text:
Another Spin on RDF with Contexts
OK, describing the RDFC idea as finding a compromise between global and local views of IRI meanings, and as a revision of RDF itself, has raised some hackles and concerns. This Wiki page is a different way to spin essentially the same idea, making it sound a lot less threatening (I hope).
We dont say we are redefining RDF, and we don't talk about RDFC. We don't use the term 'local' or talk about changing the meanings of IRIs. Instead, we talk about extending RDF with an option that allows users to describe and name their own semantic extensions, so that they and others can use them to express more things in RDF. Its a kind of do-it-yourself RDF-extending kit.
The idea of semantic extension is already introduced and sketchily defined in the 2004 specs, the relevant text being "Particular uses of RDF, including as a basis for more expressive languages such as DAML+OIL [DAML] and OWL [OWL], may impose further semantic conditions in addition to those described here, and such extra semantic conditions can also be imposed on the meanings of terms in particular RDF vocabularies. Extensions or dialects of RDF which are obtained by imposing such extra semantic conditions may be referred to as semantic extensions of RDF. " So the proposal is now to take this idea and run a little further with it.
Although the terminology has changed, the formal machinery and its intended uses are exactly as in the earlier proposal, so I have kept the same IRI names for comparison. However, if this way of describing it is preferred, then we might want to change rdf:inherits to something like rdf:inExtension.
Semantic Extensions to RDF
A semantic extension, or simply an extension, to RDF represents a named public agreement to use a particular vocabulary of IRIs, called the reserved vocabulary of the extension, with a particular meaning defined by the extension. Semantic extensions must not violate the basic semantics of RDF, but they can extend it by imposing special meanings on IRIs. The OWL and RDFS standards are semantic extensions to RDF defined by their W3C specifications documents. (In these cases the reserved vocabulary constitutes a namespace, but this is not required.) Users may invent their own extensions and indicate them by an IRI. Then, including a triple
<> rdf:inherits C .
in an RDF graph, where C indicates the semantic extension, means that C-reserved IRIs which occur in the rest of the graph are to be interpreted using the semantic constraints of that extension. Several such triples may be included in a graph, in which case all the indicated extensions apply, each to its own reserved vocabulary.
(***This presumes that there is a clear notion of a graph boundary, which is not true in current (2004) RDF, but is widely presumed. This is something we need to fix.***)
Note, we use the term 'indicates' because the indicating URI might denote something else. In general, any IRI may be used to indicate a semantic extension, but it does not therefore denote or refer to or identify that extension. Semantic extensions are not things in the universe of discourse of RDF. An IRI indicates a semantic extension simply by being used as the object of an rdf:inherits triple. The recommended practice is to have the IRI which is used to indicate an extension identify a document which defines the reserved vocabulary and semantic conditions of the extension; but any IRI, for example one which identifies a human person or an OWL class, may be used to indicate an extension.
(***This is to allow current practice where an IRI is used to 'label' an RDF graph in a dataset while also being used to denote something else. Several major RDF supporters use this, so we need to allow it.***)
It is possible that two extensions might impose inconsistent conditions on the same reserved vocabulary, so that a graph which inherits both of them cannot be satisfied. In this case the graph is considered to be RDF-inconsistent, and this situation may be flagged as an error.
A description of a semantic extension must define the restricted vocabulary of the extension, so that there is an algorithm which will determine, for any IRI, whether or not it is in the vocabulary; and may describe the intended meanings of these IRIs in a form which defines a set of RDF interpretations on the vocabulary as being those which satisfy the semantic conditions of the extension. A semantic extension may specify certain syntactic conditions on RDF graphs or combinations of RDF triples; in which case an algorithm must be defined which can determine, for any RDF graph, whether or not it satisfies these syntactic constraints of the extension. (*** Thinking of OWL-DL, obviously. ***)
A (recommended) way to define the reserved vocabulary is to include an RDF graph in the documentation which uses all the IRIs in the reserved vocabulary, called the context graph. This context graph may also represent some of the semantic conditions on the vocabulary. However, semantic conditions may be defined in any way, for example by stating conditions on interpretations directly, by providing axioms or rules, or in natural-language text. They may be omitted altogether, but of course the less information that is provided about the semantic conditions, the less useful the extension may be. We leave this situation under-defined deliberately, in anticipation of a scenario where a relatively under-defined extension gradually becomes clearer as it gets used by a community.
(***I believe that it is important to keep this under-defined, allowing informally expressed descriptions of extensions, to make it very easy for people to use extensions even if their definitions are informal. It also provides a semi-official way to connect RDF semantic content to what used to be called 'social meaning'. For example, the text might specify that a given class name IRI is interpreted to mean the class of all adult human beings, without giving any further explanation or being obliged to 'axiomatize' this idea.***)
A semantic extension which does not define its semantic constraints may be used as a public flag to draw attention to the fact that graphs which inherit that extension are all in explicit agreement concerning the meaning of the restricted vocabulary, whatever it may be. Of course, simply using a given set of IRIs should imply this agreement, but in practice this rule is sometimes unreliable, and the semantic extension mechanism provides an additional level of explicit confirmation of an intention to use a vocabulary in a strictly consistent manner.
The context graph, if provided, must be true under the semantic conditions of the extension. An extension may be completely specified by a context graph, in which case the semantic constraint is simply that the graph be true. In this case, called a graph extension, rdf:inherits has exactly the same meaning as owl:imports. This is understood to be the case when the extension is indicated by an IRI identifying an RDF graph, or a graph container, or a document which parses to a graph in some accepted RDF notation.
If the context graph of an extension A includes an inheritance triple of the form <> rdf:inherits B . , then the extension A is called an extension of B, and includes all of the semantic constraints of B, plus (presumably) some others of its own. The reserved vocabulary of A may overlap with that of B, which indicates that A imposes further conditions on this part of the vocabulary. An extension of an extension B must not contradict any of the conditions imposed by B, but it may add further conditions. (For example, if A extends B and B specifies that the IRI x:Person is the class of human beings, then A may specify that this IRI is the class of American citizens, but it may not claim that it is the class of insects.) An extension may be an extension of several other extensions.
A special case
A graph may be asserted in itself; that is, in the graph extension defined by treating it as the context graph of that extension. This means that its entire vocabulary is classified as restricted to it, and so has the effect of 'isolating' the IRIs in the graph from any meaning they might have in other graphs, allowing them to be interpreted locally in that particular graph as a unique context of meaning. We could call this a solipsist graph. It reproduces exactly the semantics of datasets as defined by Antoine. This technique may be found useful when sorting RDF content found "in the wild" into coherent groups, without being obliged to treat IRIs in separate groups as necessarily identical in meaning. This can be done using graph naming in a SPARQL dataset:
{ <u1> a rdf:Graph }
<u1> { <u1> rdf:inherits <u1> ...}
///not yet complete///
(*** For semanticians, this is more like a 'punning' approach, different from the way the context semantics was defined. Although that was more in the spirit of the 2004 semantics, I think this is more intuitive and has better entailments. But we could go either way.***)
A semantic extension selects a subset of the interpretations of its reserved vocabulary as being those which satisfy its constraints. We model this by mappings voc from IRIs to sets of IRIs, and CON from IRIs to sets of interpretations, so that J in CON(X) means that J is an interpretation of voc(X) which satisfies the constraints of the extension indicated by the IRI X. Note that voc and CON are defined independently from any interpretation of X itself.
Time-dependent properties and intervals.
Mutual agreement on standard definitions eg in ISO
Links to legal texts, government documents, etc..


text:
CLEVELAND -- A man accused of stealing millions that had been donated to the charity he founded, the Navy Veterans Association, pleaded not guilty in court Tuesday morning.
The judge ordered him held in custody.
The man goes by the name "Bobby Thompson" but federal investigators are still trying to determine his real identity.
Prosecutor allege Thompson stole nearly $2 million from Ohio donors and millions more from donors in 40 states.
U.S. Marshals took Thompson into custody earlier this month in Portland, Oregon. He had been on the run for nearly two years.
He faces charges of unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, identity theft, fraud, and money laundering.
Marshals say Thompson has refused to reveal his true identity and say national and local searches conducted on his fingerprints have yielded negative results. Marshals are circulating various photographs of Thompson in hopes someone recognizes him.
Anyone with information regarding the true identity of this fugitive is encouraged to contact the U.S. Marshals Service at: 1-866-4-WANTED or text the keyword WANTED and the tip to 847411(tip411).
Tipsters may remain anonymous and a cash reward may be available.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Terminal 4 (T-4), New International Terminal
Counters 51 to 57
(Check-in counters are closed punctually 40 minutes before scheduled departure time)
|Opening Hours:
|3 hours prior to flight departure.
|To be confirmed
|Airside, near Gate 17
|Opening Hours:
|3 hours prior to flight departure
|Airside, near Gate 12
|Opening Hours:
|3 hours prior to flight departure
For further information, click on the website of Chennai International Airport.
Passengers arriving may use the shuttle provided by Airport Authority of India for transit between international and domestic terminals.
