text:
Recently, I collected some data from Sourceforge, hoping to find evidence for the importance of copyleft. But I found something surprising: although there's plenty of evidence that many developers believe in the power of copyleft, the one measure I could derive of how much copyleft actually works showed that copyleft made no difference whatsoever! If true, this means a lot of free software's social theory is wrong and many things will have to be re-thought.
One of the fundamental ideas in free software circles is that copyleft—the requirement that improvements to free software remain free to the community—is essential (or at least very important) for ensuring that the public good of free software production isn't co-opted and privatized ("hijacking" I like to call it, in response to those who dub copyright infringement "piracy").
However, while this sounds good in theory, it's a challenge to prove it quantitatively.
One of the fundamental ideas in free software circles is that copyleft is essential
Fortunately, there is Sourceforge. All Sourceforge projects are tagged with metadata for things like licensing, maturity level, category of application, category of target users, and so on. Sourceforge also collects some objective statistics, via traffic analysis of the projects' web services. By doing careful searches using the Trove Software Map and filters, it's possible to tease out some useful statistics.
Since this is a magazine column and not a scientific paper, I'll start with a results summary and conclusions first. At the end, I'll summarize my methods for those who are interested.
Copyleft is certainly popular
The easiest thing to test is "How popular are copyleft licenses?" After all, if many developers use them, that is some suggestion that they are a good thing. It means, basically, that many developers (or at least the people who start free software projects) like copyleft licenses.
Approximately 80% of all the projects on Sourceforge are under "Free/Copyleft" licenses. You can cut this down in many different ways according to maturity and expected audience. Perhaps surprisingly, there isn't a lot of variation: the lowest copyleft-rates were for "projects aimed at developers" (about 75.9% are copylefted) and "mature projects" (74.3%) while the highest were "projects aimed at desktop end-users" (85.5%) and "maturity level '4-Beta'" (81.1%). "Projects with downloadable files" were about 81.0% copylefted. So "about 80%" is a very good description of the whole picture.
Of the total, almost two-thirds (64.7%) were licensed under the one most popular copyleft license, the GNU General Public License, and another 11.1% were under its companion the GNU Lesser General Public License (often used for libraries, because it allows for linking with proprietary programs). All told, about 92% of the licenses were "GPL Compatible", which means that, while they weren't necessarily GPL themselves, it would be legal to include them into a GPL project. That number includes quite a few non-copyleft licenses (such as the most popular non-copyleft licenses: BSD (7.1%), Apache (3.7%), and MIT/X11 (2.4%)).
So it's fair to say that many, many developers trust to copyleft when they start a project.
But what does it actually buy you?
If you ask most developers, they'll say they want a copyleft, because they want to avoid their work being co-opted or exploited (or even "hijacked"). That implies an assumption that a copyleft license will encourage more people to feel more comfortable about contributing their work to the project.
I started out with a basic hypothesis that: "Copyleft encourages contributions (because it eliminates fear of co-option of ones work)"
It has been suggested, for example, that the greater size and activity of the GNU/Linux community, versus the much smaller BSD Unix community, is explained by this.
I wanted a way to test this.
So, I started out with a basic hypothesis that: "Copyleft encourages contributions (because it eliminates fear of co-option of ones work)".
That led me to a working hypothesis that: "Copyleft projects will be more active than non-copyleft projects", and finally to the much more specific hypothesis "Copyleft projects on Sourceforge will have higher median activity scores than Non-Copyleft projects".
And that hypothesis is testable with the data I have available. Sourceforge tracks traffic data for projects, and assigns them an "activity" score based on it. This score is normalized to a "percentile", based on the average activity level of all Sourceforge projects. I haven't made an extensive study of the formula that goes into this activity level calculation, but I have included it in the references (the formula is published). It doesn't appear very surprising: things such as home page visits, CVS commits, and so on are collected.
Using the tools on the site, I was able to calculate the median and quartile "activity levels" for my four license categories: "Free/Non-Copyleft", "Free/Copyleft", "Public Domain", and "Other". The results took me a little by surprise:
The same data is tabulated below:
|Lower Quartile
|Upper Quartile
|Public Domain
For all intents and purposes, the "Copyleft" and "Non-Copyleft" projects are the same! Not only are the medians the same, but the quartiles (which measure the spread of the activity curve) are also the same.
For all intents and purposes, the "Copyleft" and "Non-Copyleft" projects are the same!
There's a greater difference between either and the "Public Domain" and "Other" categories. I'm not really able to account for that either. One possibility for the "Other" category is that many of the projects so labeled consist of projects with multiple licenses (some of these are games, with Creative Commons licenses applying to the "content" while another free license, often the GPL, applies to the "engine"). This might suggest that more thought went into their categorization, which would select for more "serious" projects. Or it might mean that multimedia projects are easier to contribute to.
So far, I haven't found anything wrong with my technique, so I am inclined to accept that these values are genuine. So what does that mean?
Copyleft has no practical advantage?
Well, there are basically three possibilities:
1. Copyleft doesn't work
If the data truly supports the idea that non-copyleft projects have just as much activity as copyleft projects do, then it suggests that copyleft isn't really giving us any material benefit. Despite the myth, people don't care about co-option or exploitation of their contributions, and will contribute anyway. That being the case, it suggests that we should re-think whether copyleft is a good idea (after all, it does carry some burdens).
It would also mean that we have to find an alternate explanation for the relative success of copylefted projects like GNU/Linux versus their non-copylefted counterparts, like BSD Unix.
Perhaps the Free Software Movement, with its insistence on copylefting software is basically just a cult religion, and people are drawn to it by charisma and faith, regardless of the actual evidence?
Maybe it's all just the effect of marketing? Maybe GNU/Linux is simply more popular because people talk about it more? Perhaps the Free Software Movement, with its insistence on copylefting software is basically just a cult religion, and people are drawn to it by charisma and faith, regardless of the actual evidence?
2. Copyleft does work, but somehow the effect doesn't show up in Sourceforge activity
The second possibility is that the activity figures are indeed correct, but (somehow) this doesn't reflect the actual impact of copyleft. Perhaps copyleft only kicks in for extremely popular products, with very high market value and lots of developers? Or perhaps copyleft affects contributory behaviors that Sourceforge's activity index doesn't measure? The question here is over the chain of hypotheses that I listed at the beginning of this article: does each really imply the next, or is there some disconnect along the way?
Perhaps copyleft only kicks in for extremely popular products, with very high market value and lots of developers?
Most projects hosted on Sourceforge are small with only one or two developers. Though this is certainly my impression from experience, it is much harder to prove, since Sourceforge's search engine doesn't let you filter based on number of developers.
However, they do include the data on the main project pages, and it's possible to do a Google search of the site. Google's index of the site is very incomplete, however, only showing about 200 projects out of over 120,000 (i.e. less than 0.2%). That might be enough data if the sample were random, though it's not clear that it is (if, for example, Google cataloged popular pages, then it would probably be skewed towards larger projects). However, it should give some rough idea of the distribution, as shown in the histogram below.
Now, this does show that small projects dominate, but not to the extreme that you'd expect everything else to be lost in the noise. Single developer projects make up only about 30% according to this chart. Still, it might be enough to muddy the impact of copyleft on participation, if only the largest projects were appreciably affected.
3. Something is wrong with the experimental technique
Lastly, of course, there is always the lurking gremlin of bad experimental design. I could've done something really dumb, so that the numbers I measured don't actually mean what I think they mean.
Lastly, of course, there is always the lurking gremlin of bad experimental design
I do believe that the formula for calculating the activity score is normalized against the entire body of Sourceforge projects, and is therefore effectively constant for the purposes of this study. It would be prohibitively computationally expensive for Sourceforge to do it any other way.
The activity scoring system is somewhat documented. See:
for more information on how the activity indexes are calculated. These articles lead me to believe that the numbers are absolute enough to be compared between different selection sets, as I have done here.
What do you think?
I'm putting this out here for you to think about: either it means something rather unexpected about copyleft (or should we have expected it?), or it means something weird and difficult to explain is going on. Please leave a comment if you want to suggest a new hypothesis, or offer an explanation for the results, or suggest some way in which my methods are flawed. I'm genuinely interested in refining the results. This was a quick ad hoc study, and I don't pretend that I've dotted every 'i' and crossed every 't', there's certainly a possibility of error on my part.
