text:
So, okay, we made up the "Starring" part. They came by, but didn't knock on the door (and, BTW, our phone number and QR codes are also on the door). We got a lead-in or lead-out to commercial, and no mention by name or location, but we'll take it! Thank you Eye on L.A., please come back and visit us sometime...
Photo by Gary Leonard
We have referred to Chicken Boy as the Statue of Liberty of Los Angeles for decades. And we have been fine with our below-the-radar grooviness for like almost 30 years. Discerning pop culture enthusiasts, Route 66ers, little kids, downtown denizens from when it was smellier (CB lived on Broadway near 5th St. until 1984), and, well, just a wide range of super-cool & nice people have contacted us through the years with their Chicken Boy stories and admiration. And now this--Santa Monica based public radio station KCRW has ID'd Mr Boy for their new ad campaign. Other LA stuff they're using: Watts Towers and the binocular building. We are happy to be in such distinguished landmark company, but, we're the funniest, right? So far we've spotted bus benches in Chinatown and Hollywood, and this one across the street from Disney Hall on Grand. A friend saw it on the back of a bus. We wish we could say we were finally achieving our dream of selling out, but all we are getting is a different kind of street cred. We'll keep dreaming...
Appearing at Mr Ts Bowl this Friday, April 19, 2013. We'll try and remember to turn the lights on Mr Boy, saying hello to the band. This poster was posted right outside the studio... we took it down so we could scan it (and keep it), but now we're sending it out so maybe even more people can see it... and go!
More awesomeness from Google... Thanks for including Mr Boy!
(Click on map)
April 1, 2013
Google Treasure Map
From KCET Departures, from an interview with Occidental student Sophie Putka
From LA Times Online, Framework series on photography by Scott Harrison
Chicken Boy Shop and Future Studio Gallery are open by appointment--just call 323-254-4565, and arrange a time. It's a casual, drop-in type deal (no hard selling here) so you can come and see the art show du jour and browse the ever-evolving Chicken Boy merchandise selection. The shop is ever-evolving, now featuring vintage items and a lot of unique gift items. Of course, there are lots of Chicken Boy souvenirs, a small but quality selection of books and greeting cards, and a selection of items either made in Highland Park or about Highland Park. We also maintain an online shop, but there's a bunch more stuff at the cinderblock & mortar shop...
In the gallery, you'll find changing art shows and a selection of small, original, affordable works.
Find us at 5558 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles CA 90042. We are also open by appointment (call 323-254-4565).
Comments (0)
Thank you LA Times (they even sent us a certificate and a window sticker!). We will be open more regular hours in the very near future. Watch this space for updates!
Thanks LA Observed for the mention/link to Westways' story on Muffler Men. BTW, it's pretty incredible how many people have mentioned to us they saw Chicken Boy in Westways, it must be the most popular magazine in California!


text:
Deception as a modern defenceAs the sophistication of acquisition sensors and weapon systems increases, signature management and deception techniques are playing an even more important role in modern warfare, by increasing the survivability of vital assets. All military ground installations and platforms have distinctive radar signatures. The application of signature management techniques and materials makes it possible to protect these by adapting and reducing their signatures to make them less detectable. This, together with the use of radar decoys, confuses the attacking force by making it very difficult to identify the target or the size of the threat.
The Products
Trelleborg Signature Management designs and manufactures a variety of narrowband, broadband and multi-layer absorbers. These absorbers are produced in many forms from elastomers and foams through to composites.
Engineered Polyurethane
Acoustic Signature Control
Radar Absorbent Material
Thermal & Acoustic Insulation
Cushioning & Impact Absorbing
Noise, Vibration & Shock Control

subset: commoncrawl


text:
NBFF Art and Architecture Films Get Another Local Screening
Julius Shulman's most-famous shot.
Eric Bricker's impressive, important and eye-opening motion picture debut wound up winning festival honors for Outstanding Achievement in Documentary Filmmaking. Now the festival and Orange County Museum of Art are teaming up to screen Visual Acoustics and other recent festival films locally again.
Beginning at 8 tonight with Herb & Dorothy--the story of postal clerk Herb Vogel and his wife Dorothy Vogel, who started building one of the most impressive art collections in the early 1960s--films about art, architecture and design will screen the last Thursday of each month over the summer and into fall. Admission into the museum at 650 San Clemente Drive, Newport Beach, is free to see the films, which will be followed by audience Q&As.
Rounding out the schedule are: Art & Copy (July 30); Milton Glaser: To Inform and Delight (Aug. 27); Visual Acoustics: The Modernism of Julius Shulman (Sept. 24); and Infinite Space: The Architecture of John Lautner (Oct. 29).
Sponsor Content


text:
|The effects of group exercise on fatigue and quality of life during cancer treatment.
MedLine Citation:
|PMID: 16858464 Owner: NLM Status: MEDLINE
|PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of participating in a structured group exercise program (SGEP) for adult patients receiving cancer treatment and to test the impact of an SGEP on reducing cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and improving quality of life (QOL). DESIGN: One-group, prospective, pre- and post-test design. SETTING: Two community outpatient infusion centers. SAMPLE: Convenience sample of 12 adults with varying cancer diagnoses receiving cancer treatment. METHODS: Nine of 12 subjects participated in SGEP twice weekly for six weeks. Exercises focused on strengthening proximal muscle groups and improving functional ability. All subjects completed the Fatigue Symptom Inventory and the Short Form-36 version 2 (SF-36v2) Health Survey at baseline and six weeks. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Feasibility of the intervention, CRF, and QOL. FINDINGS: No difference in reported fatigue was found. The SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain showed a significant decrease in this symptom. Subscale scores for physical role, vitality, and social function increased but did not yield statistical significance. Social interactions resulted in strong group cohesiveness. A postprogram questionnaire identified themes of support, learning from shared information, and the usefulness of having an exercise program that also serves as an informal support group. CONCLUSIONS: SGEP is feasible, safe, and well tolerated by adult patients with cancer and may have positive effects on CRF and QOL. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The benefits of exercise for patients with cancer receiving treatment are well documented. Using a multidisciplinary approach, oncology nurses, working with an exercise physiologist, can safely create an SGEP, combining the power of group interactions with the appeal of a wellness-promoting behavior, and provide an additional tool to assist in the management of physiologic and psychosocial effects of cancer treatment.
|Joanna Losito; Susan Murphy; Mary Thomas
Related Documents :
|11606004 - How are mood and exercise related? results from the finnmark study.
19856564 - Menopausal symptoms following tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer.
20686994 - Evaluating attentional and affective changes following an acute exercise bout using a m...
9439264 - Antenatal exercise: a personal perspective.
12803264 - Comparison between the datex-ohmeda m-nmt module and a force-displacement transducer fo...
21108624 - Physical inactivity, neurological disability, and cardiorespiratory fitness in multiple...
Publication Detail:
|Type: Clinical Trial; Journal Article Date: 2006-07-01
Journal Detail:
|Title: Oncology nursing forum Volume: 33 ISSN: 1538-0688 ISO Abbreviation: Oncol Nurs Forum Publication Date: 2006 Jul
Date Detail:
|Created Date: 2006-07-21 Completed Date: 2006-07-25 Revised Date: -
Medline Journal Info:
|Nlm Unique ID: 7809033 Medline TA: Oncol Nurs Forum Country: United States
Other Details:
|Languages: eng Pagination: 821-5 Citation Subset: IM; N
|Camino Medical Group, Sunnyvale, California, USA. firstname.lastname@example.com
Export Citation:
|APA/MLA Format Download EndNote Download BibTex
|MeSH Terms
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Exercise Therapy*
Middle Aged
Neoplasms / rehabilitation*
Psychotherapy, Group*
Quality of Life*
Social Support
Treatment Outcome
From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Previous Document: Level of burnout among nurses working in oncology in an Italian region.
Next Document: A randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of the effect of sedation on ...