To city centre: Taxi: 750 INR
(16 km / 10 miles)
Included in the price of airline ticket
Tobacco Products: 100 cigarettes or 25 cigars or 125g tobacco
Alcoholic Beverages: 2 litres of spirits
For more information, please see Customs Rules for India


text:
39 U.S. Code § 404 - Specific powers
prev | next
(a) Subject to the provisions of section 404a, but otherwise without limitation of the generality of its powers, the Postal Service shall have the following specific powers, among others:
(1) to provide for the collection, handling, transportation, delivery, forwarding, returning, and holding of mail, and for the disposition of undeliverable mail;
(2) to prescribe, in accordance with this title, the amount of postage and the manner in which it is to be paid;
(3) to determine the need for post offices, postal and training facilities and equipment, and to provide such offices, facilities, and equipment as it determines are needed;
(4) to provide and sell postage stamps and other stamped paper, cards, and envelopes and to provide such other evidences of payment of postage and fees as may be necessary or desirable;
(7) to offer and pay rewards for information and services in connection with violation of the postal laws, and, unless a different disposal is expressly prescribed, to pay one-half of all penalties and forfeitures imposed for violations of law affecting the Postal Service, its revenues, or property, to the person informing for the same, and to pay the other one-half into the Postal Service Fund; and
(b) Except as otherwise provided, the Governors are authorized to establish reasonable and equitable classes of mail and reasonable and equitable rates of postage and fees for postal services in accordance with the provisions of chapter 36. Postal rates and fees shall be reasonable and equitable and sufficient to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.
(c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.
(1) The Postal Service, prior to making a determination under subsection (a)(3) of this section as to the necessity for the closing or consolidation of any post office, shall provide adequate notice of its intention to close or consolidate such post office at least 60 days prior to the proposed date of such closing or consolidation to persons served by such post office to ensure that such persons will have an opportunity to present their views.
(2) The Postal Service, in making a determination whether or not to close or consolidate a post office—
(A) shall consider—
(ii) the effect of such closing or consolidation on employees of the Postal Service employed at such office;
(iii) whether such closing or consolidation is consistent with the policy of the Government, as stated in section 101 (b) of this title, that the Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining;
(3) Any determination of the Postal Service to close or consolidate a post office shall be in writing and shall include the findings of the Postal Service with respect to the considerations required to be made under paragraph (2) of this subsection. Such determination and findings shall be made available to persons served by such post office.
(4) The Postal Service shall take no action to close or consolidate a post office until 60 days after its written determination is made available to persons served by such post office.
(5) A determination of the Postal Service to close or consolidate any post office may be appealed by any person served by such office to the Postal Regulatory Commission within 30 days after such determination is made available to such person under paragraph (3). The Commission shall review such determination on the basis of the record before the Postal Service in the making of such determination. The Commission shall make a determination based upon such review no later than 120 days after receiving any appeal under this paragraph. The Commission shall set aside any determination, findings, and conclusions found to be—
The Commission may affirm the determination of the Postal Service or order that the entire matter be returned for further consideration, but the Commission may not modify the determination of the Postal Service. The Commission may suspend the effectiveness of the determination of the Postal Service until the final disposition of the appeal. The provisions of section 556, section 557, and chapter 7 of title 5 shall not apply to any review carried out by the Commission under this paragraph.
(6) For purposes of paragraph (5), any appeal received by the Commission shall—
(A) if sent to the Commission through the mails, be considered to have been received on the date of the Postal Service postmark on the envelope or other cover in which such appeal is mailed; or
(1) In this subsection, the term "nonpostal service" means any service that is not a postal service defined under section 102 (5).
(2) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit or require that the Postal Service provide any nonpostal service, except that the Postal Service may provide nonpostal services which were offered as of January 1, 2006, as provided under this subsection.
(3) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall review each nonpostal service offered by the Postal Service on the date of enactment of that Act and determine whether that nonpostal service shall continue, taking into account—
(4) Any nonpostal service not determined to be continued by the Postal Regulatory Commission under paragraph (3) shall terminate.
(5) If the Postal Regulatory Commission authorizes the Postal Service to continue a nonpostal service under this subsection, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall designate whether the service shall be regulated under this title as a market dominant product, a competitive product, or an experimental product.
Source(Pub. L. 91–375, Aug. 12, 1970, 84 Stat. 724; Pub. L. 94–421, § 9(a),Sept. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 1310; Pub. L. 105–241, § 3,Sept. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 1572; Pub. L. 109–435, title I, § 102(a), title IV, § 403(b)(2), title VI, § 604(a), title X, §§ 1006(a), 1010 (e),Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3200, 3227, 3241, 3258, 3261.)
References in Text
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. (d)(2)(B), is Pub. L. 91–596, Dec. 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 1590, as amended, which is classified principally to chapter 15 (§ 651 et seq.) of Title 29, Labor. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 651 of Title 29 and Tables.
The date of enactment of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, referred to in subsec. (e)(3), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 109–435, which was approved Dec. 20, 2006.
2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–435, § 403(b)(2), substituted "Subject to the provisions of section 404a, but otherwise without" for "Without" in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (a)(6) to (9). Pub. L. 109–435, § 102(a)(1), redesignated pars. (7) to (9) as (6) to (8), respectively, and struck out former par. (6), which read "to provide, establish, change, or abolish special nonpostal or similar services;".
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–435, § 1010(e), added subsec. (b). Former subsec. (b) redesignated (d).
Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 109–435, § 604(a), substituted "Postal Regulatory Commission" for "Postal Rate Commission".
Subsec. (b)(6). Pub. L. 109–435, § 1006(a), added par. (6).
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 109–435, § 1010(e), added subsec. (c). Former subsec. (c) redesignated (e).
Pub. L. 109–435, § 102(a)(2), added subsec. (c).
Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 109–435, § 1010(e), redesignatedsubsecs. (b) and (c) as (d) and (e), respectively.
1998—Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 105–241amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: "The Postal Service, in making a determination whether or not to close or consolidate a post office, shall consider—
"(A) the effect of such closing or consolidation on the community served by such post office;
"(B) the effect of such closing or consolidation on employees of the Postal Service employed at such office;
"(C) whether such closing or consolidation is consistent with the policy of the Government, as stated in section 101 (b) of this title, that the Postal Service shall provide a maximum degree of effective and regular postal services to rural areas, communities, and small towns where post offices are not self-sustaining;
"(D) the economic savings to the Postal Service resulting from such closing or consolidation; and
"(E) such other factors as the Postal Service determines are necessary."
1976—Pub. L. 94–421designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
Effective Date of 2006 Amendment
Pub. L. 109–435, title X, § 1006(b),Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3258, provided that: "This section [amending this section] and the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to any determination to close or consolidate a post office which is first made available, in accordance with paragraph (3) of section 404 (b) of title 39, United States Code, after the end of the 3-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 20, 2006]."
Effective Date of 1976 Amendment
Pub. L. 94–421, § 9(b),Sept. 24, 1976, 90 Stat. 1311, provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a) of this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the day after the date on which the Commission on Postal Service transmits its final report under section 7(f)(1) of this Act [set out as a note under section 3661 of this title]."
Effective Date
Pars. (1), (3) to (9) of subsec. (a) of this section effective July 1, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–9 of the Board of Governors and par. (2) of subsec. (a) effective Jan. 20, 1971, pursuant to Resolution No. 71–10 of the Board of Governors. See section 15(a) ofPub. L. 91–375, set out as a note preceding section 101 of this title.
References to Postal Rate Commission
Pub. L. 109–435, title VI, § 604(f),Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3242, provided that: "Whenever a reference is made in any provision of law (other than this Act [see Tables for classification] or a provision of law amended by this Act), regulation, rule, document, or other record of the United States to the Postal Rate Commission, such reference shall be considered a reference to the Postal Regulatory Commission."
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.


text:
Elkay LKAV3042CR
Chrome Avado Single Handle Bar Faucet with Pull Out Spray
Item # BCI1654069 | Model # LKAV3042CR | Avado Collection
Questions about Elkay LKAV3042CR?
Contact us for advice or more details. Our product specialists are here to help.
Elkay Avado Low Lead Compliant Single Handle Bar Faucet with Pull Out Spray
All varieties of Elkay faucets are precision crafted and specially designed for durability and ease of cleaning. Elkay offers seamlessly integrated function with your sense of style. Elkay faucets meet your specific needs while adding the finishing touch to your room's decor.
Product Features:
- Single hole Top mount installation
- Single lever faucet
- Pull-out spray with aerated flow and spray function
- Solid brass construction
- Removable ceramic disc cartridge
- Flexible supply tubes with 3/8" female compression ends
- Ship wt. 9.9 lbs
- Low lead compliant
Product Specifications:
- Mounting Type: Deck
- Handles: 1
- Handles Included: Yes
- Handle Type: Lever Handle
- Spout Type: Integral Spout
- Overall Height: 10-7/8"
- Spout Height: 9"
- Spout Reach: 8-1/2"
- Holes Required: One 1-1/2" Diameter Hole
- Maximum Countertop Thickness: 2-1/2"
- Material: Brass
- Valve Type: Ceramic Disc
- Valve Connection: 3/8" Compression Hose Assembly
- Flow Rate: 2.2 GPM
Product Certifications and Compliances:
- ANSI/NSF61 - Certified
- CA AB1953/VT S152 Low Lead Compliant
Additional Elkay Links
This Elkay item can also be referenced by the following color/finish specific model #:
- Elkay LKAV3042NK
Brushed Nickel
- Elkay LKAV3042CR
*Discontinued model or finish
More Than Just a Store - Your Reasons to Shop
Discover the best online deals for the Elkay LKAV3042 and everything else for your home from the leading online home improvement store.
We're committed to providing you with the best assortment of Elkay products with over 400 warehouses across the country.