Observational Methods
As promised, here's how I did the research...
Sorting out the licenses
Sourceforge's Trove system breaks licenses down by type into "OSI Approved License", "Public Domain", and "Other/Proprietary". The OSI category, unfortunately, contains both copyleft and non-copyleft licenses. Therefore, the only way to make the distinction was to look up each of the listed licenses (all 72 of the OSI approved licenses!), and decide which category it belonged to. Then, each appropriate license can be "excluded" or "required", using the Trove system. I got these results by excluding all the licenses that didn't match my criteria (the numbers for "Copyleft", for example, are the results when all of the "Non-Copyleft" licenses, the "Public Domain", and the "Other/Proprietary" licenses have been excluded.
Technically, of course, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between projects and licenses. Sourceforge allows having multiple licenses on a single project. However, only a very small fraction of projects are affected. The biggest exception to this is the figures for "Other/Proprietary": many of those projects are actually dual-licensed projects, where one license (such as the GPL) applies to "code" while a different sort of license (such as Creative Commons By-SA) applies to the "content".
Activity Levels
The main result here is the difference (or lack of difference) in median activity levels between copyleft and non-copyleft licenses. The search engine doesn't directly deliver this information. However, using the advanced search, it is possible to restrict searches to ranges of activity levels, using a search term like this:
percentile:[000.0 TO 050.0] to limit to activities between 0% and 50%. The resulting search will tell how many projects fall into this range.
If you record the number of projects returned without the activity range limitation, then divide by two, you will have the number of projects which will be returned by a search which limits the search to activities below the median. This is by definition true, because the median is the "50th percentile": the median activity level is defined to be higher than half the projects and lower than the other half. The quartiles are defined similarly, except for the 25th and 75th percentiles.
So, all that's necessary is to do a binary search: split the range, see if you're low or high, then split the appropriate remaining range, and keep going until you reach the level of precision you want. I determined my figures to 0.1% in this way—more than enough precision for this kind of study.
Remaining Questions
One thing I would've liked to have done, would be to compare projects with large numbers of developers, excluding the smaller projects. There's no filter or search method provided for that, and the free text search fields that Sourceforge provides only compare against the project name and description fields.
Certainly Sourceforge does have this information in their database and it's not a secret: every project has the number of developers as public metadata for the project. But there's no easy way to search for it without crawling the site (which is considered very bad form, because it would tax the servers, which are already pretty busy). I may be able to get access to bulk information from which this kind of result can be derived (I've already asked, but it's too soon to expect a response).
Giving up on copyleft?
So, is copyleft a bad idea? Well, once the cat's out of the bag, you can't put it back in: if you release without a copyleft, you can't easily put it back on your work. Also, copyleft can be viewed as a kind of insurance against a possibly unlikely, but unpleasant occurrence. Maybe that's all it is. Then again, maybe that's enough.
Also, one line of evidence does not tear down an entire theory. There are a number of indirect evidences that copyleft is useful, and the FSF does handle a few cases of GPL infringement (mostly settled out of court). So copyleft is definitely being used. The question here is whether it has a practical benefit of encouraging people to contribute to development projects.
For my own projects, I'm still favoring copyleft. But copyleft does have a cost: conflicts between different copyleft licenses, certain kinds of activities you can't (or can't easily) do with it (sometimes being incorporated into a proprietary project is good for your project). So, this information is certainly forcing me to re-think some of my assumptions.
No surprise
It is no surprise that the license used in sourceforge projects does not appear to have any effect on the levels of activity. Simply by being on sourceforge all these projects already have everything they need to build an active development community. Using a copyleft license doesn't affect the development process used in community-driven projects so we shouldn't expect them to be more active.
Since the goal of the GPL is not to make sourceforge projects more active, judging its effectiveness by measuring the activity of projects using this license seems rather pointless. Its intention is to give freedom to the users of software and make it easier to create derivative works or branches, so perhaps a better measure for the effectiveness of copyleft would be to count the number of successful derivative projects.
freedom != copyleft
You don't need a copyleft to be free to make derivatives, just a free license. All of the projects being considered here are "free" in that sense.
The distinction is between projects which legally enforce derivatives to be free-licensed (copyleft) and those that don't (non-copyleft).
Copyleft doesn't make any one person "more free". It can be argued that it makes the project "stay free", but that's a different matter: each individual user has certain freedoms curtailed (i.e. the right to make proprietary derivatives), when compared to non-copyleft free projects.
It is a good suggestion that SF provides so much support for developers that it is possible that contribution is so easy as to make a legally-enforced copyleft unnecessary.
But if so, then why continue to use copyleft licenses?
They make users less "free" in the sense you mean (they restrict what you can do with derivatives), so they do carry a burden, even if it is slight. So, they need to be doing something helpful to make their use "economically rational".
Of course people could use them irrationally -- out of spite, for example, intending to harm would-be proprietary users. But if there are no positive results, then such negative effects are not rational or ethical, are they?.
Blocking proprietary derivatives protects the project's identity
I would not want my favorite GPL-licensed free software projects to be confused with proprietary derivatives.
The source code of free software projects are protected by some parts of the copyleft license, and the identity and integrity of the project are protected by the stipulation which prevents proprietary derivatives.
It's not resentment, although I'll confess to feeling some resentment against various proprietary software companies.
I resent it when recruiters ask for my resume as a Word .doc or Adobe .pdf. I resent when employers request Photoshop or Dreamweaver as if you're not a graphic or web designer without using specific proprietary software.
I resent all the various proprietary media codecs which make content inaccessible.
Interesting. So how are we
Interesting. So how are we now to explain the popularity of Linux relative to BSD? The BSD projects are much more centralized, and they were not originally intended for desktops, but I am just guessing.
As you said, copyleft is still useful anyway. It keeps code from becoming non-free, which is what it was intended to do. It would be interesting to compare things like number of forks, integration with other projects, code "hijacking" for copyleft and non-copyleft projects.
Of course, we already know copyleft is not essential for free software projects- the BSD tradition has survived for over 30 years.
only on rare occasions copyleft becomes important
it is possible that contribution [to SF] is so easy as to make a legally-enforced copyleft unnecessary.
But if so, then why continue to use copyleft licenses?
The point of using copyleft is not attracting more users to participate in a project, but (as you said) rather to keep all the derived code free.
Let's be honest, in most cases copyleft absolutely doesn't matter; about 95% of all code under a copyleft license never is in danger of being assimilated and made proprietary, simply because no one has an interest in using that code in a proprietary product. But in the rare case that this danger becomes real, and someone wants to take, use and sell your code without sharing his improvements back with you, in that rare case copyleft does matter and becomes very important indeed. Then copyleft is the only way to prevent your code from being assimilated and if your project hasn't been under a copyleft license from the very beginning, there is nothing you can do about it now.
Because in most cases copyleft doesn't matter, people don't think about it as a criteria when joining or contributing to a SF project, no surprise. (Or if you have a patch for a program, have you ever considered not submitting it because the program is under a non-copyleft-license?) Still, in rare situations copyleft can become crucial and we thus should keep using it as much as we can.
Like insurance
Yes, that's one way to look at it: it's like insurance. Odds are you never need it, but if you do, it's important.
The only thing that concerns me about this analysis, is "What is it really protecting?"
It obviously is attacking proprietarization (if that's a word) of a free software project.
But, if many developers will continue to contribute to the free project, then why does it matter if there is a proprietary competitor? (Or rather does it really matter?)
I have to admit that instinctively, I agree with you that this is important, but I have trouble rationalizing it (and it's easy for me to see how this could be something that people -- including me -- will react irrationally towards).
why attacking
why attacking proprietarization?
- strategic goal: well, if your goal is to spread free software and lower the market share of proprietary software you certainly don't want free software to become proprietary. here the whole free software rationale comes in, about preserving users freedoms. u dont want somebody to take the firefox code, make it proprietary and implement a small but cool killer feature so everybody will use this version and most users are deprived of their freedom (the new firefox might start playing dirty; like IE did against netscape, not adhering standards etc).
- personal motivation: as a free software developer, if you decide to not give away your software for free but share it within a community, you can limit the community to only include people that are willing to share back their improvements. you'll only share within the free software community, not with just everyone (like proprietary software developers)
- and closely related to the point above, you can look at it as a moral question: it is unjust if you decide to share your work for free and someone else takes it, doesn't share his improvements and makes a profit from that on top of it.
