I used to take notes electronically all the time and I ran into your problem in different classes. What I realised though, was that it was not a matter of speed, it was a matter of categorizing! Allow me to explain. You said you wish to take notes so you can sort them later and what not, that's a great idea and it worked great for me too! What I did for my equations though, was write them by hand on a notebook and (in the notes) refer to them as EQ1, EQ2, EQ3 etc... When I got home, I would review my notes and I would then type the equations in the notes! This proved to be sufficiently fast if you have a notepad that you can fit on the desk with you (if you have a full-sized laptop, maybe try a smaller notebook). I ran into this problem when I took a CS class that was making use of flow charts, I certainly didn't want to draw the damned things with a tablet, I simply drew them by hand, referred them in the notes as fig1, fig2 etc, and when I got home I would (sometimes) scan the drawings and paste them in! I know this isn't a suggestion for software, but maybe it can help you with your notes in the mean time.

I thought that the origin was "mobile vulgus" which makes more sense as to why "mob" was taken as the derivative (short for the first word rather than the second). In any case, I thought that "mobile" means "moving" and "vulgus" means "common people" with the context perhaps implying "ignorant" or "vulgar". So to me, a "moving group of common people" makes more sense than "fickle crowd" as the translation of "mobile vulgus".

After reading TFA which brings a tie between Boston and LA as awful places to work, the link right below this article entitled "Where the IT Jobs Are: 10 American Cities" lists BOTH Boston and LA.....

Just for reference, the article from this thread is from June 18th or so while the second article praising cities for IT jobs is from May1st.

Although the original article mentions both places as a heaven for IT geeks, it also warns against the quality of life in the areas....or maybe I'm just trying to find the silver lining?

Your solution:

http://xkcd.com/208/

IANAL but I was thinking:

even if the RIAA doesn't hold legitimate copyrights to the music they sued for, somebody -does- have copyrights. The author of the song or the artist that played it or whomever. I guess returning the ill-gotten money is a great start and an ambitious goal (and I wish Camara all the best in this awesome quest) but when they settle to who actually owns the copyrights (unless it is 100% the buyer or public domain or fair use) it won't stop the true owner of the copyrights to go after the file-sharer no?

So if RIAA returns money
Artist is found to hold true copyrights
Artist can sue for said money now?

What are the implications of this outcome?
Maybe I'm thinking waaaaay ahead and I need to let it unfold some more?

Your problem is identical to the OP problem, but you are both looking to find a solution that does not address the problem, it only fixes the symptom.

What you both need is not a way to track down your lost daughter/dog, but a way to prevent them from getting lost in the first place!

- The OP needs to address the school district as to why in the hell they keep putting kids on the wrong bus on a regular basis and someone way up on the thread already suggested this (dkleinsc). In the mean time, I'd also take advice from blueZ3 where a better way to approach a solution and also impart useful lessons and skills is to have your daughter learn to ask for help from the appropriate people and learn her home address and number etc...

- You, (Charles Dodgeson) need to train your dog to not run away when she sees a bunny. Not to insult, but have you ever watched the dog whisperer? I swear that guy is a magician when it comes to dog training. http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/dogwhisperer/

Just my $0.02

Who's Sue? Is she hot?

Toothache, maybe!

Maybe this video will cheer the kid up!

http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/03/1627237

True, but then again, why would you need stitches if all you're doing is pulling a tooth?
I've had two teeth pulled and all they did was leave the gaping hole to self-heal.

Maybe he had some serious mouth surgery that required harder drugs?

I'm not a dentist, but I take the video for what it was on the surface: Fuckin' hilarious! *roflmao!*

Goddamn it, why isn't anyone giving you any 'Insightful' or 'Interesting' mod points?

This whole thread is pretty much being embraced by every reply I read except for the far and few in between (such as the parent) as "wholesome pure scientific proof that anything but medicines from drug companies and approved by FDA are effective".

It seems that the vast majority of the community is easily scared of the "unknown medical methods" and you would rather side with "what you know method" without actually doing any research of your own.

I thought that this is what lobbyists try to take advantage of in Washington to influence the mind of politicians. Scare tactics and bullshit research to side one way or another. I don't see this book as anything different from that.

Oh, do any of you recall the "Eggs are good for you" research? I thought a recent research said that now "Eggs are bad for you" but I guess a NEW research changed it to "Eggs are good for you!"
Those were also scientific research studies!

Oh, and the coffee research, yeah. That had the same kind of sea-saw kind of research and publicity.

Anyone can do a research and make it sound like they did real actual scientific work, but even "research" can be misleading and many companies rely on misleading information to prove a point. They may not be necessarily lie to you, but I doubt that they always tell you the WHOLE STORY.

As always, don't be so damned quick to judge. Read peer-reviewed journals, do your own work, don't just allow outside information to persuade you passively. Ask the hard questions!!

For example, why did the review spend (at least) 3 fuckin' chapters on homeopathy and only half of a chapter (chapter 5) on Herbal Medicine? Where is the review against Chiropractic therapy? Where is the review against Acupuncture?

Why does every paragraph of the review slams homeopathy and then quickly follows with "homeopathy and other bogus cures" ? Could it be that they're just trying to feed you their strongest opinion and make you believe it applies to ALL alternative medicine?

Whatever.

Apologies to the parent, for my reply morphed into a different argument.

All in good humor, of course :)