Our knowledgeable product specialists work to bring you the best prices on every product and provide unmatched customer service. Your satisfaction is our highest priority!


text:
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is a 2002 space opera film directed by George Lucas. It is the fifth film to be released in the Star Wars saga, the second in terms of internal chronology, and the first in terms of everyone finally admitting that Star Wars had lost it.
The film is set 10 years after the events in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, when the galaxy is on the brink of civil war. Under the leadership of a renegade Jedi named Count
Dracula Dooku, thousands of stellar systems threaten to secede from the Galactic Republic (yes, at the same time). When an assassination attempt is made on Senator Padmé Amidala, the former Queen of Naboo, 20-year-old Jedi apprentice Anakin Skywalker is assigned to protect her, whilst taking a break from the Force to also learn about the ways of reproduction. His mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi goes on a wild goose chase investigating the assassination attempt.
Released on May 16, 2002, Attack of the Clones was the first motion picture to be shot completely on a high definition digital 24-frame system, and therefore have a fuzzier picture. It was also the first Star Wars film to be internationally out-grossed (see pwned) in the year of its original release. Spider-Man, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers all had higher receipts that year, as well as better critical reception. George Lucas is currently developing a weapon the size of a small moon to destroy the rebel scum who went to see these films, rather than his own.
Ten years have passed since the invasion of Naboo, and the Galactic Republic is in crisis. In a bid to completely bore movie going audiences with a misplaced subplot about politics, former Jedi Master Count Dooku has organized a Separatist movement against the Republic, making it difficult for the Jedi to maintain the peace. The Republic contemplates creating an army to assist the Jedi, prompting Senator Padmé Amidala, former Queen of Naboo, to return to Coruscant to vote on the matter. Upon her arrival, her bodyguard stupidly comments that he knew nothing would happen. This pretty much asks for a bomb to explode. She narrowly escapes, and fires the bodyguard for being such a dumbass. Security just hasn't been the same since Captain Panaka left.
Supreme Chancellor Palpatine assigns Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi and his apprentice Anakin Skywalker to protect her. That night, Obi-Wan slips up and again invites another attempt on the Senator's life, when he says they have nothing to worry about, as R2-D2 is keeping a close eye on her. Apparently they are unaware that R2's vision is actually based on sound. However, Obi-Wan and Anakin foil the attempt and subdue the assassin, who is murdered by her mysterious employer who waits for the second before she is about to reveal vital information. Returning to the Jedi Temple, Obi-Wan is assigned to investigate the identity of the assassin's killer, while Anakin is assigned to escort and accompany Senator Amidala to her homeplanet of Naboo. Anakin, who has fallen in love with Padmé, relishes the opportunity to spend time and perv on her, although Padmé resists her feelings toward him. Still, not even Yoda knows how she managed to resist this gem.
- Anakin: I don't like sand. Its rough and coarse and it gets everywhere. Not like you. Your skin is soft and smooth...
Obi-Wan's investigation leads him to the remote planet of Kamino, a planet ruled by anorexic albino aliens. Channeling the Force to maximise his improvisational skills, he manages to get from them that an army of clone troopers is being secretly produced for the Republic. After being shot at by a man wearing the same armour as the assassin, Obi-Wan begins to suspect that a bounty hunter named Jango Fett (as played by George Lopez) could be the killer he's looking for. After playing a game of explosive tag, Obi-Wan tracks him down on the planet Geonosis. Anakin, meanwhile, has grown troubled with arousing dreams about Padme, as well as recurring nightmares about his mother in grave danger. Using the smooth skills that he demonstrated with the sand pickup line, Anakin convinces Padmé to accompany him to Tatooine to save his mother. After finding her miraculously alive in a Tusken Raider camp, she decides that she can no longer hold on to her life and dies in his arms. Anakin then goes Vietnam on those Tusken bastards, and slaughters the entire camp.
On Geonosis, Obi-Wan relays his information about the assassin via hologram to Anakin, who transmits it to the Jedi Council, although Obi-Wan is captured mid-transmission. While he holds Obi-Wan hostage, Dooku reveals that the Republic is in fact controlled by a Sith Lord named Darth Sidious who is obviously NOT Chancellor Palpatine. While Anakin and Padmé head to Geonosis to rescue Obi-Wan, Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to organize the clone army and send them into battle. Shortly after arriving on Geonosis, Anakin and Padmé are captured and sentenced to death. Obi-Wan sarcastically thanks them for an excellent rescue. Preparing for what could be their final moments, Padmé decides that if she survives this, she wants to get laid, and will even sink so low as to do it with Anakin. He jumps for joy, breaking his chains as well in a stroke of luck. The three are pitted against savage beasts, but manage to hold their own until Motherfucking Jedi Master Mace Windu arrives with a team of Jedi to assist them, engaging and decapitating Jango Fett in the brief battle. After the Senate has finally paid off that huge bill for the order of clones, Jedi Master Yoda arrives with their new army and collects the surviving Jedi.
Obi-Wan and Anakin corner Count Dooku in a hangar and engage him in a lightsaber duel. While they could have taken him together, Anakin fucks up and is knocked out by the easily blockable Force Lightning move. Obi-Wan is then left to fight on his own, meaning he may as well be fighting a Grue. Yoda then arrives and sorts Dooku out once and for all. Unfortunately, Dooku collapses a pillar over Anakin and Obi-wan. Anakin and Obi-Wan are unfortunately too lazy to move out of its way. Yoda, out of a misplaced sense of integrity, holds the pillar to save them while Dooku escapes once more. The Jedi are now uncertain of what will become of the Republic, now that the Clone Wars have begun, with many of them staring ominously at the Clone army for hours to emphasise how much they are worried. Meanwhile, Anakin, with a new cybernetic arm, secretly marries Padmé on Naboo. She enjoys the arm very much on her wedding night.


text:
May 6, 2016
GREENVILLE, N.C. (AP) -- Maurice Kemp scored 21 points and Robert Sampson pulled down a career-high 18 rebounds in East Carolina's 82-72 win over Appalachian State on Tuesday night.
Sampson, who entered the game averaging 6.7 points and seven rebounds, also added 17 points. Kemp, who scored nine of his points from the free-throw line, grabbed 11 rebounds for the Pirates (4-0).
Appalachian State (1-3) scored the game's first four points and led 6-2 after Nathan Healy hit a jumper. But East Carolina used a 14-4 run to go ahead 16-10 with 14:29 left in the first half.
Appalachian State cut the deficit to 23-22 later in the half but would not get any closer as East Carolina took a 38-33 advantage into halftime and never led by less than four in the second half.
Jay Canty had 25 points and Healy added 24 points and 10 rebounds for Appalachian State.
Copyright 2016 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Create a free account to check out faster, store multiple shipping addresses, view and track your orders in your account, and much more.
Please enter your password to continue.
The benefits of shaving cream (vs. foam from an aerosol can) are many: They're soft, easy to lather, and they have a cushioning effect that protects your skin from nicks and razor burn. This Lab Series cream ups the ante with a patented formula that conditions and improves skin tone over time. In other words, it's time to trade up from your drug-store variety foam.
This product seemed great initially, but mainly in relation to the "drug store" shaving creams that I had been using. It went on easily and provided for a smooth shave.
Shortly after purchasing it, I moved to a double-edge shaver which requires a different style of lathering, etc. This stuff doesn't work well when using a double-edge and will not reorder once I finish the tube.
This shaving cream used to be excellent. Several years ago, the folks at Lab Series thought they should "improve" the product and launched a "new and improved" version. It's NOT. The new version, pictured and sold here, is a complete waste of money and is no different that any everyday shaving cream you buy in a drug or discount store. It's very runny and drips off my face while shaving. Scent is unremarkable. Overall, it just really does nothing and is not worth the money.
The "old" version of this shaving cream was a nice, think cream and would slightly numb your face while shaving. For those of us with very sensitive skin, this was a great feature. The "improved" version does not contain the numbing ingredient and seems very watered down and runny. Without the numbing ingredient, this shaving cream really has no true features and benefits that differentiate it from other products. Hence, I feel it's not worth the money and would suggest looking elsewhere for a decent shaving cream.


text:
11,126pages on
this wiki
this wiki
Rodrigo Stavnes is a criminal residing in Liberty City in 2008 and is wanted by the Liberty City Police Department for racketeering. Stavnes can be killed by Niko Bellic, depending on the player's choice.
Attacking Rodrigo
As soon he and his Spanish Lords allies hear your siren, they will split up and run away. Kill his friends with a Micro Uzi or SMG and run after the Jamaican man in a suit. It's Rodrigo himself (strangely using a different ped model). When he's off the building, kill him. He'll drop some cash which you can pick up and the mission will be complete. Alternatively, you can just throw 2-3 Molotov Cocktails making them burn to death.
- He's a member of the Hillside Posse, judging by his original appearance.
- The fact that his friends are members of the Spanish Lords, it could be possible that he is a high ranking member, due to Little Jacob being allied with the gang.


text:
By Robert Reames, CSCS, CPT and JJ Virgin, CNS
Tips to Help You Lose Those Last 20 Pounds
1. Heat up your fat burning furnace with resistance training.
This helps build muscle mass, which boosts your metabolism. Each pound of muscle can boost your metabolism by as much as 50 more calories a day!
2. Get up and move!
Do moderate aerobic training (walking, dancing, elliptical trainer, etc.) three to six times a week to make you a better fat burner. Be sure to schedule "intentional exercise" into your day.