As I said, in almost all software projects these aspect never come to play. and because it's not a very probable danger, people don't think about it when contributing to a project. but in the rare case that proprietarization does happen, you just wish you'd have had copyleft.
Is it possible you are mis-interpreting "activity"?
Having viewed the "SourceForge Stats Demystified" posting I noted that the activity percentile for a project is "a combination of three different classes of activity: traffic, development, and communication."
Only one of those really represents developer activity, the other two are mostly about usage. The development activity is measured by the "number of CVS or SVN commits, the number of days since the last file release, and the number of days since the most recent project admin login". So with a project that is more stable or has a single developer this would bring the development activity percentile down.
To give you an example of how activity != development activity, I have two active projects on SF and I am the sole developer on each. I have never made a CVS/SVN commit to either and don't log in as admin that often. The last release for the one (RyansIOB) was in January 2008. For the other (RyansEDS) it was in April 2007. Both have development status of 5-Production/Stable and get some but not huge amounts of web traffic or downloads. With that in mind you would expect the activity percentiles to be quite low for both but RyansIOB has an activity of 96% and RyansEDS, 93%. Both have copyleft licences. It seems that development activity does make up a large part of what constitutes project activity.
On the other hand a third SF project of mine which is in 2-Pre-Alpha stage and has had no activity of any kind other than to test out an SVN commit which was then wiped, has an activity percentile of 83%!
On that note it may be fair to say that SF activity percentiles are only really useful to find trends within a single project?
Interesting examples
Well, your examples show how off-target the activity numbers can be, I suppose. It would be better to measure pure CVS activity (and possibly it would be better to do those in some absolute way, such as "net SLOC altered per month" or something).
I'm still pretty surprised that copyleft makes no difference to these numbers, though. I would've expected it to have some impact, even with this kind of consideration.
It could be, of course, that "activity" is so dominated by page views or some other measure that has little to do with development activity that no development effects show up. But that seems a little unlikely, given that the numbers are supposed to measure activity rather than popularity.
Reconsider your method.
> Well, your examples show how off-target the activity numbers can be, I suppose.
Which kinda invalidates the whole thing, statistically speaking. Honestly, this article is really flimsy, and the "conclusions" both erroneous and sensationalist. I'm sorry your gut instinct that there would be some difference was not fulfilled. Any programmer will tell you (wrt profiling): gut instincts are useless, numbers matter. You've simply gone for the wrong ones.
Ways to measure activity
Terry, good post. The stance about the licenses is a never ending one. Your statistics show in effect that many developers like to publish work, more than insist on keeping the fruits in the free world. One criterion I have not seen in your analysis, though, is the complexity of the applications - a single-man app is probably simple.
The reason I heard for Linux being more popular than *BSD is the consequence of the legal action in 1993. As a result, a whole bunch of the developers reacted by moving to a project that would keep clear from further actions - and they tend to be more "missionaries" than those who joined the free software at a later stage. What I see is that Linux, and GPL software in general, is more visible and therefore ends up more in the statistics. BSD software is sometimes reused discretely in commercial products (where it is extremely difficult to measure its impact) or in niche applications (like the public DNS backbones, for instance) and these extensions tend to disappear from the figures. The BSD's tend to work more on technologies than products and use the 3 major distributions as a nest for development and proof of concept and the systems are usually high profile, high quality environments. To be honest, I like Linux but often feel "tight on the edges" when I compare it to FreeBSD - but that's a personal impression.
Now, as a developer, if I had to base a product on other applications, my choice for the license would depend on the target: for a free application, I would not care much but for a commercial one, I would prefer BSD, MIT, Apache or the likes. If you consider the big players in the free software, like Apache or PostgreSQL, they often do too - or apply a dual license like MySQL.
Developer count
One criterion I have not seen in your analysis, though, is the complexity of the applications - a single-man app is probably simple.
Yep, that was my thought. The best I could do without privileged access (or crawling the site) was to look at the Google searches, to get some idea of how developer count is distributed. Unfortunately, that number can't really be trusted because it's such a tiny sample and not necessarily unbiased.
Also, even if it were definitive, it doesn't really answer the question, it just shows the potential for masking of effects on large projects by the overwhelming majority of small ones (the interesting thing, actually, is that it isn't as peaky as I'd have expected -- but that could be caused by bias in the Google crawler).
I've already placed a support request with SF to see if they'd be willing to give me something I can use to do that kind of analysis. I think it could be interesting.
Missing the point
You're missing the point so badly it's like you weren't even aiming. I don't use copyleft licenses for any of your reasons, and I don't think most others do either.
I use copyleft for one reason:
I want people to use my software freely, and I don't want them to take that freedom away from future users if they make and distribute modifications.
You can not prove that philosophy invalid through any amount of misused statistical data.
The reason you suggest for copyleft is totally inapplicable to me:
"Copyleft encourages contributions (because it eliminates fear of co-option of ones work)"."
It would be nice if people contributed code back to my project, but I don't care if they don't. What I do care about is that any derived code they release is free.
Acting like copyleft is some unproven theory ("Also, one line of evidence does not tear down an entire theory. There are a number of indirect evidences that copyleft is useful") is absurd. Do you think it's a coincidence or an accident that there are dozens of proprietary forks of BSD but not a single (legal) proprietary fork of the Linux kernel? No...the Linux devs decided they didn't want proprietary forks, they used the GPL, and surprise, there are none. It certainly seems like it worked out for them and thousands of other developers.
"The question here is whether it has a practical benefit of encouraging people to contribute to development projects."
No, that is not and has never been the question. The question is whether all future users of my software will have the 4 freedoms.
I need to jump in...
I need to jump in because this is important:
"You're missing the point so badly it's like you weren't even aiming."
What kind of state of mind do you expect Terry to have when he replies to you?
And you're missing my point, too...
Thanks for your comment. However, we agree on the goal of wanting users to continue to have the "four freedoms" in their software.
I want people to use my software freely, and I don't want them to take that freedom away from future users if they make and distribute modifications.
The choice of whether to use a copyleft or not has no bearing on whether users are free to use your software.
Proprietary derivatives cannot possibly "take that freedom away" from future users (by definition, an extra alternative cannot reduce freedom). It can only give them a non-free alternative (under the assumption that this alternative is worthless, this has no impact on user freedom, because they are still just as free to use the free version). Only free derivatives can give them freedoms (and if there are no derivatives, there are no freedoms to be had in them).
Thus the only mechanism by which allowing proprietary derivatives can "take that freedom away" from users is if the existence of the proprietary alternative negatively effects the production of the free alternative (for example, if the same contributions would've been made under a free license had the license required it, but weren't because it didn't).
This may or may not be true. But it is a factual question, subject to empirical investigation.
If non-copyleft projects were threatened by the proprietary competitors that spring up from them, then you would expect to be able to measure the impact of that threat if you look at a large number of copyleft and non-copyleft projects and compare their success rates.
In fact, based on the degree of faith that the free software community puts into copyleft, I expected to easily measure this effect. In all honesty, I was very surprised to not find an effect, even in this rather crude bulk study.
Yet, thus far, I can't. That suggests that (possibly) no such threat really exists (or at least, it is a much smaller threat than I assumed).
Thus, this research (while not conclusive) challenges the assumption that a copyleft is needed to protect the four freedoms for users of your work or future free derivatives of it.
Personally, I still suspect that there is an impact from the licensing choice, but that it is simply a more subtle or narrow effect than would show up in this kind of study. However, even that is fairly interesting.
Missing the goal of copyleft
"Proprietary derivatives cannot possibly "take that freedom away" from future users (by definition, an extra alternative cannot reduce freedom). It can only give them a non-free alternative (under the assumption that this alternative is worthless, this has no impact on user freedom, because they are still just as free to use the free version)."
I know they're still free to use my original free version. I never said otherwise. The issue is that I want users to be able to modify and redistribute any and all derivatives in addition. Copyleft is the only way I can accomplish that.
"if the existence of the proprietary alternative negatively effects the production of the free alternative (for example, if the same contributions would've been made under a free license had the license required it, but weren't because it didn't)."
I've already said that I don't care whether people work on my free version. I'm more than happy if someone decides, hey, I don't like the way the original developer works and I'd rather fork. This will show up as the SF activity on my project dropping to near zero. However, if they distribute a modified version, it will still be free.
