looking at an expenditure of $1,000 to $3,000. From there, the chimney might rock you for another several hundred, and then installation averages between $600 and $800.
You might be tempted to cheap out and hire a non-certified installer. Don't. "Someone might say, 'Oh, I'll get you your chimney and install it for $250,'" Bastine says. "Well, I'd question that. You get what you pay for."
But all that is down the road. If you take one tack in your quest for heat, it should be: Educate yourself. Check out consumerreports.org, US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration site and the Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association. And remember, if you print the FAQ page, you can use it later to light the first fire in your new stove.
Santa Fe has several places where you can buy a wood-burning stove. No matter where you buy one, make sure to ask for a list of certified installers (most dealers will have them).
Big Jo True Value Hardware
1311 Siler Road
The Firebird
1808 Espinacitas St.
Pool and Spa Mart
3985 Cerrillos Road
Premier Home Products
513 Camino de los Marquez


text:
toll-free (866)981-8128 | FAQ
Create your own custom wrapping paper!
Browse by
At Giftskins.com our mission is to help you create your own custom wrapping paper and personalized gift wrap for all special occasions and celebrations. Create photo wrapping paper and custom gift wrap for your next birthday, wedding, graduation, Christmas or other holiday party. Our personalized wrapping paper is a creative, unique and modern way to wrap your gifts and give those you love a little something extra. Choose your theme and design, then add photos and write personalized messages to make your very own custom wrapping paper. We hope you get wrapped up in our customized gift wrapping paper! Giftskins.com, creating better presents from the outside in.


text:
Copyright © 2002-2017. Come2Bet Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.com |
About us |
Come2Bet is the pioneer in football (soccer) betting competitions on the Internet. It is one of the first websites, if not the first, that managed to create a live tipster community. It is our intention to continue towards this effort. At come2bet you can find football (soccer) match analysis, betting picks and tips, league information, tools, odds comparison, tables, stats, league information for 600 football leagues, team information, team comparisons, tipster competitions and more
Football soccer predictions, picks, tips and hints, forums and other ways of communicating with top tipsters. We also feature a constantly increasing in number directory with hundreds of soccer related sites. Send us your comments to improve come2bet at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Young whores who love cock want you to jam it in all their holes!
By entering this porn site, clicking the green "Show me XTube" button below, you agree to the following terms and conditions: You certify that you are 18 years of age or older, and are
not offended by sexually explicit imagery. You agree that you will not permit any person(s) under 18 years of age to have access to any of the materials contained within this site.


text:
Since Facebook's popularity has grown, there's an amazing variety of people who could be at the other end of that latest friend request. It could be your old college buddy, your high school crush, your grandma -- or it could be the guy who signs your paycheck.
You may think accepting your boss's friend request will be harmless. You're smart and Facebook-savvy, so you can make sure you can keep your work and personal lives separate even if you accept, right?
Think again. Whether it's a momentary lapse in judgment on your part or an accidental slip from one of your friends, giving your boss access to your personal profile is a minefield no matter how high you crank up those privacy settings.
Clicking the "ignore" button on your boss's friend request may lead to an awkward day at the office, but it easily beats the ongoing danger and embarrassment that goes along with pressing "accept."
Don't agree? Here are five reasons to change your mind ...
No. 5: Getting the third degree over happy hour
One of Facebook's beauties is the simplicity of planning a get-together. Having a party? Set up an event page. Coordinating a weekend trip with a small group? Send a message. Getting together with a few folks for drinks after work? Write on their wall.
The problem is that most of these tools default to public viewing. So if you decide to tell Steve in accounting that a few people from your department are going to happy hour by writing on his wall, your boss will know, too.
If your boss is the suspicious type, expect to be grilled. Who's going? Why are you going out -- to gripe about the office? What's the problem, exactly? And what do you mean both Karen and Sam will be there? She's his supervisor; don't you know that's inappropriate?
Even if your boss isn't into office conspiracies, you could still get a question you may not want to answer: Sounds fun. Can I come?
If you think that's scary, wait till you see our next reason ...
No. 4: Precarious status updates
There's a certain release in griping via Facebook status updates, banging out your frustrations on your keyboard and broadcasting your displeasure to all your friends at once. "I work for idiots! Can you believe the pointlessness of what these yahoos are making me do? They're running this place into the ground!"
Of course, if one of those yahoos is also your Facebook friend, that displeasure will be broadcast a little further than you wanted it to go. Don't be surprised if you suddenly end up with an email suggesting you might be happier in a different position -- like one with another company.
And if the time stamp on that status update shows that not only were you complaining about your employer in a very public forum, but you were also doing it on company time, you may just want to just start cleaning off your desk and save yourself a little time later.
Of course, if you're already looking to move on, need our next tip ...
No. 3: Good luck keeping that job hunt secret
Whether you're ready to move on and are embarking on a serious job hunt or you're just looking around to see what's out there, that's not something you usually want to discuss with your current boss.
But all it takes is one well-meaning friend to ask a simple question on your wall to get you in hot water:
"Hey, sorry to hear work still sucks. How's your job hunt going? Good luck!"
Just as you stare at that message horrified that your intentions have been broadcast to the world and repeatedly pound the delete button, your boss will be reading her news feed and wondering just how quickly you'll be out the door.
Or even worse -- if your boss had a problem with you anyway or is trying to cut costs, you may be forced out before you're ready.
Can you picture it? How about our next reason?
No. 2: Think about your images
You've done due diligence on your Facebook photo albums.
You've untagged yourself in those college party photos where you're double fisting red cups. You've threatened your friends until they agreed to take down the evidence of that embarrassing weekend in Vegas. You even deleted a few ill-advised profile pictures. So any sketchy photos should be well hidden from everyone, right?
Sure. That is, until you go to a bachelorette party with that one photo-happy friend who must post all photos from the day before she goes to bed so she won't have trouble sleeping. Or you don't notice your prolific mobile uploader friend pull out his cell phone camera once you're a few Irish Carbombs in at the St. Patrick's Day party.
By the time you untag yourself in new photos or beg your friends to take them down, the damage will already be done. Those photos are in your newsfeed and on your boss's computer screen.
Last up, if you want to respect your boss, heed our last warning ...
No. 1: Try respecting a guy with a lamp shade on his head
If there's one thing worse than your boss being able to see what you did Saturday night, it's the reverse: Having your boss's personal photos burn a permanent image into your brain.
Do you really need to see photos of your boss and his bar buddies drinking and dancing the night away? Or the home glamour shots she tried to take that look more sad than fab?
At one time, getting your hands on a photo like that could elicit a snicker and admiration from co-workers. But now that every detail of every photo is readily available to everyone online, it can just get sad.
You're boss is someone you're supposed to respect on a professional level. That can get a lot tougher when he's trying to lead a serious meeting on Monday and you can think about nothing but that wild photo he posted over the weekend.
Distributed by LAKANA. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.