3. Stretch it out!
Always stretch after your workouts and after a hectic day to lower stress hormones. High stress hormones can break down precious muscle.
4. Drink up!
Drink eight or more glasses of water daily and drink even more when you are exercising (4 oz. before, 2 more oz. every 15 minutes during, and follow with 8 oz. after your workout) to stay well hydrated. Dehydration can lower your metabolism; you need water to burn fat.
5. Don't skip meals.
Eat balanced meals and snacks and be sure to include protein at each meal keeps metabolism raised, blood sugar balanced and help with fat burning and muscle mass maintenance and building. Focus on "High Response Cost, High Yield Foods."
6. Try green tea.
Research has shown that it can boost metabolism and potentially aid with fat burning. Plus, it's loaded with antioxidant compounds that are great for your health.
7. Replace what's missing.
Take a good multivitamin or mineral to ensure that you get all the nutrients you need.
8. Add a turbo charge.
If you are consistently doing all of the above (be honest) and you are still struggling, see your doctor for the lab tests described in the chapter 11 of The Ultimate Weight Solution.
Also, try the following supplements to help your body create energy and support fat loss:
- Carnitine - a vitamin-like nutrient that supports fat burning
- CoQ-10 - a coenzyme that helps cells create energy
- Chromium - a mineral that aids with sugar balance
- CLA - a fatty acid that research has shown helps burn abdominal fat
- Omega-3 fatty acids - may help with mood, brain function, reducing inflammation, managing stress, bone density and heart health
9. Get some Vitamin S - SLEEP!
Lack of sleep raises stress hormones, causes sugar cravings, and makes you insulin resistant over time (which means you store fat easily and then it is really really hard to lose), so make sure you get eight hours of uninterrupted sleep.
10. Don't get stressed out.
We often can't change our stress, but we can change our response to it. Modify your response to stress to keep the stress hormones cortisol and adrenaline balanced.


text:
Speaker: Ryan Sallans
Tue, 25 Feb 2014 7:00 PM - 8:30 PM
Feb. 25 | 7pm | Grafton-Stovall Theatre
Ryan Sallans, public speaker, diversity trainer, consultant, publisher, and author, presents Sexing Ed: From eating disordered to transgender, Feb. 25, at 7pm in Grafton-Stovall Theatre.
Ryan will speak to students about his experience with an eating disorder and journey to self-acceptance, also including the realization and acceptance of identifying as transgender.
Eating Disorders Awareness Month is sponsored by the University Health Center, Counseling and Student Development Center, Panhellenic, UPB, Sigma Sigma Sigma, and Operation Beautiful.
- Feb. 18, 7pm, ISAT 159, Body Matters: A panel on eating disorders, prevention, and treatment
- Feb. 19, 7:15pm, Memorial, Eating Disorders Awareness Speak Out with Kathleen MacDonald
- Feb. 23, 6pm, Grafton, Film and panel: Miss Representation
- Feb. 25, 7pm, Grafton, Sexing ed: From eating disordered to transgender with Ryan Sallans
Our first and last love is self-love
Contact Veronica Jones for more information.


text:
Springs police are searching for a bank robber who held-up an Academy Bank location around 8am Friday. The bank is located on Briargate near Union.
Investigators say the robber had a gun and got away with cash.
Police have a limited description of the suspect. Witnesses say he is Hispanic., around 5' 8" tall with a thin build. He was wearing a light jacket and sunglasses at the time of the robbery.
If you have any information that might help catch this crook, you're asked to contact Springs Police at 444-7000.
KKTV firmly believes in freedom of speech for all and we are happy to provide this forum for the community to share opinions and facts. We ask that commenters keep it clean, keep it truthful, stay on topic and be responsible. Comments left here do not necessarily represent the viewpoint of KKTV 11 News.
If you believe that any of the comments on our site are inappropriate or offensive, please tell us by clicking "Report Abuse" and answering the questions that follow. We will review any reported comments promptly.powered by Disqus
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Monday, February 11, 2013
Location: NK Bookstore in Stockholm.
Date: Tuesday, February 12.
Time: 17.00
11 comments:
- Marla Robinson said...
Elsie looks like she is having a wonderful time poising. How cute!
- February 11, 2013 at 6:22 AM
Please come for a signing in Bergen, Norway!
- February 11, 2013 at 8:15 AM
- laviolette said...
very, very elegant lady!
- February 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM
- Nelesc said...
I wish I could be in Stockholm to get a signed copy of the book! Low and behold, I have to stay in the Bronx, lol. I am so enjoying this blog. I model my own creations and have often wondered, "will I be able to do this as I get older? I ran into your site and now I say YES!!!. Beauty and style are ageless. Thanks for sharing!
- February 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM
- vicki archer said...
Elsie is lovely... her smile and pose delightful... xv
- February 12, 2013 at 4:00 AM
- vicki archer said...
Elsie is lovely... her smile and pose delightful... xv
- February 12, 2013 at 4:00 AM
- Stephanie Brown said...
I love all the styles you showcase, especially bolder and more daring ones, but Elsie is definitely more my speed. I imagine myself dressing more like her when I'm her age. She's just darling.
- February 12, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Have a great time in Stockholm, Ari. My chihuahua says this is the absolutely wrong time of year to be visiting Stockholm and he absolutely will not go, not even if the book is made of pepperoni pizza!
- February 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM
- diseño web cali said...
Greats, its beautiful !!
- February 14, 2013 at 9:38 AM
- beetlebum said...
elsie is so elegant, nothing she wore is too much on her.
- February 14, 2013 at 6:53 PM
- Paisley said...
This is what classic 'gorgeousness' is all about:)
- February 17, 2013 at 8:23 AM


text:
Skip to main content
The more young people are told - usually by adults who know from their own experience it's not true -- that sex outside of marriage, outside long-term, monogamous relationships, or with any more than one partner in a lifetime, will always do them terrible, irreparable harm and make them damaged goods forevermore, the more we get questions about oxytocin, one common staple in that messaging. So, around a year ago, I started excavating. It's taken me a while to get this out here: I confess, it's mostly because I was dreadfully bored by it all. I'm not a neurochemistry geek, but a sex geek. Because so much of it wasn't all that relevant to sex, and because this just isn't my area of geekdom, every time I've picked this up what I found most amazing about oxytocin was its ability to miraculously cure my bouts of insomnia by just reading or writing about it.
Anyone who regularly reads Scarleteen knows we don't feel there's one model of relationship, or any right or wrong number of sexual partners, that will or won't lead to satisfaction, happiness or a lack of hurt or harm for everyone, and that we don't feel it's sound for us or anyone else to suggest that there is. At this point in human history and social science we've all the evidence we need to know we've pretty much tried every possible kind of relationship and social set of "rules" and strategies there are, and none have generated any identical, satisfactory or unsatisfactory results for everyone who has tried them. We also don't feel that consensual sex of any kind or in any one context is right or wrong for everyone and don't think suppositions to the contrary are sound. We stand firmly behind the understanding of people as incredibly diverse, and know that our relationships, sexuality and what we each want from those things and find is right for us is also incredibly diverse. So, while we really shouldn't have to say it, for the record, nothing I'm about to say here should be interpreted as any kind of suggestion or evidence that any one way or model of having sex or relationships, or anything a given person wants, needs, finds ideal or non-ideal when it comes to either of those things is right or wrong according to me or according to science.
There are a lot of links packed in here. If you want to dig into this topic a bit more, click away. If you'd rather have the basics, I spared you as best I could. But all the links alone should make clear that anyone who is making pat claims about oxytocin is probably either a) lazily parroting what they heard someone else say without doing any qualitative reading themselves, and/or b) dismissing the complexity actual study and the diversity of human experience has shown us about oxytocin and all of human behavior in order to further a social or personal agenda, or in order to further their hope -- as sometimes we're all wont to do -- that some of the most complex and confusing parts of our lives could be magically made simple.
The oxytocin-and-sex bus seems to have really gotten its gas with Dr. Erik Keroack, a popular lecturer for the National Right to Life Committee and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. Ex-President Bush appointed him to head Title X, our national family planning program, for the Department of Health and Human Services. There are about a hundred reasons why that appointment made a lot of people feel stabby, but the biggest one is that Keroack was strongly against family planning. It was a lot like putting an anti-gun activist in charge of the NRA. Keroack was also particularly fond of talking about oxytocin and making claims about it (claims unsupported by science) to support his own agenda, such as that, "People who have misused their sexual faculty and become bonded to multiple persons will diminish the power of oxytocin to maintain a permanent bond with an individual."
Many claims about oxytocin regarding love, sex and bonding cite some science, but often very selectively and dubiously, so much so that some scientists whose studies have been used to make agenda-driven claims have strongly objected to the use of their studies to do so. As well, when people are talking about studies done on oxytocin and sex or pair-bonding, the vast majority of those studies have been done with and about prairie voles, not people.
A prototypical conservative claim about oxytocin, sounds a lot like this:
Oxytocin is a hormone that is released in a woman during childbirth, nursing a child, and during sexual activity. Commonly referred to as "glue," oxytocin creates a strong bond between the woman and the other involved. In the case of childbirth and nursing this bond is important because it creates a nurturing environment for the child. In a marriage relationship where sex is safe and beneficial, oxytocin helps keep the bond between a husband and wife strong. Outside of marriage however, the oxytocin bond can increase the emotional pain when the relationship has ended. Oxytocin is impartial. Whether during sexual activity between husband and wife or in a teenage hook-up, the hormone is still released and the bond is still created. Oxytocin promises an involuntary chemical commitment.