Protecting user freedoms is my goal
Well, you may not care whether using a copyleft actually protects (or provides) freedom to users, and you may be perfectly content merely to remove proprietary options. No doubt, there are many who agree with you.
However, I do care about freedom, and I don't think I'm alone.
I am therefore very interested in whether it succeeds at achieving that goal: does eliminating proprietary derivatives contribute to the provision of free options to the user by promoting free derivatives?
That requires answering empirical questions. And that is what I've begun to explore here.
Wrong focus with wrong hypothesis leads to no results
The general misconception in this article is this:
- I want to look at numbers to find something out about a social phenomenon - so I look at a popular site that has numbers
- I set up a hypothesis which is my own opinion
- I take the numbers I find and try to apply them to my hypothesis
This is a logical fallacy in many ways. I will try to give you a good list of why it is wrong:
Sourceforce == Open Source <= Free Software
Sourceforge is by no means representational as it is OSI related which is more akin to the apolitical Torvalds type of programmer (your stats seem to be OSI centric as well) - take GNU Savannah if you want to find something out about Free Software.
Numbers about Software
The numbers you look at (activity, communication) say something about people and only people. The reason why you have ambiguous results is because people are people no matter what license they program under.
Numbers are complete?
I know a good lot of projects that use SF only for a free SVN. That there is less communication might be because the projects has its own forum or chatroom. Activity might be completely elsewhere as well - not all software is made equal and surely isn't developed equally.
Copyleft == Contributions?
Copyleft is about freedom and freedom only. It never was about making cooperation possible in some special way. It IS about factoring out one possibility - that software is made non-free, but that does not have to imply that it encourages contributions.
Copyleft == Protecting Freedom
You are mistaken in your understanding of what the Free Software movement means by "free". Of course it also means that people can share development of software, but we very much stress the importance that this freedom has to be protected. We say that we want to be able to take a certain level of freedom for granted and THEN we can work on software together.
Maybe some examples on where you went wrong would be handy, so let me go through your train of thought:
"...the one measure I could derive of how much copyleft actually works showed that copyleft made no difference whatsoever! If true, this means a lot of free software's social theory is wrong and many things will have to be re-thought."
You fail to state what this social theory is (it would have helped to show how much you know about it) and why it has to be re-thought.
"However, while this sounds good in theory, it's a challenge to prove it quantitatively. Fortunately, there is Sourceforge."
Because the only thing you can prove something is by quantity? Oh, and it certainly does NOT sound good in theory. Weasel words?
"The easiest thing to test is "How popular are copyleft licenses?""
Oh yes, because that is a number we have somehow completely missed to check on.
"If you ask most developers, they'll say they want a copyleft, because they want to avoid their work being co-opted or exploited (or even "hijacked"). That implies an assumption that a copyleft license will encourage more people to feel more comfortable about contributing their work to the project."
No, it does not imply that. You are projecting an assumption. The only thing it implies that the GPL discourages any EEE strategy.
"That led me to a working hypothesis that: "Copyleft projects will be more active than non-copyleft projects""
Which is where you went wrong. How does the potential to cooperate imply that the gold standard to measure success is the overall activity? But I know why you chose that hypothesis:
"And that hypothesis is testable with the data I have available."
Well, how terribly convenient.
Then your numbers show that all activity is very similar despite license difference and that leads you to the conclusion:
"Copyleft has no practical advantage?"
Very cleverly put into a question. Well - you assumed that Copyleft was created to have a practical advantage in a certain field and your data is inconclusive. That, to you, means that your hypothesis is proven.
You found out that people have somewhat different levels of activity.
The "Open Source" world is certainly very similar and thus you get pretty much similar results between groups within it. Still - all that has nothing to do with copyleft and especially not with Free Software as social concept. You might be better off to check what you test for next time.
I'm really surprised that this article showed up on a site centered around Free Software. It has a terrible taste of FUD and confusion.
Copyleft == Protecting Freedom?
Copyleft == Protecting Freedom [...] we very much stress the importance that this freedom has to be protected [...]
That is the assumption that is being tested here: IS copyleft necessary to protect the freedom of free licensed software?
So long as the free software projects are unaffected, the existence or non-existence of proprietary forks is a red herring. For those who only use free software, they are irrelevant.
Thus copyleft only promotes freedom for users if it promotes the production of free software to serve them. If it solely eliminates proprietary software (but does nothing to create free replacements for it), then it is a net loss for society (how much of a loss is debatable -- some free software advocates would say very little, but the point is that it is not a gain).
It is only a gain if copyleft succeeds in protecting free software development. Or to put it another way, proprietary software can only have a negative impact on user freedoms if it somehow takes away free options, not if it merely provides non-free options. By definition, additional options can never reduce your freedom.
Your arguments are actually based on a miscalculation of "opportunity cost":
It is exactly the same fallacy as occurs when proprietary media companies attempt to compute "lost sales" from "illegally downloaded" media by multiplying the downloads by the per-copy sticker price. They are of course assuming that every person who downloads for free would, if that ability were taken away, buy a copy for whatever sale price the company offers. Which is a ludicrous assumption, of course.
Similarly however, copyleft advocates often make the mistake of assuming that each proprietary derivative of a non-copyleft work represents a lost free derivative if only the work were copylefted. But of course, in some cases, the derivative in question would never have been created if it weren't allowed to be proprietary (hence nothing was actually lost by allowing the proprietary derivative).
Meanwhile, free derivatives may continue to be created, with or without copyleft. They, of course, are unaffected by the licensing.
Now of course, just because it's unproven doesn't mean it's untrue: it could be that proprietary forks do have a negative impact on the creation of free software and therefore on the "user freedoms" that result from it. But again, that's a factual question. And it's the one I was interested in answering.
As for choosing Sourceforge, it is simply one of the largest collections of free software development projects (where would you have gone to study this?).
The ideological considerations are essentially irrelevant to this particular point (the effect in question is objective, so it really doesn't matter what the participants' politics are). However, since 80% of the projects are under copyleft licenses that would seem to refute your claim that Sourceforge is biased against them somehow: clearly most SF developers agree with your insistence on the need for copyleft.
So much for an answer that does not answer anything.
Your hypothesis was that you tried to prove the relationship between productivity and license used.
Now that I have shown you that it is impossible to "prove" something like that in the first place, especially with the means you employed, you try to move the argument to whether or not copyleft actually protects development or not.
This is not (and never has been) in question. There are numerous examples where the GPL helped protect Free Software projects from proprietary derivatives.
The major difference between the GPL and non-copyleft licenses is that the GPL side says "hey, if you think its good to share, why don't you share as well?" where as the MIT/BSD/etc. folks say "everything is fine with me".
Reality has shown that a lot of proprietary vendors are just waiting for a weak spot to use for their own gain (TIVO anyone?). After all, its a logical consequence - most of the big players in software are solely profit oriented and you can never make more profit than stealing and selling something as your own.
And thats what we don't want and that is why we protect ourselves from this possibility.
There is nothing to argue about this point. It is used, it works. You seem to be more attracted to a wishy-washy "lets all share and be happy". But that doesn't work with humans.
I'm not sure why you bring up opportunity costs - as nobody has talked about this - so I guess you're trying to make a point instead of addressing something I've said.
So let me answer that with a straight reply as well: We don't care about opportunity cost. You address a dead point.
We don't care about people making software proprietary because we have excluded ourselves from this possibility. And we especially don't care about people who wouldn't write software if they cannot make it proprietary.
What I live in is an ecosystem in which participants have agreed on a common ground for sharing. The only difference from the non-copyleft folks, and this might be my opinion, is that we are a little more aware of the rest of the world and don't want to allow other people to be fools. It is a very complex and expensive understanding of fairness, but I'm convinced that its prevalence shows how successful it is.
(as for Sourceforge - I did mention Savannah - excluding that from your calculation means that you left out large chunks of GNU)
(you also still seem to be confused about the difference of Free Software and Open Source. Please read about it.)