text:
Conservatives Need To Decide If Stigma And Ostracism Are Legitimate Moral ToolsPosted: March 16, 2014 Filed under: Culture & Society, Politics, Race Leave a comment
One thing I wanted to discuss in my column for The Week, but didn't have the room for, was the whole "define bigotry" question. Damon Linker, Conor Friedersdorf, Rod Dreher, and Brandon Ambrosino all argued recently that simply thinking homosexuality is immoral or opposing same sex marriage doesn't clear the threshold. I.E. to be a bigot, you have to behave in a hateful or spiteful manner towards gay people.
The point of my column was that conservatives are making a sudden and disingenuous attempt to back out of an established social charter. That charter was anti-discrimination law, and in recent decades it certainly seemed like everyone on both sides of the political divide agreed that the reach and framework of the law was appropriate for dealing with discrimination in the workplace and the market. Everyone also seemed to agree that the law's protection should't be limited to race, but should be extended to other groups that have faced oppression in American society. So calls for "religious liberty" amount to conservatives saying, "Oh, wait! No, we don't think its reach and framework are appropriate after all!"
I think the dispute over who is and isn't a bigot has the same basic problem. If you look at how Americans have used the word "bigot" — especially as it concerns race — I think it's pretty obvious we haven't been using it to refer solely to interpersonal behavior. For instance, imagine trying to argue that men like Strom Thurmond or George Wallace — men who leveraged all the political power at their disposal to preserve segregation and Jim Crow — were not bigots because they were perfectly nice and gentlemanly to the black people they met on the street or who worked in their offices. (I have no idea if Thurmond and Wallace were actual nice in that manner. But suppose for the sake of argument.) I don't think anyone would be willing to go there.*
So the qualifications for being a bigot are not limited to interpersonal behavior. They also include holding to particular worldviews and sticking up for particular social orders. In which case, conservatives' current attempts to redefine bigotry are, again, opportunistic efforts to duck out of an established social agreement as soon as their own oxe started getting gored.
But there's also a deeper point here. Go back and consider Rod Dreher's post specifically. It's poignant because it discusses people Dreher knows — a successful lawyer and two New York City reporters — who effectively "live in the closet" when it comes to their SSM opposition, and who know they'd face ostracism from their social circles and stigmatization as bigots if they spoke up publicly.**
My initial reaction to this was essentially Andrew Sullivan's — let me get you the world's tiniest violin. But! Stepping back, I think any decent and gracious person has to admit there's something a bit ugly about this. Human beings remain little more than upright apes, and what Dreher's describing is a textbook case of the lower, lizard-brain functions by which we socially signal, define the borders of the tribe, and expel pollutants from our shared communal life. It's the kind of thing self-presumed enlightened liberals would decry in other contexts.
But here's the deeper point: the fact is human beings are social and emotional creatures rather than rational ones. And that means this kind of social policing, as ugly as it may be, is also critical to how our culture advances morally. In fact, given the importance conservatives place on communal moral order and decentralized social organization, you'd think they'd be the first to acknowledge this fact. Does anyone really think racism, for instance, was driven underground by civil and reasoned public discourse? Of course not. Racism was driven underground by collective social efforts to stigmatize and ostracize people who held to it. And it worked really well!
So I think we have two distinct questions to answer here:
1) Is the worldview under discussion actually morally objectionable? This is the "is opposing gay marriage as bad as supporting segregation" question.
2) Regardless of how you answer 1), are social stigma and ostracism appropriate tools for dealing with immoral worldviews?
And the two questions really do need to be disaggregated, because we're all going to disagree on what constitutes an immoral worldview. I think opposing SSM is as bad as supporting segregation, and I think the belief that homosexuality is immoral is on par with the belief that black people are inferior to white people. I'm sorry, but I do. Dreher does not. And that kind of disagreement is going to crop up again and again across all sorts of different subjects. Which is just life in a free and pluralistic democracy. The question is: what kind of social charter do we all hash out to deal with those disagreements? That's where 2) comes in, and there really is no right answer.
But we do have to own the consequences of our answer. If we conclude stigma/ostracism are not legitimate tools, then that means we're going to have to accept the presence of people whose views we abhor at our gatherings and parties and workplaces and churches and dinners and so forth. Conversely, if we conclude stigma/ostracism are legitimate tools, then we have to be prepared for the day when we're on the receiving ends of those weapons. You never know which way the winds of culture will shift.
Which seems to really be conservatives' basic problem here. They're just stunned by the speed with which American society has embraced homosexuality's moral legitimacy, and by the resulting speed with which ostracism and stigma have been turned against them.
But given how American society dealt with racism and misogyny, for example, it really does seem like we'd all concluded that ostracism and stigma were legitimate tools. Which makes the complaints by
Dreher, Friedersdorf, Linker, Ambrosino, et al opponents of same sex marriage who are upset they're being tarred as bigots look incredibly unprincipled and opportunistic. (UPDATE: My earlier version of this sentence was sloppy. Friedersdorf, Linker, and Ambrosino are all supporters of SSM, though they've argued against naming its opponents bigots. I should've made that clear.)
In short, if we're going to change our minds and say those social tools actually aren't acceptable, that's fine — but in that case we all owe George Wallace a big fat apology.
Who wants to go first?
*I'd add that the problem with Michael Joseph Stern's graceless and vindictive response to Ross Douthat was that he collapsed the bigotry/hatred distinction from the opposite direction. Conservatives are insisting bigotry cannot be present unless personal hatred is also present. Stern insisted that if bigotry is present, then personal hatred must also be present.
**Dreher also brings up the Mormon theater director in California who was driven out of a gig in 2008 when coworkers discovered he'd donated to the Prop 8 campaign. I left it out above because it deals with actual workplace retaliation as opposed to mere social stigma, and as such I think it's genuinely troubling. There's probably a strong case that anti-discrimination law should be extended to political and ideological beliefs. My understanding is some states already do so, with the expected carve-outs for firms and institutions with explicitly ideological missions.
Thinking Through "Religious Liberty," The State, And Anti-Discrimination lawPosted: February 19, 2014 Filed under: Culture & Society 2 Comments
Over at Salon, Matt Bruenig went on a much-deserved scorched earth campaign against the new bill from the Kansas State House, which would've effectively legalized widespread anti-gay discrimination in the state's economy. (And given the Kansas State Senate just nixed it, I guess the campaign worked.) Defenders and pseudo-defenders of the bill rest their argument on versions of Rand Paul's objection to the Civil Rights act: that who businesses do or don't serve is a private matter between them and their customers, and government getting involved is a constriction of liberty.
Bruenig's rebuttal is straightforward: contract and property rights and so forth don't just emerge out of the aether. They're written in law — which is to say, they're a contingent social construct — and they're enforced by police power — which is to say, the state's monopoly on legitimate force. As a result, there's mostly no such thing as "private" economic interactions. The relationship is actually three-way: between businesses, customers, and the state as mediator and enforcer. If a group of black people or an after party from a gay wedding sits down at your counter and you want them to leave, they aren't just magically expelled by the cosmos. You call the cops and have them come down and force them out.
The upshot is that there's no objective baseline from which increases or decreases in "liberty" can be measured. The very fact that there are rights of property and association and contract in play at all means coercion has already been engaged in. It's social constructs all the way down. Before you can decide what these rights and laws are and how they will operate, you have already have a set of moral values in place describing what sort of social order you'd like to have.
Bruenig is obviously correct on all these points. However, I'm not sure they actually score much other than a rhetorical victory. (Granted, rhetorical victories can be important.) Even if we all agree these are just subjectively determined rules by which people can mobilize state violence in their favor, it remains the case that we do need objective rules for that. And they need to be rules that majorities in a pluralistic and highly diverse democracy, with lots of people with lots of different value systems and world views, can all live with. This is basically the "traffic light" theory of property rights — that property rights are good, not because they reflect some inherent moral truth, but because they facilitate human cooperation. Like traffic laws, property laws don't have to be designed any particular way. So how we design them is a collective social effort based around what we think is the most just and flourishing social order. Anti-discrimination law is just one more aspect of that shared charter determining what the "traffic laws" of property and contract and so forth are.
This is the first clue as to why the conservative freakout over "religious liberty" is so disingenuous. What's changed recently was not the content of anti-discrimination law's protections — most everyone on both sides of the aisle (except Rand Paul, I guess) has been fine with those protections for decades — but the addition of sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics, followed by the partial arrival of legal equality for gay marriages. In other words, if liberty is under threat here, it's not from changing attitudes about homosexuality. It's from a set of anti-discrimination laws that were improperly designed all along.
Once this is clarified, it seems to me, the conservative champion of "religious liberty" has three options:
1) Argue that sexual orientation shouldn't be a protected category.
That's basically what the Kansas bill would've done. The lawmakers tried to hedge by writing the bill as if it only got businesses out of endorsing or participating in gay weddings. But the language was so expansive it would've effectively kicked gay Americans out of the protection of anti-discrimination law entirely.
Furthermore, as I said, moral values come before property rights and contract law. So you can't argue that the law should allow discrimination against gay people without also implying that discrimination against gay people is morally legitimate. (Or that you find that discrimination morally preferable to not allowing people who enjoy class, racial, or heteronormative privilege to leverage state power in defense of their privilege.) The two things are inextricably linked.
So in a certain sense, conservatives are right that they're under threat from a surrounding society whose mores are changing around them. They just have no standing to complain, because they're fine with the way our society also changed around people who believed black people are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to participate in society in the same way as whites.
Conservatives try to get around this point by claiming they don't want to be able to discriminate against a characteristic (being gay), just a behavior they morally object to (a gay wedding). This is coherent, after a fashion. But let's clarify where that logic goes. It would also justify discrimination on religious grounds ("I don't object to Jews, just to selling them products that would be used in a seder") and in some cases on racial grounds ("I don't object to black people, just to them marrying white people"). Are conservatives willing to allow those forms of discrimination as well?
2) Argue that moral objections to homosexuality are more legitimate than believing black people are inferior.
This seems to be the default position a lot of centrists and conservatives are sliding into. There are enormous and obvious First Amendment problems with it, as you're effectively calling on government and the courts to decide what counts as a religion and what does not, or what does and does not count as an infringement of conscience. Judges will have to start explaining why Amish objections to paying social security taxes aren't deserving of respect, but the Little Sisters Of The Poor's objection to the birth control mandate is. Or why a southern evangelical's belief that interracial marriage is against God's law may be dismissed, but a traditionalist Catholic's belief that homosexual unions displease the Almighty is of sufficient pedigree to command our deference.
Any principled conservative — hell, any principled American — ought to immediately balk at this scheme on purely constitutional grounds, not to mention the way it would further our unpleasant national habit of treating the Supreme Court like a bevy of philosopher-kings.
3) Tweak the scope of anti-discrimination law and jurisprudence.
Like I said, the law doesn't have to be any particular way. And I think it's at least conceptually possible that anti-discrimination law could be tweaked in ways that would answer at least some of the "religious liberty" concerns without running afoul of our recognition that systemic privilege and anti-gay discrimination are moral problems that call for systemic solutions.
For instance, in the case of the New Mexico photographer who refused to shoot a gay wedding, the only reason there was a case was because the courts determined the photographer's business qualified as a "public accommodation" — the category of businesses subject to anti-discrimination law. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that a freelance photographer who's basically a one-person shop (and any other businesses similarly structured) should not be considered a "public accommodation." Laws could easily be altered to make the definition a bit less expansive, and in a way the clarifies matters for the courts. But, per the problems with option 2, it would need to be a rollback for all protected categories: religion, race, gender, disability, the works.
But are you willing to allow, say, a self-employed plumber to deny service to a couple just because they're gay? Or interracial? Or traditionalist Catholic? I'm not. And if you're not either, do you really think the law can convincingly differentiate a traditional "service" job from something more "artisan" like photography or baking? Do you think it should try?
So I'm deeply skeptical even of option 3, though it does it strikes me as a non-crazy idea offered in good faith.
But here's the thing: if all we have to do to settle this problem in a way that's acceptable to all sides is tweak the legislative definition of "public accommodation," then what we have here is an incredibly banal conflict. It has nothing to do with "religious liberty" or the supposed rise of some pugilistic secularist tribe that intends to crush all divergent world views before it. All we have is an unintended hiccup, easily solved, resulting from a benign aspect of our anti-discrimination law that — up until two or three years ago — no one (other than Rand Paul) had the slightest problem with.
If something so modest will address conservatives' concerns, then there is no "religious liberty" crisis and never has been. In which case, all the handwringing we've been subjected to was merely the product of conservatism's collective ego and monumental self-pity.
On the other hand, if that option 3 won't address their concerns, then conservatives' intentions are far, far more radical than they're willing to admit in public. Other than the conservatives in Kansas, that is.
Getting People Employed Does Not Equal Getting The Economy Back To Full CapacityPosted: January 8, 2014 Filed under: Economics Leave a comment
Tim Carney is not happy with the debate over the unemployment insurance (UI) debate. He cites a study finding that UI benefits account for "most of the persistently high unemployment after the Great Recession." And while the scale of the effect is crazy — I'll hand it over to Danny Vinnick to explain why — the raw fact that there would be some disincentive effect is perfectly reasonable. UI benefits essentially pay people for not working, so of course they're going to be a bit more inclined to not work. Tim does a reasonable job of laying out how this happens on the individual level, and to his credit he characterizes it as economic rationality rather than laziness.
But then Tim throws out this at the end:
Liberals dismiss the disincentive effects [of unemployment insurance] today, arguing there just aren't jobs out there. Maybe the jobs aren't there because lengthy unemployment insurance is killing these jobs. This is a complex debate. It would be nice if we could have it.
This confuses what we mean when we talk about jobs. "Job creation," "employment," or the Bureau of Labor Statistics' monthly job reports all mean the number of actual hires. That's what the study Tim cites is referring to as well. But when we liberals talk about how there just aren't enough jobs "out there," we're talking about BLS' JOLTS data. That measures job openings — the amount of jobs in their untapped potentiality, as opposed to the number of jobs people have actually been hired for. It was one job available for every 2.9 people looking, at last count. The disincentive effects of unemployment insurance can drive down the number of hires, but not the number of raw job openings.
Employers create a job opening for one simple reason: they think it will increase their profits even after the additional expense of putting the new hire on the payroll is accounted for. What creates that circumstance of potential profit is untapped demand, pure and simple. If there's not enough demand, the new hire won't result in enough new sales, no matter how virtuous a worker she is. You can't sell to customers who aren't buying.
Generating enough demand throughout the economy to create jobs for everyone who wants one is an irreducibly ecological question. You cannot boil it down to the hard work and initiative of one person taking one particular gig. Individual agency is irrelevant here. And while there are lots of ways to boost demand, they all boil down to either increasing inflation or taking money from rich people to give to to poor people — moves Tim and his conservative cohorts are roundly opposed to in nearly all instances.
At any rate, if we didn't boost demand but kept UI, we'd get more or less get the situation we're in now. If we didn't boost demand and didn't keep UI, then yes, we'd get a slight uptick in people taking the available jobs more quickly. But they'd still be taking those jobs in a terrible economy in which wages are depressed and jobs are scarce. UI benefits have an unusually high mutliplier, and if they're financed by taxes on the wealthy or by borrowing, the economic drag from the revenue collection will be virtually zero. So in terms of boosting demand, moving from people spending their UI benefits to spending their income from newly acquired shitty jobs would basically be a wash. So the "one job for every 2.9 workers" ratio wouldn't change. And once that one job was filled, the other 1.9 workers would be left high and dry. Most likely, they'd just drop out of the labor force entirely, leaving the economy as a whole poorer for decades.
We do not want people to simply take what jobs are available in a terrible economy more quickly. We want the economy to be not terrible. Tim's article and the entire conservative position on UI benefits operate by obfuscating this basic distinction.
Meanwhile, if we boosted demand but got rid of UI, we'd get way more employment than we have now, precisely because there'd be more jobs available for everyone to snatch up. The 1-to-2.9 ratio would even out. But if we boosted demand and kept UI, we'd still get way more employment than now, because the supply of jobs would go up relative to the supply of labor, which would drive up wages, making a job more attractive to the vast majority of workers than staying on benefits. Tim worries this second effect on wages is good for the employed but bad for the unemployed. But that only holds if you assume the terrible economy and the 1-to-2.9 ratio is the new unescapable normal. (Most likely because you're ideologically opposed to the policies that would prevent them from becoming the new normal.)
In short, how much demand the economy has to work with, and thus how much it can produce, is everything. All the presence or absence of UI does is determine how much human suffering occurs in the interim. With all due respect to Tim, his concern about "tradeoffs" is a giant non sequitur. There's no legitimate debate to be had here. What Tim actually wants is a circumstance in which conservatives' deep emotional investment in believing the universe does not work the way it works is nonetheless treated as worthy of respect by people who actually understand the economics of the thing. There are a lot of things I could call that circumstance, but a "debate" isn't one of them.
The Official Jeff Spross Plan To Fix ObamacarePosted: December 3, 2013 Filed under: Health Care, Politics Leave a comment
So it looks like Healthcare.gov is working — or at least working much better than it was before. Hopefully, this means we can soon set aside our collective national freakout over a really serious substantive threat to Obamacare, and go back to freaking out over the purely optical threats. Those would be "rate shock" and the failure of Obama's "if you like your plan you can keep it promise" to pan out. Unlike the website's travails, they're purely political problems, and actually result from Obamacare operating the way it was designed to. They're exceedingly unlikely to threaten the macroeconomic stability of the insurance markets, or the soundness of any part of the law's policy design. Their costs are dwarfed by the benefits going to poor people receiving subsidies and covered by the Medicaid expansion.
But rate shock and the plan cancelations also happen to affect a population that's upper-middle-class and relatively politically active, so our political system actually cares about their troubles in a way it doesn't for the truly poor and unfortunate. So we treat inconveniences heaped on the former group as major political scandals, and massive alleviations of suffering for the latter group as non-events. Which is shameful and morally perverse, if you ask me.
However! With that bit of throat-clearing out of the way, let me say I'm sympathetic to complaints that Obamacare's restrictions on health coverage design hamper consumer choice, and hold back innovation in the packaging and delivery of care. Those restrictions also contribute to rising premiums (not much, but somewhat) because expanded coverage comes with expanded costs. And they're causing the cancellation of a lot of pre-Obamacare insurance plans.
I don't obsessively fetishize choice and innovation they way reformist conservatives do. But they're good values to promote, and shouldn't be undermined unless it's necessary to pursue some more foundational moral obligation. I don't think it's necessary here. And hey, if we can fix rate shock and plan cancellations while we're at it, why not?
