Archive for July, 2009

Boost Mobile Got Hit by the BBB for the Phones

Complaint Details

Boost Mobile
P.O. Box 54988
Irvine, CA 92618
Contact: Valerio, Loretta
Phone: (888) 266-7848

Thurman, Byron

821 West Green Street
Stephenville, TX 76401
(254) 522-8257
byronthurman@gmail.com

Thank you for letting us know that you are dissatisfied with the company’s response to your complaint. Although we forwarded your comments to the company, they have not responded further or their response failed to address your concerns. We are, therefore, unable to pursue this matter further and are closing our file.

Your complaint will remain in our files and will become part of the information we issue to the public about this company.

Thank you for using the Better Business Bureau. Please contact us if we can assist you in the future.

Complaint ID: 98426261

Complaint Classification:

Complaint Description – Posted 6/30/2009 9:02:48 AM

I talked to everyone I could and nobody would resolve the issue for me. I talked to Boost Customer Service, Boost Technical Support, Boost Sales department, boost managagement, and Boost’s shipping center Brightpoint I was told it was my phone for the first week, then I was told they had a tower down in my area, then I was told there was no service in my area. So I asked to return the phones and I was told they couldn’t do that because they don’t ship the phones. I ordered from Boost Mobiles website, they sent me the phones to an area they wouldn’t work. I have an old phone that works, but it runs on a different network (Nextel). So essentially they sent a phone that would never work and I am out almost $400 in charges they refuse to fix. When I tried to resolve the complaint with them I was told I needed all of my boxes even though they told me I could throw them away because I woudn’t have any further problems once they got the tower up. That tower doesn’t even cover my area! I was also told they would be unable to help me because it had been over two weeks. However in other instances later they were able to tell me my order date. If they have my customer information on file they should know when I ordered my service and when I gave them an estimation they didn’t check they just told me I was unable to return because their policy states they have a 2 week limit. And I would also be required to have all of the packaging that they told me I could throw away.

Complaint Summary

Ordered 2 phones that were sent to me in an area that they don’t provide service.

Resolution Sought

Take the phones back and refund money or provide equivelent service to my old phone and laying the blame off to their shipping company and making me call every section of their company. It’s not my responsibility as a consumer to know whether a specific model works in my area.

Additional Information

Date Problem First Occurred:
5/28/2009
Product or Service: Unlimited cell service
Model Name or Number: i465
Date Purchased: 5/28/2009
Order Number: 2766545
Amount In Dispute: $0.00

Company’s Response

Company’s Initial Response – Posted 07/14/2009
Closing due to no contact. We called the customer on 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 7/5, 7/6, 7/7, 7/8 and were not successful in reaching the customer.
Initial Response Summary
Closing due to no contact. We called the customer on 6/30, 7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 7/5, 7/6, 7/7, 7/8 and were not successful in reaching the customer.

Consumer’s Rebuttal

Consumer’s Rebuttal – Posted 07/16/2009
I currently cannot be contacted via phone as I am currently relocating and cannot afford additional cell phone expenses upon my business account. Email is always the best way to contact me as I am a web developer and only use phones for business purposes. My email is byronthurman@gmail.com. If it is essential I have a phone please let me know and I will set up arrangements with my associate who is here with me to allow me to release his number for contact.

Company’s Final Response

Company’s Final Response – None Posted

How to Live Homeless in Houston

Yup the name is exactly relevant, somehow I have landed myself into a tent near the last hotel I stayed at. Which isn’t nearly as horrible as one might think. Maybe it’s just suppressed rage at my boyscout Scoutmaster never taking us camping (Which is the ONLY reason I joined mind you!) But I decided spending $250 a week just wasn’t the way to go when I’m broke and living in a new city. So I did what any stupidly bold internet junkie would do and set up a tent in a forested area in the middle of Houston.

Now mind you this isn’t just any forested area, we have a single neighbor who also lives in a tent. We’re pretty sure he doesn’t own the place since, well quite frankly he lives in a tent. We’re pretty sure he is a local bum. We haven’t made an effort to be friendly so far. We purposefully hid our tent in a clearing that is difficult to get to and cannot be seen from the road or his campground. And so far I have stayed a total of 4 nights and I must say that I love the look on peoples faces when they find out I’m homeless.