Congratulations :-)
Terry, I've been watching the popularity of your article and the fluctuations clearly show you hit the point right in the center :-)
In the comments I see advocates of both GPL and "most of the others", I mean MIT/BSD/Apache like. I don't think there is anything wrong with any of the 2 approaches. BSD has survived for 30 years despite a big hurricane in the 90's and GPL is being challenged in court now to protect its followers. This sounds all fine to me: a developer can perfectly decide what he/she wants to do with his/her own code, and even make it proprietary - geeks may traditionally live on junk food, they still have to pay for it :-)
To answer briefly to John Edwards, the popularity of Linux is partly due to the lawfight that BSD had to face. There was another project picking up at that time and the main developers massively jumped on it thinking "lawfights never again" - and the GPL was the right approach to avoid it. So the Linux crowd should give a warm thank you to the people they usually hate, i.e. a proprietary editor (AT&T in this case) :-)
Finally, to follow up on the "project complexity" point I raised, we would need a metrics like "function points" to estimate the real extent (but then, do you take into account libraries, artifically inflated code with useless functions...) and the degree of redundance of the project (I could start 10 text editor projects in Sourceforge but I'm not sure it would be a major contribution to the OpenSource community). In the end, whatever metrics you use to give a ranking, you will always find people fighting your conclusions... What a pity.


text:
Welcome to Buenos Aires Stay Apartments - the lower cost hotel alternative Buenos Aires
Rent apartments in Buenos Aires 50-60% cheaper (per M2) than an average Buenos Aires hotel room or suite.
More Home Space-More Home Comforts - More Home Privacy.
Search 100s of apartments & houses in Buenos Aires for rent ONLINE NOW!
Simply select and request an apartment online, complete our online form and our reservations team will respond immediately explaining our simple confirmation process.
Book your vacation rental apartment or house in Buenos Aires ONLINE NOW!!
Please read our
Apartment Rental Terms & Conditions.
Are we online? Talk to an advisor now:
Established 2005, BuenosAiresStay.com is the leading online vacation rental specialist for holidaymakers, business travelers and expatriates seeking great value Buenos Aires apartments and houses for rent in the ever-popular Buenos Aires barrios (boroughs or districts) - Downtown, Palermo – Hollywood & Soho, Recoleta and San Telmo (Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires) and self-catering rural and coastal properties throughout Buenos Aires Province.
Buenos Aires Stay offers vacation rental apartments in Buenos Aires' very best and safest barrios.
Vacationers can choose their favorite Buenos Aires barrio or even a favorite street! Our apartments and houses are located throughout Capital Federal (Buenos Aires City) and Buenos Aires Province.
BuenosAiresStay.com is an online real estate broker with an enviable reputation. We enable property owners (subject to our General Conditions) to publish budget to luxury fully furnished Buenos Aires apartments and houses for vacationers and business travelers seeking temporary accommodation.
Apartments and houses are available for temporary rent and longer term rental to holidaymakers, business travelers, embassy personnel and Buenos Aires' growing expatriate community on truly flexible terms from three days to six months.
Buenos Aires Stay apartments & houses - the lower cost alternative to Buenos Aires hotels
At BuenosAiresStay.com, vacation rental apartments are usually fully furnished and fully equipped with linens and towels. Most Buenos Aires apartments (read the property particulars carefully) come with both internet and weekly cleaning service.
Our rental accommodation offers travelers to Buenos Aires a home-away-from-home at rents often 50-60% (per M2) cheaper than an average Buenos Aires hotel room or suite.
Best known for great value for money, high quality apartments in Buenos Aires, BuenosAiresStay has an enviable reputation for honesty, integrity and telling our clients exactly how it is.
BuenosAiresStay's concierge team inspects and photographs all apartments listed at BuenosAiresStay.com and we offer a cast iron money back guarantee – see our terms and conditions.
Buenos Aires Stay Apartments range from cheaper budget vacation rentals (budget does mean budget) to higher quality premier vacation rental apartments available to vacationers, business travelers, embassy personnel and expatriates for both short and longer term rent.
Please note that cheaper budget Buenos Aires apartments for rent, below USD $400 a week, should be clean and tidy and many include a high-speed internet connection and weekly cleaning service, but at those rates, do not expect a palace, budget does mean budget!
Buenos Aires Stay publishes some of the lowest apartment rents in Buenos Aires. Our rents represent great value for money. Where else can you find apartments that offer a home-from-home for two to three guests at roughly the same price per person as a crusty hostel room with shared bathroom?
Search hundreds of Buenos Aires apartments online NOW or email us at reserva [at] buenosairesstay.com for a callback or talk/message our multilingual advisors (English, Portuguese & Spanish) using Skype: buenosairesstay.
Our multi-lingual advisors work from 11h00 to 19h00 (-3 GMT) Monday to Friday. Our advisors provide heaps of well-researched local knowledge and expert advice to ensure you have a fantastic stay in Buenos Aires.
Read our blogs for great tour ideas in Buenos Aires and tons of well-researched advice on lower-cost DIY Buenos Aires Stays and tours
Buenos Aires Stay Apartments - - the lower cost hotel alternative Buenos Aires
Our bilingual advisors are available Monday to Friday 11AM to 7PM local Buenos Aires time (11h to 19h GMT-3): (+54) 11 3220-7138.
.Back to top of page>go
Buenos Aires Apartments Vacation - Business Stopover - City Breaks - Buenos Aires Apartments - Temporary Rental Buenos Aires Argentina - Rent Buenos Aires - Rentals Buenos Aires - Accommodation Buenos Aires - Apartments Buenos Aires - Accommodation Argentina - Furnished Apartments Buenos Aires Hotels & Apartments online - affordable Argentina - Furnished Apartments in Argentina - Buenos Aires Rentals - Moving to Buenos Aires
Premier Apartments - Apartments Finder - Barrios Guide - Buenos Aires Tours - Buenos Aires Travel GuideResources - Link Us - Site Map - BuenosAiresStay Privacy Policy - Complaint's Procedure - Contact Us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I'm not a Manchester City fan, but wow, what a moment! I watched it on TV this morning and I wish everyone could have seen it!
All Manchester City had to do to become champions of the English Premier League was win. They were playing at home. They have the best home record of the 20 teams in the league. They were playing against Queens Park Rangers from London. QPR has the worst road record in the league.
The "Sky Blues" of Manchester City had not won the top tier of English football (soccer) since 1968, well before the old First Division became what is now the Premier League.
It should have been easy but it wasn't. Man. City dominated every facet of the game except the score. They took a fragile 1-0 lead into the half time break.
Here's the twist. In the EPL, the bottom three teams get relegated, sent down to a lower league. Imagine if the Colorado Rockies finish last in the NL West so they lose their Major League status and become a Triple-A team for next season. That's what QPR was facing. That's why QPR wouldn't and couldn't just roll over and let Man. City win.
Early in the second half QPR managed to score a goal to even things up. To the north, Manchester United was winning at Sunderland. If City were to lose or draw, and United were to win, then Manchester United would claim the league title, their record 19th.
On a personal note: Manchester United is a great team, double-stacked with incredible players. They are perennial contenders for everything. They are also the team that many American fans pick as their favorite if they want to have a favorite, simply because they win so much...it's just the easy team to pick. That's a huge pet peeve for me and one of the reasons I really dislike Manchester United. It's like when you see New York Yankees caps all over young people in Europe. Most of them, maybe even all of them, don't know the first think about the Bronx Bombers. I do acknowledge that Manchester United is a remarkably good team...anyone who hates a great team yet denies their greatness is hard to take seriously as a sports fan.
Back to the 2nd half, Man. City vs QPR. The unthinkable happened. QPR scored again. The underdogs snatched the lead. This would ensure City would not win the title and QPR would not be relegated, they would stay in the Premier League and get all the advantages (money) that go with being a top-tier team.
As the remaining time slipped away City kept producing scoring opportunities but no goals. The 90 minutes of full time came and passed. It was announced that there would be at least 5 extra minutes of stoppage time. This is time added on at the discretion of the referee to make up for time lost to injuries, substitutions, goal celebrations etc.
1:15 into that 5 minutes of added time Manchester City struck back.
Edin Dzeko headed home off a corner kick. All tied at 2, but that's still only good enough for 2nd place in the Premier League. Manchester United would still win the title.
Goals in soccer can be hard to come by. Many American soccer-haters use this as a prime argument against the sport that the other 6 billion people in the world consider the best. I suspect some of these people prefer books that have lots of pictures too. To get one goal in extra time just to tie things up is pretty unlikely.
You can guess what happened next. 3:20 into that extra time Manchester City's Sergio Aguero latched on to a slick pass in the penalty area and slotted it home. It's difficult to describe how impossible it is to imagine a team, being down 2-1 at the 90-minute mark, yet pulling off a 3-2 win in extra time.