Every parent, educator, and school administrator can undertake the mission of teaching abstinence with heightened significance as the intensity of the oxytocin bond explains why teens suffer emotionally after breakups, and often even during a relationship. Sex was created to unite two people, bringing a bond unlike any other relationship. This powerful bond is what sustains husband and wife until "death do us part" contributing to trust and security. Outside of marriage the release of oxytocin can lead to distrust, hostility, and insecurity. Sexual relationships without commitment still have a lasting bond. Oxytocin even has the power to sustain attachment within abusive relationships.
That's from The Oxytocin Factor (Kerstin Uvnas-Moberg, 2003, Aspire, Scott Phelps, 2008, The Medical Institute of Sexual Health, 2006). The Medical Institute of Sexual Health is an abstinence-only organization. Its advisory board reads like a Who's Who of purity pushers, including W. David Hager, another former Bush appointee, to the FDA's advisory board on reproductive health, who suggested prayer as a cure for PMS and whose ex-wife stated in The Nation that he had repeatedly raped her. The AMA it's not. I have not found any study done on oxytocin that shows oxytocin alone creates emotional bonds (rather than potentially playing a part in them or creating a feeling in someone they they may be bonded, even if they are not), no studies done exclusively within marriage to show it is different for married or unmarried people, and none done to determine what role, if any, oxytocin may play in the pain of a breakup. I also have not found any oxytocin studies done within or about intimate partner violence to support conclusions that the reason people stay attached to abusive partners is chemical. If only it were that simple.
These kinds of sentiments about oxytocin are often the impetus for such popular abstinence-only routines as "Miss Tape." (Which I just demonstrated for my friend's four-year-old, who now promises to never tart it up.) Here's another example of some socially conservative claims about oxy:
Oxytocin also helps females bond with men. When a woman and man touch each other in a loving way, oxytocin is released in her brain. It makes her want more of that loving touch, and she begins to feel a bond with her partner. Sexual intercourse leads to the release of even more oxytocin, a desire to repeat the contact, and even stronger bonding. But, like dopamine, oxytocin is values-neutral. It's a chemical reaction, or, as the authors write: "[I]t is an involuntary process that cannot distinguish between a one-night stand and a lifelong soul mate. Oxytocin can cause a woman to bond to a man even during what was expected to be a short-term sexual relationship." So when that short-term relationship ends, the emotional fallout can be devastating, thanks to oxytocin.
"The authors" in that quote are Joe McIlhaney and Freda McKissic Bush, who are affiliated with the abstinence-only group the Medical Institute for Sexual Health.
Not only do we know from study on oxytocin that it is not at all exclusive to women, and that oxytocin cannot, by itself, create emotional bonds, I cannot find any studies about oxytocin done on sexual activity exclusive to intercourse. That same piece also states not only that oxytocin is a girl-thing, but that vasopressin is a guy-thing, when in fact, both chemicals can and do exist in the bodies of all genders.
Let's take a look at what oxytocin is. Let me preempt what you're about to read by saying that we not only still know very little about oxytocin, we still know very little about all neurochemicals and how they affect our feelings and actions. If someone says they know something absolute and definitive about oxytocin and what it does in our bodies, that's a big pseudoscience red flag. Also, some of the claims and quotes about oxytocin report it as being about only women and men or only women or only men. Most, if not all of the time, they're talking about people who are or are thought to be XX or XY, and when interplay between men and women is discussed, they're talking about heterosexual people. If and when I use the language they used or is found in studies I'm citing, that's why, not because I'm a fan or think it's necessarily accurate (particularly when people are talking about studies done with voles and not people at all).
Oxytocin is one of many neuropeptides found and produced in mammals. It seems we've known about it for around 100 years but have only recently started studying it in any depth. Scientists currently understand it as potentially playing a part in everything from labor contractions, deep discussions, breastfeeding, autism, sexual arousal, activity and orgasm, altruism, and all kinds of general social interactions (good, bad and otherwise) for those of all sexes and genders who can or do experience all or any of those things. Apparently, oxytocin levels may elevate in people even just by being around the color blue. How much or how little oxytocin is out and about during these or other events varies widely among mammals, even mammals of any one assigned sex or who are all having the same kind of experience in which oxytocin is or may be present. It's understood to have a plasma half-life (the time it takes for half of any given substance to become inactive) of only around 3-5 minutes in the human bloodstream.
According to the APA, "Oxytocin is produced mainly in the hypothalamus, where it is either released into the blood via the pituitary gland, or to other parts of the brain and spinal cord, where it binds to oxytocin receptors to influence behavior and physiology. The excitement over the hormone began in the 1990s when researchers discovered that breastfeeding women are calmer in the face of exercise and psychosocial stress than bottle-feeding mothers. But more recent research has shown other roles for the hormone, too. Oxytocin levels are high under stressful conditions, such as social isolation and unhappy relationships."
It's been highly linked to influencing trust and social attachment between mammals (not just sex partners: parents and children, friends, even a dude and his dog). As the APA makes clear, the idea that oxytocin levels surge only in pleasant or sexual situations isn't at all accurate. Those of you using hormonal methods of birth control should prepare yourselves to hear that you apparently can't emotionally bond as well as women not using those methods, since progesterone can inhibit oxytocin release. If that and claims about oxytocin being THE thing that bonds are true, then when women are in the phase of the fertility cycle where progesterone is highest -- about half of every cycle, during the time practitioners of natural family planning who are trying to prevent pregnancy would be having sex most -- they wouldn't be able to bond as well then, either.
That same APA piece also takes a chunk out of the idea that surges of oxytocin early in life, or with more than one other critter, make us less likely to bond. In fact, they suggest that without those early-life surges, we may have problems bonding later.
Let's revisit that "many" part about neuropeptides. Rather, let's let Sue Carter, a zoologist who pioneered some oxytocin research, be clear: "The nervous system is not just oxytocin. There are many other hormones that might be just as important as oxytocin that haven't been identified yet," Carter says. "A piece of social support is oxytocin. That doesn't mean that oxytocin alone equals social support." Oxytocin so isn't just about, or just produced or possibly elevated during sex, though. Not even close.
One common place oxytocin apparently plays a big part is in breastfeeding and child-parent bonding. Suggesting a person who has multiple -- or even just more than one -- sex partners will be less able to bond to people because of potentially having oxytocin surges with more than one person would suggest that breastfeeding mothers who have more than one child would become less and less able to bond to their children. Not only am I quite certain neither is true -- particularly based on just one neurochemical -- I can hardly imagine the social conservatives who are pushing oxytocin so hard as a way to scare people about sex jumping on THAT bandwagon.
One of my favorite oxytocin fables is that it is why when men and women have casual sex, women are apparently thereafter waiting, lovelorn, by the phone, feeling they just lost the great love of their life after one hookup, while men apparently go skipping off casually, having experienced no feelings at all and having developed no attachment whatsoever to the woman they just slept with. That might well be so if that's always what happened, if oxytocin was the only thing that drove or influenced any of those feelings or experiences, and if oxytocin was something that only occurred in women. But those things are not true. It's also often suggested that it's female orgasm that's the big oxytocin power surge. However, more women than men are inorgasmic, and with casual sex specifically, it's more common for women than men not to experience orgasm, especially with brand-new partners. That given, it becomes an even stranger supposition, because the roles should then be reversed, right?
While commonly called "the love hormone," that's also not always the most accurate nickname for this particular neuropeptide, because it doesn't always create those feelings. Sometimes, it's quite the opposite.
One study in Israel found that oxytocin may also increase feelings of envy and make it more likely for a person to gloat: not so lovey-dovey, that. Those researchers and others will tend to bristle at the suggestion of oxytocin as the "love hormone" or "hug hormone," instead suggesting that what it may do is simply intensify the whole range of human emotions, not only the pleasant ones and not only feelings of love or sexual attraction. In all the actual scientific information we have so far on oxytocin, it's clear it has just as much to do with fear and stress as it does with love.
Here's my running list of when and where oxytocin has been found or suggested to surge in study done in humans and/or other mammals:
Neuropsychologist Dr. Rick Hanson suggests that, "Probably, oxytocin can also be released just by imagining – the more vividly, the better – the activities just mentioned."
Though the central oxytocin studies often used for some of these claims were with voles, not humans, if we're going to talk about them and talk about oxytocin, we also have to talk about vasopressin, another very similar neuropeptide. And if we're going to talk about orgasm or sex and hormones, we can't really pull one ingredient out from the whole soup: our bodies can't and don't, after all. That'd be like suggesting that a three-layer-cake and flour, just one ingredient of that cake, are the same thing. On a chemical level alone, there are a host of chemicals that can be or are involved with sex and sexual response: androgens, estrogens, prolactin, cortisol, neurochemical almost always inextricably linked to oxytocin -- serotonin, phenylethylamine and others, for people of all genders: not just women, not just men, and not just in interactions between women and men.
Where does a lot of this stuff come from that suggests that oxytocin, in the context of love or sex, is SO different for men and for women? As far as I can tell, a lot of it comes from sex and gender essentialism, much of which flies in the face of science. Oxytocin has also been studied far more in females than males, most likely because the most important role it has seemed to have so far is with labor, delivery, lactation and maternal behaviour.