Generally I’m working on my laptop at a Denny’s near work. I may be homeless, but I have a job and that’s not panhandling. I own property in New Mexico, and my roomate who is staying in the tent with me own a house back home that we go to on our days off. Ah, yes it is a funny situation indeed.

Since then I’ve had several offers to move in with people. I finally accepted one and currently our tent is still there if anyone would like to move in!

Well anyway onto the meat and potatoes of this post. Since everyone and their mother is jumping on the 2012 bandwagon these days I figured it appropriate to let people know some of the real things that you don’t consider in our ultra pampered world.

1) A tent may keep the rain off of you but it gets really hot and humid with no airflow. I found myself seriously considering running a small fan with a battery or solar panel. This would have made the entire ordeal a walk in the park. All I did was sleep there, however it’s hard to sleep when you smell by the next day because you sweat so much in the middle of the night. My shirt I used for a pillow seriously looked like my jogging shirts do when I forget to take them off before the first mile is finished.

2) This one sounds a little funny but you have no electricity. We quickly realized that we had to go to Denny’s just to work on our websites because we had no power inverter. And even if we did I feel way more insecure sitting in a car on a laptop in a parking lot than I do in a secluded forested area inside the beltway in the middle of the night. However, we never took the laptops, we’re far too paranoid for that. I’ll fight for my laptop they can have my shoes.

3) Mosquitoes really suck! Pun intended. I had a mosquito get me on my forehead 2 days in a row in the same spot. I’m sure people at work thought I was getting a tumor on my forehead. Funny how nobody puts it together that you might not have a home when you actually work. I guess being homeless and being a bum go hand in hand. I however am homeless because I am not a bum. Funny how that works. Whoever was in the completely pimped out tent near us used citronella candles. He even had outdoor furniture and tarps!

4) If you really have to go in the middle of the night… you might want to pack toilet paper. Fortunately we never had this problem… but I wouldn’t want you to go through it!

5) Sleeping bags aren’t necessary in 90+ night time temperatures. I almost bought one, trust me, buy a pad, maybe a cloth to cover the pad. But you will regret a warm bag during the summer in Houston. I wanted to keep mosquitos out, the tent does that fine and a bug spray containing 40% deet helped repel the rest of the little buggers. Glad I’m not in South America, all I have to say is beware the bot fly!

6) Life can stink living homeless. Make sure you bathe. This can be easily accomplished by bringing some swimming shorts. I personally would have been swimming at random hotels every day. However I had to work during daytime hours at the time. Fortunately I did find other alternatives however this would have been way more simple. Best of all chlorine can help rid you of all the nasty bacteria that make you stink in the first place. My main problem was sweating in the same pants daily. I only brought one pair. Horrible.

7) Fire draws attention and starts forest fires! Fortunately we already knew better than to cook on an open fire in the middle of Houston. I don’t think the police would believe I’m actually not a bum and have a job just no better place to go. And I doubt they would care for that matter.

In the wild water is your friend. If we were really in a survival situation we probably would have faired pretty well if we weren’t sucking up soda’s at night dehydrating our bodies even further. It rained every few days which would have helped the most. And there was plenty of green foliage to extract water from using a solar water purifier.

I’m sure there is plenty more but I only have so much time on my lunch break and simply must get back to work. Told you I had a job. :p

In Training at Host

In Training at Host Gator

In training http://h

In training http://htxt.it/pH7M

A genome-wide scan reveals candidate susceptibility loci for pig hernias in an intercross between White Duroc and Erhualian

Pig scrotal/inguinal and umbilical hernias are the most prevalent congenital disorders in pigs and often cause animal welfare problems and economic loss. To identify susceptibility loci for these traits, a genome-wide scan with 194 microsatellite markers covering the pig genome was performed in a White Duroc x Erhualian resource population with 23 scrotal/inguinal F₂ animals, 50 umbilical F₂ animals, and their unaffected siblings. A sex-average linkage map with a total length of 2,350.3 cM and an average marker interval of 12.84 cM was constructed. Both nonparametric genome-wide linkage (NPL) analysis and transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) were implemented to detect closely linked markers. The NPL analysis revealed 11 chromosomal regions on SSC1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 for umbilical hernia and 5 regions on SSC2, 4, 8, 13, and 16 for scrotal/inguinal hernia, whereas the TDT test identified susceptibility loci for umbilical hernia on SSC1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15 and for scrotal/inguinal hernias on SSC2, 8, 10, and 18. The most promising loci were SWR1928 on SSC7 and SW830 on SSC10 for umbilical hernia, and SW933 on SSC8 for scrotal hernia, which were consistently detected by both NPL and TDT. Several previously reported chromosomal regions for scrotal/inguinal hernia were confirmed, and new evidence for linkage with this pig defect was found. Moreover, susceptibility loci for pig umbilical hernia were detected for the first time.