So, without further ado, here it is:
The Official Jeff Spross Plan To Fix Obamacare
1) Remove all but the gold rating from the exchanges.
Right now insurance plans have to meet one of four ratings to be sold on the exchanges. Bronze plans offer the stingiest and least comprehensive coverage; then it goes up to Silver, Gold, and finally Platinum with the most generous coverage. Catastrophic plans can also be sold under certain conditions. Those four "metal ratings" all include a package of essential health benefits (EHB) — ensuring everyone gets at least a minimum level of reliable coverage. They also require various deductibles and cost-sharing.
My recommendation: clear out the EHB requirements and everything except the gold plans. Then change the law so that as long as an insurer sells a gold plan on the exchange, they can sell any other plan they cook up as well.
That would address conservative complaints regarding choice, innovation, and plan cancellations. But it would also still serve the liberal goal of protecting consumers from "junk insurance." Gold plans would function as a seal of approval: you can take your chances with the other plans if you like, but the government has checked these out, and they're solid.
Furthermore — if I understand the economics correctly — requiring all insurers to sell at least a gold plan before they can sell anything else should cut down on any risks of adverse selection.
Practically speaking, this wouldn't bring back the plans that have already been canceled due to Obamacare's new rules. But it would satiate conservatives' principled objections, and would open up the possibility for insurers to resurrect similar plans in the next year or two.
2) Simplify the subsidies.
Right now the subsidies customers can get on the exchanges are calculated to cover the premiums they'd pay for a silver plan. The subsidies are adjusted for income — the more you make, the less of your premium is covered — and they phase out completely if you make over 400 percent of the poverty line. Separate subsidies, also adjusted for income, are provided for out-of-pocket costs.
First off, obviously, my plan would peg the subsidies to the gold plans. The division between premium subsidies and out-of-pocket subsidies is also silly, so I'd just have one lump sum that covers everything. Next, there should be no adjusting for income. Everyone should get the full cost of their premium and out-of-pocket expenses covered, regardless of how much they make. Third, don't phase it out at 400 percent of the poverty line. Give the subsidies to literally everyone on the exchanges.
Obviously, this will significantly increase Obamacare's annual spending, which would be a big downside for conservatives. But it would also eliminate the policy and paperwork complexities that come along with means-testing; it would do away with rate shock, since everyone will have the entirety of their premiums covered no matter who they are; it would bring Obamacare's subsidies closer in form to the universal health care tax credit conservatives advocate; and it would eliminate any latent welfare trap effect from the benefit phase-out.
Finally, this would make a gold plan affordable to everyone. Combine that with the "seal of approval" function mentioned above, and gold plans would become the all-purpose fall back plan. And if a customer decides to go with coverage that costs less than a gold plan, they can just pocket the leftover subsidy. That keeps the incentive for customers to shop for the best deal, and the accompanying competitive market pressure.
3) Get rid of the age bands.
Obamacare also instituted a new rule that premiums for older Americans on the exchanges couldn't be higher than premiums for younger customers by a factor of more than 3 to 1. Older people tend to be sicker and thus a greater risk for insurers, which drives their premiums higher. The rule was meant to help out the older set with an implicit transfer: drive down their premiums by driving them up for younger customers.
It's unclear just how much the age restriction contributes to premium hikes and thus to rate shock. Most of the hikes are probably due to the rule that insurers can no longer deny customers based on pre-existing conditions. But the age rule obviously contributes some.
So let's get rid of it. We've already removed all limitations on who can and can't get a subsidy. So no older American is going to be left out in the cold when their premium goes up. I don't object to the age rule myself, but it seems to me we can accomplish the same goal through less intrusive tinkering in how insurers design their coverage.
4) Get rid of the coverage requirements for the employer-provided market.
Finally, Obamacare imposes some new requirements on the small and large group markets for employer-provided coverage, which are causing some modest disruptions there. Personally, again, I don't care about this. If your employer cancels your current plan, the most likely outcome is they'll just provide you with a better one. If they don't, then you'll be getting a bigger paycheck (since none of it's going to premiums anymore) and you can go shop on the exchanges. Either way, you'll be fine.
But conservatives seem annoyed by these requirements. And much of the impetus behind Obamacare was the idea that employer-based coverage was already the "good" kind, and we were trying to make the individual market more like it. So I don't see why the employer requirements are strictly necessary. Why not just get rid of them?
BONUS: Cover everyone who got left out by state refusals to expand Medicaid.
I don't like describing the expansion of coverage to millions of the least fortunate Americans as a "bonus." (See my bitching above about whose struggles our political system does and doesn't value.) But I did frame this post as a response to rate shock and plan cancellations, and expanding Medicaid isn't strictly relevant to that. Still, as a leftwinger with the attendant moral priorities, this would be a huge "win" for me. So I'm including it.
Right now, to qualify for the exchanges, your income has to be at least 100 percent of the poverty level. That's because lawmakers figured every state would expand Medicaid, covering everyone below that threshold. But 26 states didn't, leaving almost 5 million Americans — all of whom are far poorer than those seeing rate shock and plan cancellations — high and dry.
But since we've already eliminated the income ceiling on who qualifies for the exchanges' subsidies, we might as well drop the floor as well. That yields a simpler system: as long as you're not covered through your job or through some government program (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Health Administration, etc.) you're on the exchanges, end of story.
Yes, again, this would significantly increase the law's annual expenditures. But it would also serve as a détente of sorts on the Medicaid expansion, and take the political pressure off conservative states that don't want to participate. Read the rest of this entry »
If Obama Broke His Health Care Promise, Does That Tell Us Anything Useful About Anything?Posted: October 30, 2013 Filed under: Health Care, Politics Leave a comment
Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that President Obama has broken his promise that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." I actually think the accusation is highly contestable on its merits, but whatever. Let's roll with it. What I want to know is: what, in practical terms, I should take away from this fact?
And I ask in earnest! Because Obama's critics sure seem to think it's important. But so far they seem like the dog that caught the proverbial car with this talking point — now that they've landed it, they don't know what to do with it.
The most obvious implication they're pushing is that this invalidates the law: as Ben Domenech put it at a recent Wonkblog debate, whether Obamacare succeeds or fails should be judged by whether it lives up to the White House's promises.
But this is an obviously stupid argument. First off, Obama is not my Dear Leader or anyone else's. He's just some dude I voted for. We're all perfectly capable of forming our own opinions on a policy and coming up with our own metrics. I'm not obligated to adopt his. And as a matter of common-sense, it seems to me most voters will judge the law on whether it makes American lives better off on the whole, not whether it matches up with a few political talking points the vast majority of them weren't paying attention to anyway.
Tim Carney, however, does a better job with two distinct takeaways:
1) Never trust Obama again.
I can't really say I disagree, though I don't share the sentiment. I'm deeply cynical and utilitarian about this stuff — politicians are function algorithms, whose behavior is determined by self-interest and the environment of political forces they encounter. I vote for them accordingly, looking for the one that I think will best advanced my preferred policies and values given their nature and circumstance. I gauge the likelihood they'll keep their promises by the same measure. (As such, Obama's done a good job of keeping his promises to me, since I'm a lefty-liberal, and am smack-dab in the middle of the political coalition that most affects Obama's fortunes.) In short, trust doesn't really enter into it for me, except at the margins.
Carney's point is certainly relevant to, say, conservative voters who are curious about immigration reform. If the final bill's concession to conservatives is increased border security, and that increase is written in the legislation such that it relies heavily on executive discretion, then yeah, they should be worried Obama will welch. But really, that would be just as true before the current Obamacare brouhaha, because that's the nature of politics. It's also a good reason to leave the executive as little discretion as possible in a law's language, which is how we ought to be doing things anyway.
I also think the decisiveness and gravity with which Carney renders this judgment is uncalled for. As I said, the charge is contestable, even from his framework. Obama's promise has held true for everyone on Medicare, Medicaid, and the vast majority of employer-provided plans. That's most Americans right there. The Congressional Budget Office projected that 8 million Americans would lose their current coverage. By my lights, when you make a promise to 300 million-odd people, keeping it for 97 percent of them is doing pretty well. It's also arguable the White House was honest if cagey at the time that the grandfathered plans wouldn't last.
The most you could say, I think, is that this is one data point in the case you shouldn't trust Obama, and a relatively mixed one at that.
2) Loosen the rules that are outlawing insurance plans.
As Carney says, "Why should it be illegal for me to buy a plan that doesn't cover mental health or contraception? Why should it be illegal for my neighbors to buy a plan that doesn't cover maternity or prescription drugs? Why should a $5,000-in-network out-of-pocket maximum combined with a $10,000 out-of-network max be outlawed?" Those are all fair questions! And it's absolutely true that loosening Obamacare's rules about how coverage can be constructed and what benefits must be included would cut down on the amount of plan cancelations.
But this is a debate over an a priori policy preference. We'd still be having it, in exactly this same form, even if Obama had been totally up front from the beginning that some plans would get nixed. And if you do think tall those practices should be outlawed, then saying the plan cancellations are merely "transitions" is a perfectly valid argument.
It's worth noting that most conservative health wonks want to equalize the tax treatment of employer-provided plans and individual ones. Now that would lead to some serious upheaval in what coverage is currently available, and who gets to keep what. So the mere fact of changing plans can't be taken as evidence that a particular policy is bad.
Again, I don't see how Obama's failure to keep his promise illuminates anything here. For myself, I'm sympathetic to the idea that Obamacare's rules on this score shouldn't be so demanding. But I'm also firmly in agreement with Josh Barro and Austin Frakt that our current health care system is a mess, that changing it into something better will inevitably lead to lots of people losing what they now have, so Obama's promise is something that shouldn't be kept because doing so would be bad policy.
We should decide whether the essential health benefit requirements are a good idea or a bad idea, then alter or not alter the law accordingly. Obama's personal virtue has nothing to do with it. And if those rules are a good idea, we certainly should't get rid of them anyway just to bring the law into line with the President's previous sales pitch.
Thoughts On A More Effective And Egalitarian Monetary PolicyPosted: October 14, 2013 Filed under: Economics Leave a comment
Here's Tim Carney, tracking the genuinely interesting meeting-of-the-minds Wall Street and the Left arrived at in supporting Janet Yellen for Fed Chair.
The reason for the former's enthusiasm is pretty straight forward: Yellen is a big fan of quantitative easing. That's the relatively new form of unconventional monetary stimulus the current Fed Chair, Ben Bernanke, and his supporters have used to try to boost the economy. They've already cut short-term interest rates to zero through conventional monetary policy, so that can't go any further — the infamous "zero lower bound." So with quantitative easing, the Fed creates new money, then injects it into the economy by buying up both U.S. Treasuries and other instruments on the financial markets, like mortgage-backed securities, in an effort to move long-term interest rates and inflation expectations.
"Wall Street loves quantitative easing much more than it dislikes regulation," wrote Yellen critic John Berlau of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Republican investor Stanley Druckenmiller sounded a similar note: "This is fantastic for every rich person," he said of quantitative easing. The Fed's buying binge drives up demand for stocks and bonds, thus boosting the price of these financial assets. "Who owns assets?" Druckenmiller continued. "The rich, the billionaires."
This critique of quantitative easing — that it inordinately benefits the rich — is hardly new. What interests me here is you really only ever see it deployed as an argument for not doing quantitative easing period. But that doesn't follow! This critique has nothing to do with the basic macroeconomics of the matter, which say we've suffered an aggregate demand collapse and are teetering on the edge of a deflationary spiral, and thus the economy needs a big injection of new money. All the "it helps rich" critique implies is that, hey, maybe we should find some way to get the money into the economy other than buying up stocks and bonds.
Which is something I'm genuinely curious about. What are our alternatives? Well, the wonky ideal would be through direct cash giveaways. The Fed should literally just start cutting Americans checks. This would be the proverbial "helicopter drop," properly understood. Steve Randy Waldman put forward a pretty slick version of how this could work a while back: whenever the Fed wants to inject money into the economy, it could just deposit it into every American's bank account. When it wants to take money out, it could just coordinate temporary tax hikes with Congress.
I can see some possible problems with this. For one thing, roughly one quarter of Americans carry out some, or even all of their financial business without a bank account. These are the people who would need those stimulative Fed deposits the most, yet they're also the hardest to get those deposits to in practical terms. I'd also worry about the political efficacy of tightening monetary policy by hiking taxes. That seems like a quick way to make everyone hate the Fed, and to make tight monetary policy even harder to carry out politically than it already is. (That said, I'm in agreement with Waldman and much of the blogosphere that insufficient monetary tightening has been the least of the Fed's problems for the last few decades.)
At any rate, it's certainly the cleanest and simplest proposal I've seen. The thing to remember is that the central bank isn't really a "bank" in the popular sense. It's more of a ballast chamber for the money supply. Right now it sucks money in and pumps it out in the form of bought and sold financial instruments. But there's no reason it couldn't do the same with direct cash transfers.
A less radical proposal, built more on existing policy, could leave conventional monetary policy's buying and selling of government bonds unchanged, but turn to direct cash transfers whenever the zero lower bound looms. Essentially, replace quantitative easing with temporary boosts in social safety net spending. Congress could write language establishing a menu of programs that rely on giving people cash directly — TANF, unemployment insurance, Social Security, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and so on — and then the Fed just decides how much extra cash it wants to inject and when, and spending levels on those programs would rise accordingly. If we ever established a universal basic income (and I definitely think we should) it could be added onto the menu.
It wouldn't be perfect — you'd still be choosing Wall Street as the entry point for money creation under conventional operations — but I think it would be a big improvement over the status quo.
Now, contra the "it inordinately benefits the rich" argument, Scott Sumner has argued that where the money gets injected doesn't have distortionary effects on distribution. But it does seem to me (and I admit we're at the far outer limits of my policy acumen here) that his argument only works as long as the money actually circulates fully through the economy. Which gets us to Carney's other point: the Fed has increased the money supply by about $2.7 trillion since the 2008 recession, but there's been no corresponding increase in inflation, and the economy remains middling. So where'd all that money go?
Here's one clue: Banks are holding $2.3 trillion in reserves — compared to less than a trillion in 2008. Also, corporations, feeling cautious these days, are sitting on record piles of cash, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
This makes sense, considering the mechanism of QE: The Fed buys Treasuries from banks. But gun-shy banks don't lend it so it sits on their books instead of entering the real economy, where it could cause job growth, inflation or both.
This is a slightly different problem that what Sumner was responding to. Not that quantitative easing amounts to Wall Street cronyism, but that economically privileged recipients of the new money are the least likely to push it out into the broader economy, precisely because they're the least likely to feel the pinch in a downturn. Recipients of social safety net spending, on the other hand, are the most likely to feel that pinch. So why not make them the entry point for the new money?
Lastly, Joseph Weisenthal raised another suggestion, that corporate and bank cash hoarding simply shows the Fed hasn't raised inflation expectations enough. Monetary policy simply remains too tight. Strictly speaking, I think this is correct. As Milton Friedman pointed out, nominal GDP growth and inflation are the two things by which monetary policy should be measured. Both remain quite low, which suggests policy is too tight as opposed to too loose.
There's a solid case that the Fed's policies so far, while failing to boost the economy out of its torpor, have effectively put a floor under it and prevented things from getting any worse. I'm also persuaded that a four percent inflation target would be vastly preferable to the Fed's current target of two percent.
So I do think we could get more economic stimulus if the Fed went even bigger with its money creation. And given the current menu of options and political realities, that's almost certainly the best course of action.
But I also wonder if we could be getting "looser" monetary policy by changing its structure as well as its size or ostensible targets. If every last dollar the Fed created was immediately getting pushed into circulation by its recipient, as opposed to piling up in corporate books and bank reserves, could we be getting more bang for the buck?
Sorry Conservatives, But ObamaCare IS Market-Based Health ReformPosted: February 19, 2013 Filed under: Health Care 2 Comments
Writing on how conservatism could get its act together in the New York Times, Ramesh Ponnuru suggested, among other things, that conservatives focus on changing "the existing tax break for health insurance so that people would be able to pocket the savings if they chose cheaper plans."
Conservative wonks like Ponnuru have long advocated equalizing the tax treatment of health coverage purchased individually and that purchased through an employer, either by repealing the tax break entirely or extending it to the individual market. This is a very good idea. (Eliminating the tax break more than extending it, but that's a separate issue.) Unfortunately, over at the Washington Examiner, Ponnuru's fellow conservative Philip Klein does not see it that way. And his objection is, well, weird:
Changing the tax treatment of employer-based health care has long been the cornerstone of market-based reform, because it would give individuals more choices and more incentive to control their medical spending. But with the new health care law in place, changing the tax treatment could simply mean that many more people get dumped into the government-run insurance exchanges, helping accelerate the growth of Obamacare.
You see what Klein did there? Equalizing the tax treatment would significantly lower the incentive for employers to provide health benefits, so fewer would do so. With ObamaCare now in place, that would mean more people going into the exchanges. And Klein assumes any act that grows ObamaCare is ipso facto in tension with the goal of market-based health care reform.
That assumption is very common within the Republican Party and conservative wonk circles. And it makes zero sense.
First off, the definition of a market is any system that allows for the trade of goods and services between buyers and sellers. That's what ObamaCare's exchanges do: They provide a framework for individuals to purchase health insurance from providers on an individual basis.
Now, if you click through his links, you'll find that Klein's complaint with the exchanges is that they regulate the coverage sold on them. This is equally silly. The government regulates trade in everything from food to cars to cigarettes. Now maybe you think it regulates them too much, but that's a prudential call. No one suggests we don't have functioning markets in these goods just because the government stepped in with a few rules — much less that they've suffered a "government takeover," as Klein puts. By that standard, the government already runs the vast majority of the economy and we've already descended into socialist dystopia.
In fact, oftentimes regulation actually improves a market's function. Two of ObamaCare's key regulations are guaranteed issue and community rating; the first prevents insurance providers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions, and the second bars them from charging certain people exorbitant prices based on their age, gender, etc. Absent those regulations, providers would be able to compete based on who can cherry-pick the least costly customers, rather than competing on what actually matters: who can deliver customers the best value. Markets are social creations, so there's no objective, self-evident criteria for what constitutes a well-functioning market outside of what we as a society decide. But I hope we can at least all agree that lowering prices for healthy people by rendering sick people entirely uninsurable is not the kind of result we're looking for from our health care markets.
For what it's worth, Switzerland also regulates the coverage provided by private insurers, while requiring its citizens to purchase coverage and subsidizing them in doing so — a very similar system to ObamaCare. And if you ask a conservative wonk for an example of a market-based universal health care system they approve of, it generally isn't long before Switzerland gets mentioned. Read the rest of this entry »