In Sunderland, United's game was over. They thought they had won the title again,only to get the unbelievable news that City had performed a sports miracle. At the same time, a team called Bolton Wanderers gave up a late equalizing goal. They needed a win, so they became the third team relegated. That meant QPR, who gave away a game they fought so hard to win, actually got word that they would stay in the Premier League. Both teams were celebrating after that thrilling ending to their match.
Nobody celebrates like a champion. Here's Manchester City in sky blue with captian Vincent Kompany holding the league trophy.
Think of any amazing finish you've seen to any close contest in any sport. As this finish gets analyzed and tossed around for the next few days it seems the sports pundits will have to put it right up there near the top of the list of incredible comebacks.
I'm not really a Manchester City fan but today around the world, hundreds of millions probably were for those remarkable five minutes...except the ones left wearing red, and seeing red, the fans of Manchester United.
We'll talk again soon.
Don Ward


text:
Site Activities
- Shake Tables
- Tsunami Wave Basins
- Geotechnical Centrifuges
- Field Experiments/Monitoring
- Large Scale Laboratories
Find information on common issues.
Ask questions and find answers from other users.
Suggest a new site feature or improvement.
Check on status of your tickets.
Use this link to report a NEES network security incident


text:
Patients Rights
Access to Care
Individuals shall be afforded impartial access to treatment or accommodations that are available or medically indicated, regardless of race, creed, sex, national origin, or source of payment for care.
Respect and Dignity
The patient has the right to considerate, respectful care at all times and under all circumstances, with recognition of his/her personal dignity.
Privacy and Confidentiality
The patient has the right to expect reasonable safety insofar as the hospital practices and environment are concerned.
The patient has the right to know the identity and professional status of individuals providing service to him/her and to know which physician or other practitioner is primarily responsible for his/her care.
The patient has the right to reasonably informed participation in decisions involving his/her health care.
The patient, at his/her request and expense, has the right to consult with a specialist.
The patient has a right to obtain from the practitioner responsible for coordinating his/her care, complete and accurate information concerning his/her diagnosis (to the degree known), treatment, and any known prognosis in terms the patient can reasonably be expected to understand. When it is not medically advisable to give such information to the patient, the information should be made available to a legally authorized individual.
The patient has a right to access people outside the hospital by means of visitors, and by written communication.
Refusal of Treatment
The patient may refuse treatment to the extent permitted by law. When refusal of treatment by the patient or his/her legally authorized representative prevents the provision of appropriate care in accordance with professional standards, the relationship with the patient may be terminated upon reasonable notice.
Transfer and Continuity of Care
A patient may not be transferred to another facility unless he/she has received a complete explanation of the need for the transfer and of the alternatives to such a transfer and unless the transfer is acceptable to the other facility.
Hospital Charges
Regardless of the source of payment of his/her care, the patient has the right to request and receive an itemized and detailed explanation of his/her total bill for services rendered in the hospital. The patient has the right to timely notice prior to termination of his/her eligibility for reimbursement by any third party.
Hospital Rules and Regulations
The patient should be informed of the hospital rules and regulations applicable to his/her conduct as a patient.
Advance Directives
The patient has the right to information about and to complete an advance directive.
The patient has the right to discuss any issues that did not meet their expectations, and is entitled to information about the hospital's mechanism for the initiation, review, and resolution of patient complaints.
The patient has the right to participate in the consideration of ethical issues that arise in the provision of their care, and access to the Ethics Committee.
Children and adolescents who are patients at RMC have the same rights as adult patients, except that the authority for decision making, access to medical records, and explanations of the medical bill shall be available only to their parents, or legal guardians if applicable. Patients 14 years or older may make decisions regarding health care.
When difficult decisions need to be made about the treatment of an infant, child or adolescent, the guidelines below should be followed:
1. Generally, parents or legal guardians will function as decision makers for children or infants. Many children, however, are capable of participating in the decision making process, even though they are unable to give legal consent, and they should be involved as much as possible.
2. If the parents or other legal guardians make a treatment choice contrary to the child's expressed preference, every effort should be made to resolve the disagreement.
Responsibilities of children and adolescents are identical to the responsibilities of adults. Their parents, however, will be expected to share and support the fulfilling of those responsibilities as they are able.
RMC follows "Consent for Treatment" guidelines established by the State of Alabama and the Alabama Hospital Association.
Policies and Procedures
RMC has policies and procedures in place that will allow the patient the opportunity to decide what medical treatments they wish to accept or refuse. These policies outline the procedure that should be followed if this is your wish. We hope your stay in RMC will not require any decision similar to these, but our staff is willing to assist you in any way possible.
Patient Responsibilities
In order to ensure that you receive the best health care possible, we need your help. By assuming these responsibilities, you can contribute to your care in a positive way.
Provision of Information
A patient has the responsibility to provide, to the best of his/her knowledge, accurate and complete information about present complaints, past illnesses, hospitalizations, medications, and other matters relating to his/her health.
Compliance with Instructions
A patient is responsible for following the treatment plan recommended by the practitioner primarily responsible for his/her health care including following the instructions of nurses and other staff as they carry out the coordinated plan of care.
Refusal of Treatment
The patient is responsible for his/her actions if he/she refuses treatment or does not follow the practitioners instructions.
Hospital Charges
The patient is responsible for assuring that the financial obligations of his/her health care are fulfilled as promptly as possible.
Hospital Rules and Regulations
The patient is responsible for following hospital rules and regulations affecting patient care and conduct.
Respect and Consideration
The patient is responsible for being considerate to the rights of other patients and hospital personnel and for being respectful of the property of other persons and of the hospital.


text:
August 30, 2016
1 cup sugar 1 cup margarine or butter, softened 3 Tbsp. milk 1 tsp. vanilla 1 egg 3 cups all-purpose flour 1 1/2 tsp. baking powder 1/2 tsp. salt 1 cup sugar
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 email@example.com.


text:
Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers praised his men as they extended their unbeaten run in the top flight to eight games away at Swansea City.The game marked the return of Rodgers to his former club along with midfielder Joe Allen and, despite going closest with an offside goal through Jose Enrique, the Northern Irishman was pleased to take a point in a 0-0 result at the Liberty Stadium.