Testosterone is known to suppress oxytocin. People might be able to get away with some generalizations about men and women because of that...but only if testosterone was exclusive to men. 'Cept it's not. Not only do we all have it, it plays some part in all sexual response. Certainly, most XY people have more testosterone, or higher levels, than most XX people, most of the time. That can be as little as two times as much to twenty times as much. When people are sexually aroused, all of our testosterone levels are elevated, whatever our sex or gender. Additionally -- estrogen may increase -- not create, increase -- the effects of oxytocin. But men have estrogen, too, even though most women have more. And as we've already talked about, sex and sexuality is not merely chemical.
Looking at that list up there of situations in which oxytocin can purportedly rear it's oxytociny head, let's apply the same kind of logic some do with statements about sex and oxytocin to some of these other situations. Let's also use the same broad brush and total certainty in making them.
If we did, we might say things like:
I'm not saying ANY of these statements are true or are things I believe to be valid. I don't, not even remotely. They sound utterly offensive and silly to me, just like the claims about oxytocin at the top of the page do. But if we're supposed to accept that things like claims about number of sexual partners and bonding ability are true, we'd have to accept some or all of these other statements are or may be equally true.
In most, if not all, of our social interactions, oxytocin may be or has the potential to be present. How much or how little probably depends on which activities we're doing, what a given one is like for us at a time, on each of our very unique cocktails of biochemistry and on the big picture of our lives, histories and feelings about and conceptions of those lives and histories. For someone of the mindset that we need to watch who we have have oxytocin surges with and in what kind of interactions that occurs, so far science seems to indicate that to do that, we'd all need to stay away from most social interactions -- pleasant and unpleasant alike -- we have with everyone, like with parents, platonic friends, romantic and/or sexual partners, co-workers, religious leaders, fellow singers in our choirs, pets, massage therapists, religious communities and yoga teachers.
Where's the bad part of oxytocin? Going back to that APA piece up top, "When it is operating during times of low stress, oxytocin physiologically rewards those who maintain good social bonds with feelings of well-being. But when it comes on board during times of high social stress or pain, it may "lead people to seek out more and better social contacts," says Taylor." But it's also worth nothing that, as Rene Hurlemann, a psychiatrist who has done oxytocin studies states, "An Israeli study has shown that when people are engaged in a contest, if one player's emotions are manipulated by the offer of a bigger prize to the other player, the first player's feelings of jealousy and ill will are actually exacerbated by a dose of oxytocin.
"Oxytocin does not make you a better person," he says. "In some cases it may simply intensify whatever you're feeling."
Love and bonding -- whether we're talking about either in a sexual or nonsexual context -- is much more complex than a single chemical. I'm not just saying that because I think so: social science has backed that up since we've had social science, and medical science tends to be in cahoots with that notion, too. We can't compartmentalize love or sexual behavior or biochemistry in the way so often done around oxytocin.
Everything I've read on oxytocin from scientists has this funny thing where they tend to use the word "may" with claims, or where they talk about how their study makes suggestions which should lead to further study. The scientists doing the studies that are then cited by so many others are not making the kinds of definitive statements about oxytocin those folks are, and some are increasingly critical of the ways studies are both being conducted and used around neurochemistry and human behavior, particularly when evolutionary psychology is involved. If those scientists aren't making conclusive statements about their own work, no one else can really justify doing so. Scientists tend to understand the difference between hypothesis, theory and fact: those referencing science, or looking to support their own theses with it, could stand to be reminded of that.
A lot of the popular claims about oxytocin, like so many made about sex or love, are exclusively or primarily about heterosexuality and binary sex or gender, both of which we know -- thanks, science! -- aren't binary at all. Some studies may actually show us differences in oxytocin with XX and XY people (if they have even been determined to be so in those studies, which they probably have not) -- or rodents -- but what about with XXY, XYY or XO people? What about male-female relationships in which both parties are trans gender?
After spending far too much time buried in oxytocin research, I'm not going to argue that the notion or suggestion oxytocin potentially plays some part in how we do or don't bond or otherwise behave with or feel about with others is invalid. It's pretty clear to me that it is valid to state it often does or may plays a part.
However, if we're going to get on board with that, we can't be essentialist or selective about it. If we're going to give credence to one of the ways oxytocin has been shown it does or may work, we have to give equal weight to all the other ways it has been shown to or may work, and we have to do so even if and when evidence about one scenario with oxytocin may make claims anyone makes about another patently false or ludicrous.
We just don't know enough about oxytocin for many of the kinds of statements that have been made, especially so firmly, to be made. And some statements made have absolutely no basis at all: the idea that any given oxytocin surge more people means a difficulty or inability to bond with fewer people ever after, for example, is something I couldn't find even one scientific reference for or study on. Oxytocin is clearly an over-convenient rationale or scapegoat for plenty of people, and not just the abstinence-only crowd.
At the beginning of this piece, we linked to scientist Dr. Rebecca Turner voicing an objection to her studies being used inaccurately. In that piece, Turner said something else that was really important:
There are always some human values involved in statements of policy, and it is fairer to the public to acknowledge what those values are," she continued. "This is something we instill in our students: in a free society, we have to be open to debate the evidence, the meaning of the evidence and its quality. At least Dr. Keroack's co-author did acknowledge that they were developing conclusions that no scientists would ever put forth.
What generalizations and conclusions can we soundly draw based on data scientists have provided, and what conclusions they have themselves drawn? That oxytocin is one of many chemicals in the bodies of mammals, one of an incredibly large pool of influences and factors, chemical and non-chemical, which very likely have an impact on some of our behavior, including but not limited to our sexual and other social interactions and responses. That how much or how little oxytocin impacts those things, how it impacts them, for whom and in what situations, clearly varies widely, even though we can say we know some situations in which it is very likely to be present and have some sort of effect. And that if we want ways to make more definitive statements than these about oxytocin, until we have a lot more study done with humans, we're going to need to stick to talking about rodents instead of people.
Thanks for doing the research and the collation - it's great for this to be presented so accessibly and frankly, not least because it's so easy to use long scientific words and bad pseudoscience to push any agenda. Yay :)
- Ludi (Cambridge, UK)
Heather, here's a sad but interesting video
The reporter mentions vegetables and cattle. Appearantly oxytocin is used to make them grow faster and/or bigger? Unfortunately it is also being injected into children. Now, the reporter says oxytocin is included in the mix of what is injected in these girls to make them mature faster so they can be pimped out. However, I wonder if what it's really used for is to make these girls feel "bonded" to their slave masters?
I don't know if my 2¢ might be taken as any more reliable than Heather's - I have precisely the same agenda and have precisely the same point of view, though I do actually frickin' LOVE the sciencey stuff. I'm amazed, Heather, that you did such an outstandingly high quality literature review if you hate doing it! It was a joy to read, but next time spare yourself the suffering - ask me and I'll take on the task with pleasure!
Anyway, not that long ago I wrote a much shorter blog post about the interrelationships between OT, dopamine, and prolactin. The short version is: no, it's really much, MUCH more complicated than that. Google "phenotypic plasticity." That's a good place to start in trying to understand how OT impacts human behavioral neuroendocrinology.
As a big ol' sex nerd, I can say that Heather is completely and totally 100% right. OT does stuff, important and interesting stuff with attachment and sex. And we don't really have a clear idea what that stuff is. Yet.
I might add that it SERIOUSLY pisses me off when people of any political persuasion misuse science. But what we've got here in Heather's post is some SUPERBLY precise critical thinking and logical application of the evidence.
Emily Nagoski
For those of you who want the science without the journal articles, please see my book, The Chemistry of Connection. It's based on both peer-reviewed studies and interviews with top scientists including Sue Carter and Paul Zak, and it lays out in simple, readable language not only how oxytocin can influences love, bonding and sex, but also explains how the oxytocin response -- and the way we love -- develops after we're born, in response to the way we're mothered and other early experiences.
I've always heard that women produce/release more oxytocin than men during sex. I don't know of any scientific experement that has measured this while people were actually having sex, so there a chance it could be false. But, if this is true, then it makes sens that women are more susceptible feelings of attachment and bonding.
The thing is, unless I somehow missed them, we don't have any studies on people to support a claim like that.
We really can't even ruminate about this without that study: it could be true, it could be false, but it's not something we should give any credence to or can even soundly talk about until we have those studies. I'd certainly be interested to see them, though I also don't expect to see them soon, since studying that would involve people needing to have sex together in labs where those levels could be monitored. That's not exactly the sort of science our culture is currently very supportive of, and it'd also be tough to get funded, since it'd be challenging to propose a practical use for that information if we could glean it. Know what I mean?
Also, even if we did those studies and FOUND that, that would not necessarily mean women are more susceptible to feelings of sexual attachment and bonding. Again, attachment and bonding is WAY bigger than one chemical, and for the portions that do or may involve neurochemicals, it's very clear per science so far that it's not just about this one.
Did you get a chance to look through some of the many studies linked here?
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
Hello again. I'm getting my information from a book I read called, "The Female Brain" By: Dr. Louann Brizendine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Brain_(book)
In her book she eplains how women have more levels of oxytocin. Maybe it was MRIs or brainm scans, but I can't emember exactly how she conducted her research. So it stands to reason that if oxytocin is related to bonding, and if women have more of it than men, then women are more effected by oxytcin than men. If women are more effected by oxytocin than men, then women are susceptible bonding than men. I not saying that men can't bond or that all women instantly bond after sex. I'm only asserting that there is a clear gender difference in how the chemical is manifested in the brain and that that can have an impact on behavior in the same way that lack of seratonin in the brain can cause depression and that can cause people to behave differently.