text:
What if a Manager comes to your office (HR), looks really crossed, complains about a particular subordinate regarding his unprofessional attitude, tardiness and frequent absences telling you to take the strictest action against the one. When asked that if he has counseled his subordinate regarding the matter, the answer is NO and then in the lunch time you will see both of them together hand in hand going out for lunch and taking more time than it is allowed, what would you do?
I think in this case you need to counsel both the Manager and his subordinate. In my opinion Managers are responsible for each and every action of their subordinates before anything comes in the boundaries of HR. The managers should come to HR for help when they see that they are unable to correct someone's actions and when something is really wrong.


text:
Thursday, August 16, 2012
© Copyright 2015 Clayton News Daily
JONESBORO — A Locust Grove man has been charged with what is believed to be the first murder inside the Clayton County Jail, said authorities.
Clayton sheriff's Capt. Brian Crisp said William Alexander Brooks, 20, was charged Thursday with malice murder and aggravated battery. Crisp said it is the first murder he is aware of inside the county facility.
Crisp said Brooks apparently argued over a store item with cellmate Kenneth Robert Grochowski, 57, and assaulted him.
"Investigators developed significant criminal evidence which indicated that Brooks had intentionally assaulted Grochowski in their shared cell, with the intent of causing his death," said Crisp.
Grochowski was found unresponsive in their cell when deputies did a midnight roll call. Paramedics responded and tried CPR while taking Grochowski to Southern Regional Medical Center, said Crisp. Deputies first suspected a heart attack because of his age and past medical problems but an autopsy was done Wednesday that led to Brooks' arrest on murder charges, he said.
Crisp said Brooks admitted to the killing, smiling as he did so. Because the autopsy report is not finalized yet, Crisp could not provide more details about how Grochowski died.
Brooks was first arrested Aug. 1 by Forest Park police officers and charged with theft by receiving stolen property, giving a false name, driving on a suspended license and failure to wear a seat belt. Crisp said at the time of his arrest, Brooks was driving a 2002 Nissan Quest that had been reported stolen in Locust Grove. Brooks also allegedly gave a false name, "Hasuse MaCavelle."
Crisp said Brooks is also wanted in Florida for violation of probation from a burglary conviction.
Grochowski was being held as a fugitive pending extradition to Illinois. He'd been arrested Aug. 8 at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport after arriving on an international flight from South America. Police said he fled the country to avoid prosecution on weapons violations, aggravated DUI and eluding officers in a 2007 case.
Crisp said Grochowski returned to the United States because he wrongly believed the statute of limitations had expired on the Illinois case.
He signed a waiver of extradition Aug. 10 and was to be picked up Aug. 20 to return to Illinois.
More like this story
- Man to plead in cellmate's death ( May 23, 2014 )
- Man indicted in cellmate's death ( July 5, 2013 )
- Man gets life for killing cellmate over peanut butter cups ( May 27, 2014 )
- Man sought in child's injury arrested ( March 27, 2012 )
- No verdict in week-long murder trial ( June 28, 2004 )