|G. Tremmel
|A. Williams
|Àngel Rangel
|Chico Flores
|B. Davies
|J. de Guzmán
|W. Routledge
|L. Britton
|Pablo Hernández
|E. Shechter
|Coach: M. Laudrup
|Pepe Reina
|G. Johnson
|D. Agger
|M. Škrtel
|José Enrique
|S. Downing
|S. Gerrard
|J. Allen
|J. Henderson
|R. Sterling
|L. Suárez
|Coach: B. Rodgers
for E. Shechter 46'
for W. Routledge 67'
for J. de Guzmán 84'
for S. Downing 77'
for J. Henderson 77'
|Fekir to undergo knee operation
|Monaco 3 Paris Saint-Germain 1: Ligue 1 champions suffer early loss
|Aguero facing possible Manchester derby ban
|Athletic Bilbao 0 Barcelona 1: Rakitic strike extends Barca´s strong start
|West Ham´s Antonio handed first England call-up
|Guardiola ´so optimistic´ after Man City´s perfect start
|Inter 1 Palermo 1: Icardi gets De Boer´s men off the mark
|Credit Guardiola for boost in form, says Sterling
|Manchester City 3 West Ham 1: Hosts stay perfect under Guardiola
|Cavani won´t return to Napoli - De Laurentiis
|Pulis puts 48-hour deadline on Berahino future
|Zaza awaits ´new adventure´ at West Ham
|Karanka open to transfer ´surprises´ after strong Middlesbrough start
|Dost completes Sporting move
|Allardyce wanted N´Zonzi for England
|World Cup could be expanded - Infantino
|West Brom 0 Middlesbrough 0: Booed Berahino benched for dour draw
|Gyan´s ´destiny´ in England, Sunderland return an option
|Zidane wanted Pogba and Madrid are weaker without him - Raiola
|Juventus end Matuidi pursuit
|´He´s freaking amazing!´ - Balogun hails Dortmund´s Dembele
|Thohir thrilled as Inter confirm Joao Mario signing
|Fabinho expects Monaco stay despite Manchester United links
|Infantino has Blatter wine cellar removed as part of FIFA reform commitment
|West Ham seal Zaza loan
|Joao Mario posts heartfelt thanks to Sporting after record-breaking Inter move
|Aguero: I´m not competing with Ibrahimovic
|Mihajlovic: Maksimovic is dead to me
|Risdon replaces Wright for Socceroos
|MLS Review: DC United in goal-fest, Impact stun Toronto
|Schmeichel to undergo surgery
|Milik revels in ´dream´ brace as he ignores Higuain shadow
|Rossi to join Celta Vigo
|Ayestaran: Barcelona target Alcacer unable to compete
|Simeone: Winless Atletico must remain calm
|Griezmann: Atletico must improve or face relegation fight
|Sterling ´feels the love´ at City - Guardiola
|Stones glad he did not end up at Chelsea
|James impact earns Zidane´s praise
|Montella bemoans AC Milan´s indiscipline
|Leganes 0 Atletico Madrid 0: Returning Griezmann fails to inspire turgid visitors
|Everton fan passes away after taking ill at Goodison Park
|Napoli 4 AC Milan 2: Milik and Callejon at the double against Montella´s nine men
|Aubameyang eyes Lewandowski duel
|International break timely for Hull recruitment - Phelan
|Real Madrid 2 Celta Vigo 1: Late Kroos strike saves hosts
|Mourinho worry over Fellaini back injury
|Allegri marvels at ´exceptional´ Khedira
|Mourinho promises more chances for matchwinner Rashford
|We didn´t play our best - Tuchel
|Rashford: Setbacks part of football
|No hiding, Arsenal want the title - Cech
|Hull City 0 Manchester United 1: Rashford´s late show thwarts Phelan´s battlers
|Bamford nearing Burnley loan
|Leicester proved they are still one of the best - Guidolin
|Pardew stands by unsettled Zaha
|Koeman sympathises with Hughes´ frustration
|Lazio 0 Juventus 1: Khedira nets again as Allegri´s men prevail
|Moyes defends Pickford after late howler
|Conte: Hazard can still improve
|Hughes bemoans confusion over new refereeing directives
|Howe regrets Bournemouth caution
|Home draw leaves Puel frustrated
|´A goalscorer never forgets´ - Ranieri thrilled as Vardy returns to form
|Derby sign Vydra from Watford
|Wenger flags imminent arrival of Mustafi, Perez
|Crystal Palace 1 Bournemouth 1: Dann late show denies Cherries
|Southampton 1 Sunderland 1: Pickford howler costs Black Cats two points
|Chelsea 3 Burnley 0: Hazard shines in dominant win
|Everton 1 Stoke City 0: Joy for Koeman at Given´s expense
|Leicester City 2 Swansea City 1: Vardy and Morgan give champions first win
|Watford 1 Arsenal 3: Sanchez inspires Gunners´ first win of the season
|Borussia Dortmund 2 Mainz 1: Aubameyang double seals winning start for Tuchel´s men
|Klopp defends benching Sturridge
|Pochettino satisfied with Liverpool draw
|Milner: Liverpool didn´t do enough after leading
|Lahm ready to run the hard yards for Ancelotti
|United have the fear factor back - Shaw
|Tottenham 1 Liverpool 1: Rose denies Klopp´s men victory
|Donnarumma called up as Ventura turns to youth
|´Unique, exceptional work´ - Luis Enrique hails departed Bravo
|Luis Enrique won´t rule out Munir exit
|Portugal´s powerhouses divide to conquer once more
|Ter Stegen, Mascherano in Barcelona squad for Athletic clash
|Guardiola passion infectious, says Bravo
|Palermo confident of Balotelli deal
|Bayern are free of Guardiola´s chains, says Scholl
|Ronaldo: I´ll be back in no time
|Colombia name squad for Venezuela, Brazil qualifiers
|Pellegrini becomes Hebei China Fortune coach
|Klopp has ´no doubt´ over Henderson´s Liverpool future
|Lallana understands questions over Liverpool displays
|Real Salt Lake 2 Colorado Rapids 1: Movsisyan at the double
|Wenger insists Perez and Mustafi are not panic buys
|Ranieri confident of Vardy resurgence
|Atletico send Jota on loan to Porto
|Mourinho not rushing ´super´ Mkhitaryan
|Bayern to meet Augsburg, Dortmund face Union in DFB-Pokal second round
|We played more directly than Guardiola´s Bayern - Ancelotti
|Chelsea and Arsenal want Brozovic, agent says
|Kane: I want to stay at Tottenham for my whole career
|Al-Khelaifi pledges new deal for sought-after Matuidi
|Bayern Munich 6 Werder Bremen 0: Lewandowski hits hat-trick as champions cruise
|Arda dropped from Turkey squad
|Swansea agree deal for Barnsley defender Mawson
|Aquilani leaves Sporting for Pescara
|Montella excited as AC Milan close in on Pasalic
|Lopez returns to Espanyol
|Spalletti: Uncomfortable Roma must improve in Europe
|Karanka confirms Ayala and Espinosa fit for Middlesbrough
|United confirm Pereira to Granada on loan
|Hey Jorrit - Netherlands call up Hendrix
|Soares signs new four-year Southampton deal
|Hernandez recovering from ´perfect´ surgery after falling down stairs
|Gotze continues wait for second Dortmund debut
|Montella: I will sleep easier without facing Higuain
|PSV confirm Zinchenko loan signing
|Schalke complete Stambouli signing
|Ronaldo omitted from Portugal squad
|Emery wants Matuidi to stay at PSG amid Juventus links
|Sule gets first call-up as Schweinsteiger prepares for Germany farewell
|Montella thrilled to retain ´irreplaceable´ Romagnoli
|Real Madrid lose Isco to ankle sprain
|Second Barca return sits easier with Guardiola
|FIFA proposes two-and-a-half-year ban for Qatar official Al-Mohannadi
|Inter set to sign Gabriel Barbosa and Joao Mario
|Arsenal loan Asano to Stuttgart
|Bonucci out and Higuain to stay on bench for Lazio - Allegri
|No chance City will sign more players, says Guardiola
|Conte unsure of Chelsea additions in ´crazy´ market
|Conte would have no hesitation starting in-form Batshuayi against Burnley
|Mourinho: We can think we´re in the Champions League
|Cillessen aiming to make life difficult for Luis Enrique at Barcelona
|Mourinho aims dig at Bayern over Schweinsteiger
|Sevilla seal Sirigu loan signing
|´Alcacer or nobody´ in Barcelona striker hunt
|Recovering Ronaldo remains absent for Madrid
|Europa League draw: Man Utd to face Van Persie´s Fenerbahce, Inter get Southampton
|Europa League draw in full
|Zidane brushes aside Pique´s Champions League jibe
|Barcelona flop Douglas joins Sporting Gijon on loan
|Simeone: Congratulations to Ronaldo, but Griezmann was better last season
|West Ham can beat Manchester City again, says Bilic
|Zidane reiterates desire for James to stay at Madrid
|Granada pull off Samper loan coup
|Guardiola was in his own world, says Muller
|Pulis understands fans´ frustrations at West Brom
|Henry named assistant to new Belgium boss Martinez
|Casillas, Fabregas left out of Spain squad
|Phelan targets six new faces before transfer deadline
|Howe wary of Benteke threat
|Zaza set to join West Ham, confirms Bilic
|Sunderland goalkeeper Mannone out for three months
|PSG favourites for Champions League group - Wenger
|Wenger ´99 per cent confident´ on Arsenal arrivals as Perez and Mustafi wait in wings
|Europe´s top four leagues to get four guaranteed Champions League spots
|Pardew: Zaha not going to Tottenham
|Bacca relishing life under Montella, aims subtle dig at Mihajlovic
|Defiant Dortmund emerge from transfer trials in fighting shape
|Livermore: Positive cocaine test my get out of jail free card
|Pochettino relishing Champions League bow
|Ronaldo wants to retire at Madrid at 41
|CONCACAF Champions League Review: Dragon hold Saprissa, Connection and Progreso draw
|Herrera: United out to win Europa League
|Klopp targeting a trophy at Liverpool every year
|Granada suspend recruit Angulo over failed drugs test
|City vow to find Hart a new club
|Palace blast ´ridiculous´ Zaha bid from Tottenham
|Bravo: Barca will always be in my heart
|Almost zero chance of Juventus signing James - Marotta
|Liverpool´s Coutinho could miss Tottenham clash
|Bilic ´angry and frustrated´ as West Ham crash out of Europe


text:
USA, 2011, 87 Minute Running Time
Genre/Subjects: Art/Filmmaking, Comedy
Program: Reel Social ClubLanguage: English
In this movie-about-a-movie, best friends Nick (Alex Karpovsky) and Darryl (Tarik Lowe) are a sharp co-editing team brought in to polish a substandard romantic comedy whose neurotic director (Kevin Corrigan) has run amok. As the duo make the final trims on the small indie film, problems in their own real-life love lives spill over into their workdays. Things get sticky when the film's sexy starlet (Arielle Kebbel) starts flirting with Nick. Although Nick is happily engaged to Amy (Sophia Takal), he begins to imagine there can be no harm in embarking upon a romantic fling. Meanwhile, Darryl is distracted by an on-again, off-again relationship with his dramatically emotional new girlfriend (Melonie Diaz). Complicating matters further, Nick receives a job offer that threatens the two pals' friendship.