Ben: I haven't looked at that book, though have heard some of the many arguments about its soundness. I also confess I don't tend to look at books like that unless they're very clear on how they're defining terms like female and also sticking to studies that share those definitions when using the results of those studies to prove their points. For instance does she mean people with an XX karyotype? Have all the studies she's drawing upon asserted that to be true about their subjects? That rarely, if ever, is the case. What about all of the varying hormone levels of people defined as female? Were they all the same or very similar? Because even just in XX or XY people, our biochemical makeups can differ considerably.
If you have that book around and could link me up with some of the studies she's calling upon in it, that'd be awesome, and I'd love to look at them.
As you can see from many of the studies I found, oxytocin is understood to be something EVERYONE has, and that it does not seem by sex or gender alone, anyone has more of, though sex, gender or certain chemical makeups may mean that oxytocin is released in greater or lesser amounts. I also haven't seen any studied that show women are de facto more EFFECTED by oxytocin than men: if you go through some of the many studies I liked in this piece, you'll also see that some showed men may even be more effected than women (though again, we have to accept that how they define who men are may be arbitrary).
I am NOT convinced there are NOT gender or sex differences with oxytocin and its levels or its impact. I simply feel that the studies done so far with oxytocin have yet to show us that and if there are differences, show us what they are.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
I don't have the book anymore. It was at the public library in the new non-fiction section. I'd be quite foolish to deny that there are human variations. So yeah, I agree the XXY's, XYY's, the intersexed and plenty more could be quite different. Certainly the Caster Semnaya story challenged the strict gender binary. Yet, at the same time, I think if you're looking at women on average rather than individuals, i.e., those that produce eggs as gametes, and men on average, i.e., those that produce sperm as gametes, I think you would expect to find a close correlation in the presence of certain kinds of hormones based on the difference in sex . I also agree that oxytocin is something that everyone has, but I think it is the testosterone in men that sort of blunts the effect of oxytocin in the male, ergo women having more of it. You're also right that there don't seem to be any studies showing that women are "effected" more by oxytocin more than men, but that sure does make this puzzling:
I don't know about you, but I'm never all that puzzled by people doing things they know or suspect to be bunk for financial incentives.
The dailymail is a terrible source for anything. Can we get a link to those studies themselves, please? The dailymail says something is absolute in the piece, but I don't see the scientists there quoted saying that, and given that they're talking about Rene Hurlemann, someone included in this piece and linked to, his being that way given how we talked in a more reputable source sure seems odd. But those sprays did come up a little in the research I did on the studies. I didn't bring them up because I couldn't find listings of decent studies about them for this use (rather than with autism or lactation), and because they're a whole different box of worms given that a spray that delivers a chemical or hormone shouldn't be assumed to act the same way a chemical produced in the body itself does. This is an issue I've brought up now and then over the years, for example, with suppositions that BCPs and other hormonal medications can be assumed to act identically and have the same impact as hormones produced by our bodies, something we know often isn't true. What happened with HRT, and that assumptions with it, is a great example of the (sometimes very dangerous) flaw in thinking that way.
But I totally hear you on some of this. Caster Semnaya certainly brought an awareness to many people about intersex they didn't have before, but those of us working is sexuality have had that awareness for a long time now.
Again, people of all genders have testosterone (though people with AIS, specifically, because they can't respond to androgens, are worth mentioning here: have it or not, how your body responds to it matters), and again, I've acknowledged in this piece that those of whatever gender will likely experiences variances with neurochemicals like oxytocin and vasosuppressin because of those differences. And yes, I would expect that if and when we do have real study on oxytocin with two sets of people classed as producing sperm and those producing eggs, I would not be at all surprised to see some general differences. But what I have read does not suggest women HAVE more oxy and men have less, and once more with feeling, I don't think we can talk about how people are effected by this one neurochemical in a vaccuum per bonding (or anything else) or talk with any authority about big sex or gender differences with it yet, because in around a year of looking, I could not find studies to support those kinds of suppositions.
I don't want to cut you off, but I also don't have any personal interest in talking about what oxytocin COULD do or how it MIGHT work in a given person's body. Even writing this piece put me to sleep about a gazillion times. As I think I made clear, my concern was with so many authoritative claims of what it DOES do which, so far as I can find, are unsunstantiated.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
Okay. Just thought this was interesting. Just two questions. Did you talk to\ask any doctors about oxytocin? If you're doctor told you that it was the chemical most important for bodning and attachment would you believe him? Thanks for your time.
I'm sure it is interesting to some folks, I'm just not one of them. :)
I've brought it up with a few in conversation and the unilateral response was either, "Oxy-what?" or the bemused shaking of heads.
If a doctor told me that one chemical was most important for bonding and attachment, the first question I'd ask him or her is where they were getting that information and I'd ask for resources. Same as I would if a doctor told me I had a given illness or condition. I grew up in and around healthcare, and have worked in sexuality for going on 13 years now, and was in early child education for years before that. In my experience and my own education, I know bonding and attachment to be very diverse and clearly influenced by a lot of things, so a supposition like that would so surprise me, based both on what I already know and fly so much in the face of what else I have observed and studied around these issues, that for that reasons, and because I'm also an educated patient, I'd want to see where they were getting this from and have them fill me in on their rationale for that conclusion.
I also have worked in this field long enough to know that many medical schools don't provide education in human sexuality at all, and those who do often offer a very short, substandard course. I've taken part in providing some of that education to doctors and clinicians myself. So, a doctor saying something about sexuality doesn't carry a lot of weight with me just because they're a doctor, especially if their doctorate and practice isn't even in the area they're talking about.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
Funny how people latch onto research that supports their viewpoints and tear down research that doesn't.
For example: Do you think the research is valid that same sex couples are equally good parents as straight couples? The research is far less established than the research on oxytocin and the number of variables in people's lives and upbringing are far greater than the hormones in one's body but you would hardly find a feminist who thinks the results could be questionable and should be excluded from public discussion.
Way to switch the topic without ever answering the question! :D
When someone has such an obvious agenda as the writer of this blog, the facts don't matter because they can be selectively edited and framed to support any position and as long as only one side is presented an argument has no comparison for merit. As a blogger there are no "two sides to every story" that are ever presented. There's always only "My Side" because "It's my blog".
P.S. The subject of my previous post was sarcasm.
ANYONE here is welcome to comment and provide links to studies I did not. I assure you, if people post links to more studies than I linked to, those links will go public here.
And I'd also very much like to see them because a big part of my job as a sexuality educator is to be sure my own facts are solid and that what I say is accurate. If it isn't, I very much want to know.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
Okay, here's something very simple. Your discussion of estrogen v.s. testosterone and the effect that they have on oxytocin is completely lacking rigor. You brush aside attenuating effects of testosterone by pretty much saying "we all have testosterone" but a 10x difference on average is a huge amount. It's what made us physically men and women. Observe the effects on F2M transsexuals' bodies when they are given male amounts of testosterone. Why would you not think testosterone is having an equally changing effect on their brains? Again the agenda for many people is that men and women are the same but we are not. Aren't many people discussing doing more medical testing on women because men and women's bodies respond differently to the same medications?
Don't the ramifications of the "bonding hormone" oxytocin's effect on women compared to men form one basis for the arguments on promiscuity and the virgin/whore dichotomy and abstinence which seemed to lead you to start your investigation? Is it worse for women to be promiscuous than men? You can't answer that question without comparing women and men and it's not a good start when you brush aside 10x difference in hormones.
I'm not inclined to use words in discussions -- especially about science -- that are arbitrary. "Promiscuous" is not a word you'll find me using for a handful of reasons, the largest of which is that what it means is subjective. I also would never ask a question like "Is it worse for women to be promiscuous than men?" Why would I ask that question, both because a) I know the world is made up of more than women than men, and b) because any time I am asking if something is better or worse, I need to know what we MEAN by that. Better or worse in what regard? These are rhetorical questions, mind you: I'm not interested in that kind of conversation. You're welcome to have it with other commentors here if you like, but I've no interest.
Have you had a hormone analysis done for yourself? I ask that because unless we all have -- and so many people are not -- I think we have to be very cautious of generalizations we make about who has what hormone levels based on how we identify our gender or what a doctor made of our gonads when we were born in determining our sex. I am not being dismissive of the effects of testosterone. I absolutely agree that hormones and other neurochemicals impact our brains, our feelings and how we relate to one another. I'm simply saying that not only can we not just talk about one or two neurochemicals in a vacuum, we can't make easy, pat or general assumptions about the impact of one chemical -- one that has barely been studied -- on people of a given sex or gender.
YES, many people are making the suggestion that it's important medical testing for medications be done for all populations using them, and I'd agree. I don't know what you, yourself mean, by "men and women," and don't close gender or sex with that binary, but if you mean two groups of different gender or sex, I neither think we are entirely the same or entirely different. I believe and see in the study from a host of fields we have so far, as well as from people's personal experiences in self-reporting, that there are both differences and similarities.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
I think I was pretty transparent about my agenda here, but happy to reiterate. Myself and readers we hear from have seen and read a lot of claims being made about oxytocin that appeared to be very dubious, particularly once you look at the actual studies those claims were made based on. So, my agenda in sorting through this was to look at as much of the studies on oxy as I could and see what claims seemed to be sound and which did not.