text:
Revlon ColorStay Makeup [Reformulated Early 2013]
4487 reviews
70% would repurchase
Package Quality: 2.8
Price: $$
Package Quality: 2.8
Price: $$
INGREDIENTSActive Ingredients: Titanium Dioxide (7.3%) Inactive Ingredients: Aqua/Water (Water), Cyclomethicone, Trimethylsiloxysilicate, Butylene Glycol, Boron Nitride, Dimethicone, SD Alcohol 40B, PEG/PPG 18/18 Dimethicone, Nylon 12, Tribehenin, Isododecane, Polyisobutene, Sodium Chloride, Cetyl PEG/PPG 10/1 Dimethicone, Bisabolol, Serica (Silk Powder), Tocopheryl Acetate, Retinyl Palmitate, Malva Sylvestris Flower Extract (Mallow), Lilium Candidum Bulb Extract (Lily), Lactobacillus/Eridictyon Californicum Ferment Extract, Cymbidium Grandiflorum Flower Extract, Alumina, Polydimethylsiloxane/Polymethysilesquioxane Copolymer, Ethylene Brassylate, Methicone, Trisiloxane, Sorbitan Sesquioleate, Tetrasodium EDTA, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, May Contain (+/-): Mica (CI 77019), Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Iron Oxides (CI 77491, 77492, 77499)
Age: 18 & Under
Skin: Oily, Fair, Not Sure
Hair: Blond, Other, Other
Eyes: Brown
I've used this for years, and never thought that it was the reason I've been breaking out. I had to be on accutane for my acne and now I feel like a fool cause my skin problems were probably caused by this. Do not use this if you have acne prone skin!!!
Age: 18 & Under
Skin: Combination, Medium, Not Sure
Hair: Black, Other, Other
Eyes: Black
This product made me break out so much! My skin has never been so bad but this caught my eye after seeing that it was for combination skin, but it broke me out so much!!!! It is a wonderful foundation but that con is so bad that I won't use it ever again due to the horrible things it did to my skin!
Age: 44-55
Skin: Combination, Other, Not Sure
Hair: Blond, Other, Other
Eyes: Brown
I don't like liquid make up because most break me out, look cakey or turns orange. This product does non of that. I don't wear a lot, I apply with a sponge, dries quick and then I set with powder over it. Keeps my nose and forehead non greasy all day! HG!
Age: 18 & Under
Skin: Acne-prone, Fair-Medium, Not Sure
Hair: Blond, Other, Other
Eyes: Blue
Love my color stay!!!!! Stay for the whole day. Only con is not having a pump. Does get cakey if you apply powder straight after so I do my eyes while waiting for it to set. But I would definitely recommend.
Age: 25-29
Skin: Combination, Tan, Not Sure
Hair: Brunette, Other, Other
Eyes: Brown
HG! Only foundation that worked. I've been using this foundation ever since I started makeup. It is definitely the only drugstore foundation that gives me the right full coverage I want. Leaves a great matte finish that can easily be made dewy. Works fantastic since everyone thinks I'm wearing an expensive foundation. I love the wide array of colors that make it easy to pick your shade. Much cheaper than the high end brand and is reasonably priced. I have acne prone skin and I've seen no difference in my acne. Just use a good cleanser to remove all your makeup at night. The reason for the 4 stars is that you must USE A PRIMER with this as it makes your skin look like skin and avoids it looking cakey as it is easy to do with this foundation. It makes the foundation last so much longer, even through a day at the water park. I also find the packaging to be a hassle. It has no pump so it can be very messy. But at the end of the day, I haven't found a foundation I have liked more than this.
Age: 18 & Under
Skin: Dry, Fair, Not Sure
Hair: Brunette, Other, Other
Eyes: Hazel
I love this foundation. I used to use the Estée Lauder Double Wear which I highly recommend, but could no longer afford. This foundation is very similar to the Double Wear foundation but is much cheaper. It is very build able and has great coverage. I love the way it makes my skin looks and it lasts fairly long, I will stick with this foundation for a while.
Age: 36-43
Skin: Very Oily, Fair, Cool
Hair: Blond, Straight, Medium
Eyes: Green
Im 39 and still can get acne. This product broke me out horribly.
Age: 18 & Under
Skin: Combination, Fair-Medium, Not Sure
Hair: Brown, Other, Other
Eyes: Brown
This is my most favorite foundation in the whole world. Been using it for ages, I'm now on my 8th bottle probably and I would repurchase it over and over again. This product literally stays on me more than 24 hours. Once I couldn't take my makeup off because I had no makeup remover and I kept it on for 2 days (pretty bad, I know) and it was still perfect. I like the way it looks on my face, it covers everything. I will never switch to another one, ever. The one thing I didn't really like was the fact that it had no pump and was kind of annoying but now they came out with the pump version, at least where I live, and it's perfect.
Age: 18 & Under
Skin: Acne-prone, Fair, Not Sure
Hair: Brunette, Other, Other
Eyes: Green
Love this foundation, but there are a few cons, like pretty much all products. I have it in the the normal/dry skin formula, and I've repurchased it several times. My main concern with my foundation is that it does a decent job of covering acne/redness, and this foundation does that, but can look cakey. I find it wears off after a while, even with a primer and setting powder. (I use Rimmel stay matte primer and powder) Overall this is a great drugstore foundation, and the price is reasonable for the coverage you get. I just wish it lasted longer before looking worn down/cakey.
Age: 19-24
Skin: Combination, Fair, Not Sure
Hair: Red, Other, Other
Eyes: Blue
I loved this when I first bought it but half a year after purchase the formula has gone weird and forms blotchy beads of colour on my face after just a couple of hours. I've tried priming, setting, and spraying in various combinations but nothing stops it. This happens with both the one for oily skin and for dry to normal skin.
Popular Liquid Foundations
24 Reviews
110 Reviews
371 Reviews
120 Reviews
141 Reviews
10 Reviews