Polymorphisms in positional candidate genes on BTA14 and BTA26 affect carcass quality in beef cattle

Several studies have reported the presence of carcass quality QTL on BTA14 and BTA26, with no specific genes being conclusively linked as their cause. The aim of this study was to identify polymorphisms in genes known to affect lipid metabolism in other species and to assess their association with carcass quality traits. Two genes located on BTA14, 2,4 dienoyl CoA reductase 1 (DECR1) and core binding factor, runt domain, subunit 2, translocated to 1 gene (CBFA2T1), have been previously evaluated in other species and found to contain polymorphisms influencing lipid metabolism. A gene on BTA26, fibroblast growth factor 8 (FGF8), has in recent studies been linked to several QTL affecting obesity in mice, indicating its potential for regulating adiposity in other species. Sequencing analysis identified 9 polymorphisms in DECR1, 4 in CBFA2T1, and 4 in FGF8. Multiple sequence alignment of DECR1 among cattle, humans, and mice showed that 4 of these mutations lie in conserved regions across these species. Using 464 Angus, Charolais, and crossbred animals produced associations with ultrasound marbling score (CBFA2T1, P = 0.019), ultrasound backfat (DECR1, P = 0.012), carcass backfat (FGF8, P = 0.004), and lean meat yield (FGF8, P = 0.005). Quantitative trait loci analysis including a set of previously genotyped markers on BTA14, and 1 DECR1 polymorphism resulted in several significant QTL peaks: ultrasound backfat (UBF) at 91 cM, lean meat yield at 86 cM, carcass gradefat at 15 cM, and yield grade at 87 cM, all at the P < 0.05 level. Using DECR1 as a genetic covariate removed the UBF QTL, indicating that this SNP was contributing to the variation observed in UBF. A similar analysis was performed on BTA26 using 1 of the FGF8 polymorphisms. Results showed significant peaks for lean meat yield at 2 cM and for yield grade at 25 cM, both at P < 0.01, and for carcass backfat at 25 cM (P < 0.05). Removal of FGF8 SNP in further analysis resulted in the disappearance of the carcass backfat QTL. These results suggest that polymorphisms discovered in DECR1, CBFA2T1, and FGF8 may play a role in the lipid metabolism pathway affecting carcass quality traits in beef cattle. However, further studies are needed to confirm that these polymorphisms are responsible for the differences observed in carcass quality in beef cattle.

Association between melatonin receptor 1A gene polymorphism and reproductive performance in Dorset ewes

The response to melatonin expression is one way that circadian rhythms of many biological processes are regulated. To evaluate the relationship between the melatonin receptor 1A (MTNR1A) gene and reproductive performance, records were compared in Dorset and 3/4-Dorset x 1/4-East Friesian ewes expressing different genotypes at the MTNR1A gene in the Cornell University sheep flock. There were 116 ewes with first lambing records, consisting of 91 Dorset and 25 crossbred ewes. Of these, 104 ewes had second lambing records. Genotypes were determined by PCR amplification of a fragment of the ovine MTNR1A gene followed by digestion with MnlI and RsaI restriction enzymes. The effects of breed, year of birth, season of birth or season of first conception, and each polymorphism on days to first lambing and days between first and second lambings were evaluated. Our results show that ewes with at least 1 M allele are able to conceive at younger ages, better able to breed and conceive out-of-season, and have shorter intervals between first and second lambings than ewes expressing only the m allele. The results presented in this study show, for the first time, an association of the MTNR1A gene and lambing frequency and confirm the importance of the MTNR1A gene as a potential DNA marker for out-of-season breeding.