I don't know that any of the research I've listed here supports my viewpoints or doesn't, sparing that it all seems to make clear that sex, love and socialization are more than chemical or about just one chemical, which is certainly a view that I have.
But if you think there are oxytocin studies I overlooked that may have changed my conclusions here, by all means, please share them. My aim here was trying to find what it all meant, so if an important piece is missing in that, that's something I want to see. I'd hate to be drawing conclusions publicly that were not sound. I also by no means suggested the studies I've linked to and others should be excluded from public discussion: quite the contrary! Studies like these to are what have usually been used for the conservative oxytocin claims, and the studies have usually gone undiscussed or even uncited over IN public discussion of oxytocin claims.
Per your question about studies on queer parents' parenting vs. straight parents parenting, no, so far I'm not super-stoked about that research in part because it seems like a tough question to answer, since we have to define what "good" parenting is, which is tough given the divergence in ideas about that. We also have to try and somehow suss out what outcomes for children and young people are nature and which nurture. As a teacher for around 20 years now, I've seen kids who have their act together come out of horrible homes and kids with big problems coming out of homes where parents have done everything that probably most people could agree was good parenting.
I'm also not so sure we have a lot of research on exclusively straight parenting (whatever either of these terms even means, because again, often these terms are arbitrary or not clearly defined) to even draw on -- seems to me these studies with parenting and orientation where the orientation of parents have been made clear is only happening with queer parents in the first place.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
Isn't the burden-of-proof really on the assertion that queer parents AREN'T as good at being parents as straight ones? Given that I see no reason to assume that person A and person B will be "good" parents (or "bad"), I think the default assumption would be that it's a crapshoot, irrespective of sex/gender/sexuality/identity/etc., and therefore any claim to the contrary needs to be proved, not DISproved. The lack of studies on queer parenting vs. straight parenting doesn't bother me in terms of asserting that there's no difference for the same reason that the lack of studies examining the assertions that a raven is unlike a writing desk (another assertion I think is probably true) or that there's no giant green immortal space-cat hiding on the other side of the moon don't bother me: I've seen no evidence that causes me to question my premise-of-absence. It's an application of Occam's Razor: given a lack of evidence regarding differential parenting quality (which is quite subjective itself, as Heather pointed out), the assumption is that which requires the least complexity i.e. that all human identity-groups contain, generally, the same distribution of good/bad parents (it's simplest because, given that humans contains a given distribution of "good" and "bad" parents, no explanation is required for why a subset of humans contains the same distribution, or the same distribution as any other given subset of humans). For the same reason, the lack of studies on queer versus straight parents DOES make me suspicious of any claim that straight parents are better, or that queer parents are better.
Also, I didn't read through any of the (reports on the) studies yet, but did you find anything to suggest that oxytocin CAUSES or STRENGTHENS bonding? From what you're saying, it sounds like it's correlated with a bonding response, but I see no reason to assume that it causes/heightens the bonding response as opposed to the release of oxytocin being itself precipitated by feelings of emotional/social bonding i.e. it's the RESULT of bonding, not the CAUSE. Is this yet another case of the mass-media mistaking correlation for causation without evidence? Or were there differential studies of the bonding effect where oxytocin production/absorption was suppressed in one group undertaking the same activities as a control group?
As for Heather's and/or Scarleteen's general agenda or bias(es), they are pretty clearly stated on the "About Scarleteen" page.
Dubious? What was the original reason for thinking the studies were dubious? I think that's a more interesting topic of investigation.
If you went into this thinking studies were dubious it's not surprising that you found what you were looking for.
This is why I never trust anyone judgment when that have such an obvious agenda:
Well, I already knew the oxytocin studies usually talked about per people were done with voles, for one. I also noticed they kept being reported to us by users from sources of information -- abstinence-only education -- known to have much documented misinformation. I had not heard these kinds of claims ever made by any of my colleagues working in human sexuality and I have a pretty wide net and am connected with a good many people who have done more work in sexuality than most people and for longer than most.
When the same person saying oxytocin can create only one bond is also saying condoms don't provide any protection against HIV, or that prayer is *the* fix for PMS, I think it's sound to be wary and have questions.
Editor & Founder, Scarleteen: Sex Ed for the Real World
Author, S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and Col
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.


text:
- Online Exclusive
- Drapey textured knit
- Silicone gripped topline for secure fit
- Invisible side zipper with hook and eye closure
- A-line skirt shape
- P= 26", R= 28" from shoulder to bottom hem
- Imported
Free basic shipping to United States addresses (including territories and APO/FPO addresses) valid for a limited time only on orders placed at THELIMITED.com with a $125 minimum pre-tax purchase total after any promotion, coupon, discount or offer has been applied. Orders of $124.99 or less will be shipped at a flat rate of $8.95. Free shipping is not available and additional fees apply for preferred, second-day and next-day shipping methods. Taxes, shipping fees, purchases of gift cards and charges for gift boxes/wrap are excluded from the minimum dollar amount to receive the free basic shipping discount. Offer not valid at The Limited stores, The Limited Outlets or on international orders. No adjustments to prior purchases will be made and offer not valid for cash.
© 2016, Limited Stores, LLC


text:
Friday, January 24, 2014
14 comments
Today's SparkCoach challenge is to write myself a letter as my own best friend. While mulling over the challenge, I tuned into the Fatloser course lesson #19
( www.fatloser.com ) and decided to write this blog instead. I've be... Read more
Sunday, January 12, 2014
18 comments
Thank you, U.S. Postal Service, for delivering my new kitchen tool earlier than expected! I went right out and got a zucchini to make for dinner. The Bitoni Spiralizer (s... Read more
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
14 comments
Today's SparkCoach challenge is to turn off the TV for 24 hours. Not happening. Not today. I have enough days in the week when the TV remains off, but Tuesday is NCIS, and DH and I love to kick back and watch Gibbs, Tony, McGee, Abby, Ducky, ... Read more
Monday, September 30, 2013
8 comments
I'll keep voting daily till the site says the round is closed. Vote here:
https://www.smallbusinessbiggame.com/OH/SparkPeople-Inc/387418 ... Read more
Friday, September 27, 2013
12 comments
The other night, DH and I stayed at a hotel near a restaurant hosting a wine dinner so we wouldn't have to drive. The next morning, we dropped off our keys at the front desk and said we had the bill slipped under the door. The youngish desk cl... Read more
Sunday, September 22, 2013
8 comments
I'm coming in late to the game, but I voted for SparkPeople:
We can vote each day.
Edit: Well, crud, voting is over.... Read more
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
11 comments
1. I tracked focus goals all of June, July, and August.
2. A major project at work is completed...yay!
3. I continue to maintain within +/- 3% of my goal weight...even through travel and vacation.... Read more
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
12 comments
So ends my summer of tracking. In August, I added a goal to my tracking calendar to move at least 25 minutes each day. Here's the tally of all four calendar goals (Calories within limits, less Alcohol, six hours of Sleep, Fitness 25 minutes):
... Read more
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
20 comments
Okay,I've put this off long enough. Time for those July stats for the three primary goals: calories within range, less alcohol, six hours of sleep.
Calories: 48% (4% improvement over June)
Alcohol: 45% (11% down from June)
Sleep: ... Read more
Friday, August 09, 2013
31 comments
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
21 comments
[SECOND EDIT: SP replied quickly to my report, saying one of the coaches had already deactivated this person's account. Apparently I wasn't the only one to get her e-mail. Glad she's gone (assuming JLOVE55/Jennifer is really a "she").
[E... Read more
Tuesday, July 02, 2013
12 comments
In the Washington Post Express paper, p. 13. This is a fairly large .pdf file, so it may take awhile to load:
www.expressnightout.com/printedition/PDF/EXPRESS_07022013.pdf ... Read more
Monday, July 01, 2013
20 comments
On May 28, I started focusing on 3 main goals: C (calories within limits), A (alcohol at a lower level--trying to reduce), B (bedtime early enough to get at least 6 hours of sleep). To visualize, I made a calendar and rewarded myself with a go... Read more
Saturday, June 29, 2013
7 comments
This morning I read a delightful Spark mail from BABARR67, whose youthful gym experiences were less than wonderful, and her words triggered not-so-great memories of my own. Here's my response to her:
"I feel your pain about the gym...perha... Read more
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
18 comments


text:
January 22, 2012
USCFootball.com Recruiting
Cyler Miles committed to Washington last June, but with the departure of offensive coordinator Doug Nussmeier to Alabama, the U.S. Army All-American signal caller has started to explore his college options. ...More... To continue reading this article you must be a member. Sign Up Now!
Already a member? Click here to sign in


text:
lllaass Dec 4, 2013 8:52 AM
in response to mcmahon09
Place the iOS device in Recovery Mode and then connect to your computer and restore via iTunes. The iPod will be erased.
iOS: Wrong passcode results in red disabled screen
If recovery mode does not work try DFU mode.
How to put iPod touch / iPhone into DFU mode « Karthik's scribblings
For how to restore:
iTunes: Restoring iOS software
To restore from backup see:
If you restore from iCloud backup the apps will be automatically downloaded. If you restore from iTunes backup the apps and music have to be in the iTunes library since synced media like apps and music are not included in the backup of the iOS device that iTunes makes.
You can redownload most iTunes purchases by:
Downloading past purchases from the App Store, iBookstore, and iTunes Store