text:
You are streaming VIEJA GORDA FOLLANDO porn video from Xvideos sex channel. Free VIEJA GORDA FOLLANDO sex movie was added from Pornetto together with more porno videos. Find more porno, sexo, webcam, chicas, gratis, con, videochat, putas, actriz, actrices, cibersexo, unknow porn on our biggest collection of free sex videos. Well organized porno movies are updated daily.
240 views


text:
- 111Promote
iPhone Cases
Winter is coming (Aspen)by Sarajea
Protect your iPhone with a one-piece, impact resistant, flexible plastic hard case featuring an extremely slim profile. Simply snap the case onto your iPhone for solid protection and direct access to all device features.
I know it's ninety in September and hard to believe—but the long night and the flying snow are almost upon us.
[winter is coming, direwolf, a song of ice and fire, game of thrones, wolf, fox, forest, aspen, birch]
love it!
me too !!
Amazingly brilliant! :D
this is so charming.
Thanks for the kind words, everyone!
Wonderful tones and illustration! LOVE!
lovely birch trees :)
Very cool image ! I love it
Oh, I love the trees! Lovely!
See More Comments


text:
Antarctica and a llama for UK queen in jubilee year
published Thu, Jan 17 2013 09:05 GMT
LONDON (Reuters) - A piece of Antarctica named after her, a baby llama, tea from Sri Lanka and her own set of Olympic medals were just some of the gifts given to Britain's Queen Elizabeth during her 2012 diamond jubilee year. Foreign leaders, emissaries, luxury goods businesses and members of the public gave the British monarch a treasure trove of gifts from jewels given by the Emir of Kuwait to a wind chime from a nursery school near her Sandringham estate, according to a list released by Buckingham Palace. ...
Click for more articles from news.yahoo.com


text:
Tag: The Meaning and Making of Emancipation
Emancipation Proclamation: My Dear Wife
Today's blog post comes from National Archives social media intern Anna Fitzpatrick.
During the Civil War, the government moved slowly but steadily from an affirmation of the Constitutional protection of slavery to its complete abolition with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment. This change was in part forced on the Federal government by the growing numbers of enslaved people who fled and sought protection behind Union lines.
John Boston, fleeing slavery in Maryland, found refuge with a New York regiment in Upton Hill, Virginia, where he wrote to his wife who remained in Owensville. At the moment of celebrating his freedom, his highest hope and aspiration was to be reunited with his family.
… [ Read all ]
My Dear Wife it is with grate joy I take this time to let you know Whare I am
i am now in Safety in the 14th Regiment of Brooklyn . . . this Day i can Adress you thank god as a free man I had a little truble in giting away But as the lord led the Children of Isrel to the
Posted by Hilary on December 17, 2012, under - Civil Rights, - Civil War.
Tags: eBook, Emanicipation Proclamation, iPad, letters, slavery, The Meaning and Making of Emancipation
Comments: none


text: Laura Val is the most decorated Masters Swimmer in history with over 300 FINA World Records. Laura was an accomplished competitor through high school and after raising two daughters she was drawn back to the water to get back in shape, but her first races got her hooked. She now trains with teammates thirty years her junior at Santa Clara. Upon turning sixty, Laura set six world records in a single race (50, 100, 200, 400 and 800 on her way to the 1500 SC meters freestyle). The swim has been described as one of the greatest performances in swimming history. As a Blueseventy athlete she feels the fit of suits is perfect for her body type and she appreciates the comfort, both in open water and pool competitions.


text:
Thank this author by sharing:
By Louis Davidson (@drsql),
Guest Editor: Louis Davidson
As we rush headlong into 2013, many of us prepare the annual document of self-deception otherwise known as our "New Year's Resolutions". Most people don't intend to lie to themselves; it just often ends up that way. If you are lazy then the act of writing down "don't be lazy" won't transform you into a marathon runner. Likewise, writing down "lose weight" won't precipitate an immediate downward spiral in pant size. Why not? Too often, the problem is that our past failures are staring us in the face, informing us up front of the likely futility of our resolutions, and preventing us from moving on.
We have to forget the pain of past failures, just like the one-year-old babies that constantly put stuff in their mouths, even if most times it tastes awful. If memories of past failures prevented them from developing, then they would starve after their first beetle snack.
As we age, our sense of trepidation grows as we learn the consequences of our actions. After suffering a bashed head, or worse, the first time a teenage buddy suggests jumping off a bridge, we learn that next time that just maybe we should wait and see what happens to the other person first. However, we can overdo caution. What if we carry that initial memory around indefinitely and it develops into a phobia (a fear of heights, for example) that thwarts many other ambitions?
Can DBAs overdo caution as well? On the one hand, it is important that we remember and learn from both our good and bad experiences. On the other, if we never break free from any of the pain of past failures, they can forever dog our progress. I spend a considerable portion of my professional life maintaining backward compatibility with my own previous mistakes and failures. Our primary system is so heavily laden with poor choices made 20 years ago (and replicated in multiple systems since, built to replace the previous "broken" systems) that every decision I want to make as an architect has to be considered against a thousand other busted processes. Why don't I just fix the original problems?
What, if, for example, I could find the time and tools to apply a set of selective DELETE statements to my "bad data" (call it SQL amnesia!), apply a thin layer of CHECK constraints, and reinsert rule-conforming data? I would no longer be tied to past mistakes; I could save hours every single day by not having to write code that remembers that someone may have entered a value like "I ain't got any idea", instead of a standard value like "Unknown"!
So this year, let's make it our New Year's Resolutions as DBAs and programmers to admit that we failed in the past. If you take decisive action you may get it wrong occasionally, but it is much better to dust yourself down and try again to take control of your life and work. A healthy dose of selective, enforced amnesia about the pain of failure is the answer. Fix bad data, rewrite terrible queries, eliminate unneeded cursor usage, normalize our sloppy table designs, and move on!
Eventually, it will become so difficult to remember how our previous malformed designs worked us stupid that we never look back.
Louis Davidson
Steve Jones talks a bit about the value of learning for DBAs and other IT professionals.
Today Steve Jones talks about learning those advanced features that you don't get the chance to use ...
Phil Factor on learning from mistakes. Preferably other people's.
Learn the basics of first normal form and what that means to a database designer from Tom Thomson.
SQL Report "Errornous?" SQL login failure
As a member of SQLServerCentral, you get free access to loads of fresh content: thousands
of articles and SQL scripts, a library of free eBooks, a weekly database news roundup,
a great Q & A platform… And it's our huge, buzzing community of SQL Server Professionals
that makes it such a success.
Join us!
Steve Jones
Editor, SQLServerCentral.com


text:
Hiroshi Yamauchi ran Nintendo from 1949 until 2002, presiding over its heyday with the rise of the Nintendo Entertainment System in the 1980s.
Click here to read Bob's blog.
Americans are wasting more food than ever, thanks partly to confusion…
No email address was supplied by
To complete your registration on this site, please supply an address.
Please confirm or modify the email address to which you will have subscription offers sent.
For a more personalized experience, please supply the following optional information.