Invited Review: Research contributions from seventy-five years of breeding Line 1 Hereford cattle at Miles City, Montana

For 75 yr, Line 1 Hereford cattle have been at the forefront of beef cattle breeding research. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of scientific contributions made using the Line 1 Hereford population. It was initially developed as contribution to a western regional program from which beef producers were envisioned to use heterosis by crossing selected inbred lines. Whereas this vision was never fulfilled, being largely supplanted by crossbreeding, Line 1 has had a profound influence on beef cattle breeding research and the Hereford breed. For more than 60 yr, Hereford breeders and commercial beef producers have purchased Line 1 Hereford germplasm for use in their herds. By example, Line 1 illustrates a successful linebreeding program through which a 39% additive relationship to the founding sire has been maintained over more than 18 generations. Procedures for performance testing beef cattle can be traced to original research with Line 1. Data from Line 1 contributed to the first estimates of heritability and genetic correlation for beef cattle. Work with Line 1 has also contributed greatly to the understanding of maternal genetic effects in beef cattle. Diallel crossing with other inbred lines provided early estimates of heterosis for beef cattle, complimented by the later observation that heterosis resulted in complete recovery of the accumulated negative effects of inbreeding. After exchanges of germplasm with the Northern Montana Agricultural Experiment Station at Havre and the Brooksville Beef Cattle Research Station in Florida, pioneering comprehensive evaluations of genotype x environment interaction were conducted. Breeding practices implemented by USDA Agricultural Research Service at Miles City make Line 1 the longest running selection experiment using beef cattle worldwide. This long-term database has provided an exceptional resource for prototype evaluations of procedures for national cattle evaluation, and the results make up an integral part of the foundation of modern-day genetic evaluation programs. Having used DNA from Line 1 in the development of a bacterial artificial chromosome library and the bovine genome sequence, Line 1 Hereford cattle are uniquely positioned for continued contributions in future research.

Product versus additive threshold models for analysis of reproduction outcomes in animal genetics

The phenotypic observation of some reproduction traits (e.g., insemination success, interval from lambing to insemination) is the result of environmental and genetic factors acting on 2 individuals: the male and female involved in a mating couple. In animal genetics, the main approach (called additive model) proposed for studying such traits assumes that the phenotype is linked to a purely additive combination, either on the observed scale for continuous traits or on some underlying scale for discrete traits, of environmental and genetic effects affecting the 2 individuals. Statistical models proposed for studying human fecundability generally consider reproduction outcomes as the product of hypothetical unobservable variables. Taking inspiration from these works, we propose a model (product threshold model) for studying a binary reproduction trait that supposes that the observed phenotype is the product of 2 unobserved phenotypes, 1 for each individual. We developed a Gibbs sampling algorithm for fitting a Bayesian product threshold model including additive genetic effects and showed by simulation that it is feasible and that it provides good estimates of the parameters. We showed that fitting an additive threshold model to data that are simulated under a product threshold model provides biased estimates, especially for individuals with high breeding values. A main advantage of the product threshold model is that, in contrast to the additive model, it provides distinct estimates of fixed effects affecting each of the 2 unobserved phenotypes.

Differential proteome analysis of porcine skeletal muscles between Meishan and Large White

Western and indigenous Chinese pig breeds show obvious differences in muscle growth and meat quality; however, the underlying molecular mechanism remains unclear. In this study, proteome analysis of LM between purebred Meishan and Large White pigs was performed by 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry. A total of 25 protein spots were differentially expressed in the 2 breeds. The 14 identified proteins could be divided into 4 groups: energy metabolism, defense and stress, myofibrillar filaments, and other unclassified proteins. Quantitative real-time PCR was used to analyze the partly differentially expressed proteins in mRNA level, which revealed a positive correlation between the content of the proteins and their mRNA levels. We also analyzed the mRNA levels of myosin heavy chain isoforms using quantitative real-time PCR. The results indicated that IIa and IIx fibers were elevated in Meishan pigs, whereas the IIb fiber was more highly expressed in Large White pigs. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first proteomics-based investigation of total skeletal muscle protein in different pig breeds, and these results may provide valuable information for understanding the molecular mechanism responsible for breed-specific differences in growth performance and meat quality.

« Older Entries