text:
I want to achieve a better facial structure, and sometimes I feel like my chin is too small, but in certain pictures it looks o.k. I'm also considering rhinoplasty and I read that it's good to get both of the procedures together.
Could I Benefit from a Chin Implant? (photo)
Doctor Answers 10
The balance between a person's nasal shape & chin must be considered in choosing whether to undergo chin augmentation #RealSelf
The balance between a person's nasal shape & chin must be considered in choosing whether to undergo chin augmentation. The key is "harmony" between the various facial structures. Based on your limited photos it does appear that your chin is slightly retruded and could benefit from augmentation. During a consultation your Facial Plastic Surgeon or Plastic Surgeon will be able to discuss with you whether a chin implant will achieve your goals. In some cases performing rhinoplasty to re-shape the nose at the same time will provide the most pleasing results.
Thank you for your question.
Stephen Weber MD, FACS
Web reference: http://weberfacialplasticsurgery.com/facial-implants/
Facial Augmentation
Yes, you may be a candidate. When the chin is weak or undersized, it disturbs facial balance and harmony. A short chin may make your nose appear larger and more conspicuous, an overbite appear more pronounced or a double chin appear worse.Often, this procedure may be performed at the time of nasal plastic surgery or neck contouring procedures such as facelift or cervicofacial liposuction. Facial augmentation or implant surgery is one of facial plastic surgery's most gratifying procedures. It provides immediate and effective results that can last a lifetime, while dramatically improving facial harmony. The chin implant can enhance facial highlights, improve facial definition and correct nature's insufficiencies.It is important to choose a Facial Plastic Surgeon and have a consult to include imaging to know for sure if these procedures are right for you.
Web reference: http://www.drclevens.com/face/facial_implants.htm
Chin implant candidate
Performing a chin implant will give a nice augmentation to the chin area and also make the nose look less prominent. It is very common to have both a rhinoplasty and chin implant performed at the same time, usually under a general anesthesia. A chin implant can be performed under local anesthesia if that is the only procedure the patient desires. The incision for this procedure is placed in the submental area. The implant is then placed directly over the bone to give a nice augmentation. Performing only they chin implant will give facial balance and make the nose look less prominent.
Web reference: http://www.seattlefacial.com/photogallery/facialimplants_photos12.html
You might also like...
Chin augmentation candidate
You could benefit from chin augmentation. This type of surgery is often combined with rhinoplasty as they both can bring better balance to the face.
An assessment of your entire face would allow for the formulation of a better plan. You should also discuss your specific concerns regarding your nose with your potential surgeon.
Web reference: http://www.drlamperti.com/facial-plastic-surgery/chin-augmentation
Chin implants and chin liposuction treatment
A chin implant will help provide lateral projection of the chin and is a relatively simple procedure that has large benefits in patients. I often treat patients with a chin augmentation and chin liposuction concurrently.
Candidate for Chin Implant
You are a candidate for a chin implant and perhaps submental liposuction. It is advantageous to do a rhinoplasty and chin augmentation at the same time because the patient has only one operation and recovery.
You may consult a reputable facial plastic surgeon to see if you're a candidate for Chin Implant Surgery.
I read your concerns and reviewed your photos:
Your photos are suboptimal for advising you on the suitability of rhinoplasty and chin implant surgery. You may want to repost your question with better photos addressing your concerns.
Your profile demonstrates a mildly retrusive chin which may be improved with chin implant surgery. Consultation with a certified, reputable facial plastic surgeon may be helpful in showing you what to expect after well-performed surgery.
Dr. Joseph
Web reference: http://ericmjoseph.com/index.cfm/PageID/4241
Chin Augmentation Requires Diagnostic Imaging
The best way to determine if a chin implant would be helpful for your facial appearance is computer imaging. Looking at changed views from both the front and side can give you an immediate answer to whether chin augmentation is beneficial to your face. It is necessary to have good quality full face pictures (non-smiling) from the front and side for the predictions to be the most meaningful.
Web reference: http://www.eppleychinaugmentation.com
Chin Implant
From what little I can see on your photos, it seems a chin implant might be a good idea. But the photos are inadequate to make a full evaluation. We need full face front and side, and not with the camera pointed down.
Chin implant
You will need to provide a full face and full face side view to permit an adequate evaluation. One of the key point needed to evaluate your chin is the radix where the nose meets the face.
Web reference: http://www.plasticsurg.org/plastic-surgery-chicago.html
These answers are for educational purposes and should not be relied upon as a substitute for medical advice you may receive from your physician. If you have a medical emergency, please call 911. These answers do not constitute or initiate a patient/doctor relationship.


text:
EGSnrc: software tool to model radiation transport
Overview of the software
NRC's electron gamma shower (EGS) software tool can meet your specific requirements relating to modelling the passage of electrons and photons through matter. EGSnrc relies on Monte Carlo, which is the most accurate method to model the transport of radiation.
EGSnrc is used to address a broad range of questions about the propagation of radiation in materials. It is particularly well-suited for medical physics purposes, such as the research and development of devices that allow medical professionals to detect radiation, image a patient's anatomy using x-rays, or deliver a prescribed radiation dose to a tumour while sparing healthy tissue. The software is also employed directly by medical physicists in cancer clinics for research and for verifying radiation treatment plans.
NRC also trains Canadian and international physicists on use of the software.
NRC contributes to the development and application of the Monte Carlo method in the modelling of radiation transport since the early 1980s. The EGSnrc software is now downloaded more than 3,000 times per year by academic, medical and industrial researchers worldwide.
Targeted audience
- Medical physicists, universities and hospitals.
- Companies that develop radiotherapy equipment and software.
- Universities and industries working with radiation, including radiation measurement, radiotherapy, radiation protection, radiation processing, medical imaging, and other electron and photon radiation applications.
Description of the software
The EGSnrc code system is a general-purpose software toolkit that can be applied to build Monte Carlo simulations of coupled electron-photon transport, for particle energies ranging from 1 keV to 10 GeV.
EGSnrc is an extended and improved version of the EGS4 code system developed jointly by NRC and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in the 1980s (WR Nelson, H Hirayama, DWO Rogers. The EGS4 code system, Report SLAC-265, 1985). The EGSnrc implementation improves the accuracy and precision of the charged particle transport mechanics and the atomic scattering cross-section data (I Kawrakow. Accurate condensed history Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport. I. EGSnrc, the new EGS4 version. Medical physics 27, 2000). It also comprises a C++ geometry library for defining the geometry of complex simulation environments and particle sources.
System requirements
EGSnrc works on GNU/Linux, Unix, Mac OS X and Windows. EGSnrc is a set of source files and utilities to build your own Monte Carlo simulations. As such, it is not a stand-alone software and requires the following:
- Fortran, C and C++ compilers
- The GNU make utility
- The Tcl/Tk interpreter and GUI toolkit
- Grace (to display results graphically)
EGSnrc is trusted by researchers worldwide for simulation accuracy and speed. It is widely regarded as the most accurate computer program for electron and photon transport simulation. The EGS code has been used extensively by medical physicists over the past four decades, resulting in thousands of publications in scientific journals. Through this rigorous peer-review process it has evolved into a reliable and well-benchmarked software. EGSnrc continues to be referenced in around 30 per cent of all Monte Carlo related publications in the leading journals Medical Physics and Physics in Medicine and Biology. Commercial partners around the world also rely upon EGSnrc for the design of radiation equipment and software, as is evidenced by commercial license agreements that are already in place.
The software is freely available for research and other non-commercial purposes. Please read the full license agreements before downloading. Companies wishing to use the software should contact NRC to obtain a commercial licence.
For technical inquiries
Dr. Frédéric Tessier
Telephone: 613-993-9352 ext. 237
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Dr. Ernesto Mainegra-Hing
Telephone: 613-993-9352 ext. 260
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
For business inquiries
- Date modified:


text:
American Council on Exercise4851 Paramount DriveSan Diego, California 92123
This 8-hour Vinyasa Yoga Teacher Training Intensive will educate existing yoga teachers on the 6 Stages of a Vinyasa Yoga class as well as the 5 Elements of Creating a Yoga Flow Sequence. There will be time spent discussing and identifying the difference between correcting and connecting as well as modeling versus not modeling. Participants will also walk away with ready to use teaching tips that will continue to enhance their ability to deliver a great yoga class, every time they teach.
Date & Time
Event Location
How Would You Rate This Product Out of 5 Stars?
If you need help selecting appropriate study materials for your fitness education, registering for an ACE exam or answering any questions about your certification, we're here to help. Expert consultants are available via e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com, on Live Chat or by phone at the number below Monday-Friday, 5 a.m. to 6 p.m. (PST).
Sign up to receive emails about special offers, promotions, exclusive product information and news.


text:
- Filed Under
Turkey program: Visit the Horicon Marsh Education and Visitor Center at 7 p.m. on Wednesday to learn more about the ecology of the wild turkey, turkey calls, hunting gear and techniques. For information call Liz Herzmann at 920-387-7893 or send email to email@example.com. More events | Events map


text:
A holiday tradition nearly a century old will continue next Friday when the community gathers for the annual lighting of Taunton Green.
Each December, downtown Taunton is transformed into a massive holiday display, featuring thousands of lights and dozens of larger-than-life decorations and displays. Workers from the city and Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant have spent weeks hanging lights, erecting temporary structures and installing decorations ranging from penguins to Santa Claus.
The area surrounding Taunton Green will be closed to vehicle traffic the night of Dec. 2 for the annual "Lights On" festival, which will run from 5:30 to 9 p.m. One of the highlights of the event will happen at 6:30 p.m., when Santa Claus arrives and the Christmas lights are turned on.
Following the illumination, there will be a series of professional and amateur performances and demonstrations at businesses throughout the downtown area. That portion of the night has been organized by Heart of Taunton, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the city's downtown.
"We have 20 sites this year," said Heart of Taunton Executive Director Julie Sprague. "It's one of the biggest events we've done."
Among the new sites hosting events this year is the Congregation of Agudath Achim, which is holding an open house, Hanukkah games and musical performances.
Anyone attending the Lights On festivities needs to have a button for admission. Buttons are available from Heart of Taunton and select downtown businesses, and cost $6 in advance, or $8 at the gate.
The lighting of Taunton Green dates back to 1914, when downtown merchants came up with the idea to attract people to their stores for holiday shopping. The decorations evolved over the years, and the event grew.
Beginning 23 years ago, Heart of Taunton began organizing the Lights On festival to coincide with the lighting of Taunton Green. The concept was to model the activities after First Night in Boston, explained Sprague, who has been Heart of Taunton's executive director for the past dozen years.
For more information on Lights On, visit heartoftaunton.com, or call 508-880-4960.
Corporate sponsors for Lights On include the City of Taunton, Morton Hospital, Bristol County Savings Bank, Columbia Gas, the Massachusetts Cultural Council and Eastern Bank.
Lights On
Time: 5:30 to 9 p.m.
Date: Friday, Dec. 2
Cost: $6 in advance, $8 at the gate
More info: heartoftaunton.com, 508-880-4960
Comments are currently unavailable on this article
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Latest Queries
Privacy Concerned?
| Get Latest Data
Importance of this Information:
Hit the button below if you want us to fetch latest information about Google.com. We will instantly gather new data and will show it to you once it fetches completely.
The Stats for the domain Youdodj.com were collected 962 Days Ago
Detailed Information
Importance of this Information:
Detailed Information is for letting you know that how much rating Youdodj.com gets by statsrecordtesting.net. Google.com review, its online status, legit or not? etc.
Youdodj.com has a world wide rank of 24352757 with PR 2. The domain Youdodj.com is about Wedding Receptions, Events, Sound Systems, YOU-DO-DJ Spokane, WA.. Youdodj.com is currently hosted in the city Providence which is a city of United States. This domain is operated by the company or isp WestHost. Youdodj.com's servers are being operated by the organization which is WestHost
| Location Information
Importance of this Information:
Every sites has its own server on which it runs online every time. Location information is currently showing where are the servers of Youdodj.com , how much latitude and longitude positions it has.
The domain Youdodj.com is located in Providence. This city is situated in United States.This location is found as its ip is originating from that server. Location is determined on the base of the ip address of server.
| Ranking Performance
Importance of this Information:
Every sites has its own server on which it runs online every time. Location information is currently showing where are the servers of Youdodj.com , how much latitude and longitude positions it has.
As far as meta information of Youdodj.com is concerned. This information is given below.
Alexa Rank: 24352757
Page Rank: 2
| Meta tags
Importance of this Information:
Meta Information (also known as meta tags) are a data which truly matters for search engines only. Users does not see this data in the page in any website. It only appears in source code of web browsers. Following are the meta tags of Youdodj.com which were fetched through our robot by visiting the site as a normal user.
Wedding Receptions, Events, Sound Systems, YOU-DO-DJ Spokane, WA.
Save hundreds on your DJ. We set up a professional sound system and connect it to your iPod or laptop. It's easy! Just push play and party. You-Do-DJ, Spokane, WA
| Most Popular Queries
Importance of this Information:
Most Popular queries are the top most queries of Youdodj.com. These search keywords derive the most traffic to Youdodj.com.
|piano music
| Server Location analysis Graphs
Importance of this Information:
Server Location graph pins the location where the site is currently being hosted.
| Domain Name Servers - DNS
Importance of this Information:
DNS (abbreviated as Domain Name Servers) are name servers eg ns1.Youdodj.com, or ns2.Youdodj.com and so on. these name servers are set in the registar settings of a domain, to let the registar know about where to point the users to its original servers. These dns also enables Internet service providers to lookup every site on the internet. First of all, browsers sents request for accessing the site, then its isp finds its dns, then request forwards to servers through dns, and the server finally send a response back to the isp and isp to the users. A site cannot work if it does not have a valid dns.
There are total 4 DNS records for Youdodj.com. These 4 DNS records include 4 (NS) Name sever record, 0 (A) record, 0 (SOA) start of authority record, 0 (MX) Mail Exchange record and 0 (TXT) TEXT record.
| Ownership Information - Whois Information
Importance of this Information:
Whois information of Youdodj.com or Youdodj.com whois information display the name of owner(s) of the site. You can view this information only if it is allowed to be shown by the owner of the website. Whois information also shown the registrar and its ip addresses which points to that domain. Name servers, number of ips, location, owner contact information, technical info, business info, contacts etc.
Youdodj.com sponsor/registrar is Youdodj.com was registered on 2007-04-05 and will be expired on 2014-04-05
Visit AboutUs.org for more information about youdodj.com
AboutUs: youdodj.com
Domain name: youdodj.com
Administrative Contact:
UK2 Group
Technical Support ([email protected])
517 West 100 North, Suite #225
Providence, UT 84332
Technical Contact:
UK2 Group
Technical Support ([email protected])
517 West 100 North, Suite #225
Providence, UT 84332
Registrant Contact:
UK2 Group
Technical Support ()
517 West 100 North, Suite #225
Providence, UT 84332
Status: Locked
Name Servers:
Creation date: 05 Apr 2007 14:29:00
Expiration date: 05 Apr 2014 14:29:00
Get Noticed on the Internet! Increase visibility for this domain name by listing it at www.whoisbusinesslistings.com
The data in this whois database is provided to you for information
purposes only, that is, to assist you in obtaining information about or
related to a domain name registration record. We make this information
available "as is," and do not guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a
whois query, you agree that you will use this data only for lawful
purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (1)
enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that stress or load
this whois database system providing you this information; or (2) allow,
enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass unsolicited,
commercial advertising or solicitations via direct mail, electronic
mail, or by telephone. The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or
other use of this data is expressly prohibited without prior written
consent from us.
We reserve the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting
this query, you agree to abide by these terms.
Version 6.3 4/3/2002
| Estimated Graphs for Alexa Traffic Rankings
Importance of this Information:
Alexa Traffic Graphs (powered by alexa) displays traffic information of Youdodj.com in a format which is easily catchable by eyes in a second. This graph displays current traffic stats for the following site, and lets you know about how much popular it is on the internet.
Sites Linking - Inlinks Analysis
Importance of this Information:
In Links, means which sites have placed the site address of Youdodj.com with anchor tag on their main page of subdirectories. Internal links matters a lot if we want a good ranking in google, bing, yahoo, baidu, and other search engines. Because if more people start linking to a particular website, then it means its gaining popularity on the net. If you want to gain ranking, then get up and start creating a good quality content so that others may start linking to your good content.
|Alexa Ranking Analysis Graph
| Popularity - How many people are searching about it.
Importance of this Information:
the following graph shows the popularity of Youdodj.com on google search engine. This popularity shows that how many internet users are searching about Youdodj.com on google. The graph includes the search interest of users of Youdodj.com about past 5 years.
|Quantcast Ranking Analysis Graph


text:
The Pankian Metaphor 3077
The Pankian Metaphor 3079
my original comment-observation included the observation: "and were never built for the number of buttociated heavy truck axle-loads (that are the result of the municipal bus traffic...
and the reference mentioned in that posting
the new technology i was noticing at the new weigh stations appears to be somewhat similar to the overhead ez-pbutt transponder sensors on toll roads, called "prepbutt":
PrePbutt Weigh Station Bypbutt
from above:
PrePbutt is an automated, state-of-the-art system allowing heavy vehicles that are registered in the program to legally bypbutt open weigh stations. Transponders: Carriers obtain special transponders used for communication between computers in the weigh stations and the vehicles. Green Signal: If all requirements for weight, size, safety, etc. are met, the driver receives a green signal that allows the vehicle to bypbutt the weigh station.
... snip ...
The Pankian Metaphor 3078
Anne & Lynn Wheeler Actually, I do not think it very prevalent at all. The reason truck scales are so common is that a bill of lading with a weight...
i think the truck still exits main traffic, but if the prepbutt transponder agrees ... they take a lane that bypbutt the actual scales and returns them to main traffic flow
the shows a graphic that depicts how
the area of the new weigh stations that i've seen on 101 is quite a wide open expanse ... significantly larger than the old one-lane operations with small weigh station shack located adjacent to the scales.
the cal dot site also has
Data Weigh-in-Motion
there is some possibility that data weigh-in-motion is also used in conjunction with PrePbutt Weigh Station Bypbutt (there is reference in the above Weigh-in-Motion webpage to Bybutt WIM).
This talks about WIM technical overview and requirement for smooth pavement surface approach leading up to a WIM installation
this is base document URL from cal. dot talking about pavement design and ESAL (equivalent single axle load)
also describing how to arrive at heavy truck equivalent single axle load for calculating design for payment and pavement lifetime based on amount of esal activity. previous postings including description of equivalent single axle loads and pavement lifetime
The Pankian Metaphor 3080
Norway. Some of the large "truck SUV"'s come in two varieties, one for personal use and...
Alt Folklore Computers Newsgroups