The film, co-written by Lowe and director Daniel Schechter, is a smart New York buddy comedy shot on high-definition digital video around a small set of Manhattan apartments, city streets, and the film studio where work proceeds. The entire cast lives and works in New York, and most are personal friends of Schecter's, who has said he hates auditioning. Schechter credits a New York audio post house for bringing invaluable authenticity to the low-budget endeavor by allowing the film crew to shoot in its top-of-the-line facility. The lively script, rife with comical barbed exchanges between Nick and Darryl, examines the nature of working relationships as carefully as it does its romantic ones. Girls fans will recognize Karpovsky and Lena Dunham, who has a small role. The "supporting characters" of the title, while helping upgrade actors and directors from nobodies to Names, inevitably return to anonymity when their work is done.
Click here for Information on Group Rates and Discounts!
DIRECTOR: Daniel Schechter
Producer: Tim Duff, Adam Der ArisEditor: Daniel SchechterScreenwriter: Daniel Schechter, Tarik LoweCinematographer: Richard UlivellaPrincipal Cast: Alex Karpovsky, Tarik Lowe, Arielle Kebbel, Kevin Corrigan, Sophia Takal, Lena Dunham
CLICK IMAGE for the Member Newsletter
CLICK IMAGE to submit to the Denver Film Festival. Withoutabox logos are trademarks of Withoutabox, a DBA of IMDb.com Inc. or its affiliates.
CLICK IMAGE to Renew or JoinMembership Updates and Sign Up
CLICK IMAGE for Information
CLICK IMAGE for more information
Site powered by: Luminate


text:
01 635 7560 4145-07 8 25 01 http://www.oris.ch/en/watches/oris-williamsf1-team-day-date-2004/01-635-7560-4161-07-8-25-01
Vintage watches
Oris WilliamsF1 Team Day Date 2004
Leaves the rest standing! The Williams F1 Team Day Date oozes Formula One style from dial to strap. The quality mechanical movement will make sure you're on time and the luminous hands will keep you driving through the night. The sturdy black rubber strap ensures a close fit next to the wrist. World class design inspired by a world class team.
- Case Oris Williams, 40.50 mm, 1.594 inches, Stainless steel
Material Multi-piece stainless steel case, flexible lugsSize 40.50 mm, 1.594 inchesTop Glass Sapphire, flatCase Back Stainless steel, fixed with screws, see-through mineral glassOperating Devices Stainless steel crownWater Resistance 5 barInterhorn Width 25 mm
- Movement Automatic winding day date
Number Oris 635, base ETA 2836-2Dimensions Ø 25.60 mm, 11 1/2'''Functions Centre hands for hours, minutes and seconds, individual date and day windows, instantaneous date and day, date and day corrector, fine timing device and stop-secondWinding Automatic winding, bi-directionally rotating red rotorPower-Reserve 38 hrsVibrations 28'800 A/h, 4 HzJewels 25
- Dial Silver
Material Silver dial etched carbon fibre structureLuminous Material Indices and hands Superluminova C3
- Strap/Bracelet Rubber
Material Black rubber strap, stainless steel folding clasp
- Reference 01 635 7560 4161-07 4 25 01


text:
OAKLAND -- The standings, Mark Jackson said, already proved the Warriors are better than the Los Angeles Lakers. Now, Golden State has the head-to-head victory to prove it.
Point guard Stephen Curry went from questionable to playing 43 minutes and coming three rebounds short of a triple-double in the Warriors' 109-103 victory Monday night at Oracle Arena. Playing on a sprained right ankle, Curry had 25 points, 10 assists and seven rebounds to help Golden State snap a six-game losing streak to the Lakers.
Save for a timid fourth-quarter performance, the Warriors took it to Los Angeles and overwhelmed their usual bully in the teams' third meeting this season.
"It's a message that was sent," Warriors coach Jackson said. "I wanted my guys to understand that we are the better team. ... We were not going to come into the game on our heels. We respect them and they have guys that will be in the Hall of Fame. ... That being said, this is a different day."
Lakers star Kobe Bryant tried his best to make them the same ol' Warriors. He scored 23 of his game-high 36 points in the second half. But a Warriors lead that reached 25 points was too much to overcome.
The Warriors' defense held the Lakers to 39.6 percent shooting. Meanwhile, the offense took care of the ball (11 turnovers) and exposed the Lakers' defensive flaws. Golden State shot 53.5 percent the first three quarters.
The Warriors (41-31) moved a game ahead of Houston for the No. 6 playoff seed in the Western Conference.
"I think we're starting to click," forward David Lee said after totaling 23 points and 12 rebounds. "I think we're getting on all cylinders."
They certainly were in the first half. Guard Klay Thompson scored 11 of his 22 points in the first quarter as Golden State took a 28-16 lead into the second.
Guard Jarrett Jack, who finished with 19 off the bench, pushed the lead to 16 with a layup and a floater to start the second quarter. Then at the 9:52 mark, a three-point play by forward Harrison Barnes gave the Warriors a 37-19 lead.
Golden State was up 19 in the final seconds of the half before an improbable ending. First, Lee dunked home Curry's missed 3-pointer with 1.9 seconds left. Lakers forward Metta World Peace tried to throw the inbounds pass the length of the court, but it went out of bounds, giving the Warriors the ball underneath their own basket.
Spotting Bryant trying to front center Andrew Bogut, Curry lobbed the inbounds pass near the rim. Bogut tipped it in, sending the Warriors into the locker room with a 63-40 lead. A frustrated Bryant made his way for the locker room despite four-tenths of a second remaining.
The Warriors started the second half with three straight 3-pointers, the last a step-back from Curry with 8:32 left, putting Golden State ahead 75-50.
The large lead turned out to be a necessity for the Warriors.
Golden State led by 18 entering the fourth quarter but managed just 11 points the first 91/2 of the period. Settling for jumper after jumper, the Warriors went nearly four minutes without a basket.
A step-back jumper by Curry ended the drought, but then the Warriors went three minutes without scoring.
A 3-pointer by Steve Blake with 2:51 left cut the Warriors' lead to nine, sending the Lakers fans at Oracle into a frenzy and putting Golden State on edge. The lead was down to seven after a fadeaway by Bryant.
Golden State, desperately in need of a bucket, stuck with the pick-and-roll with Curry and Bogut. This time, Curry slipped a pass to Bogut cutting down the middle of the lane. Bogut dropped in the finger roll, putting the Warriors up 107-98. That proved to be enough to hold off the Lakers.
"Because it's the Lakers and because of where we are in the standings, these games matter," Curry said, who sprained his ankle Saturday in a win over Washington. "You've got to take advantage of them, especially when you're at home. It was a good win for us."
Wednesday's game
Sacramento (25-46) at Warriors (41-31), 7:30 p.m. CSNBA
Online extra
Scan this code with a smartphone to view a photo gallery from Monday's game or go to


text:
*WOW! Sorry everyone I did not realise that word verification had automatically turned itself back on?? I took this off AAAAAAAGES ago so I am really annoyed that it was on! Thank you all so much for commenting anyway - I know it is annoying and it is now back off :) *
Grr Blogger! I Scheduled this post and then Blogger deleted it instead of posting it! >_< Anyway....today I have some Little Miss Muffet inspiration to share with you! I have used the super cute Agent Bubblegum Spying, and decided to create a bright and playful card :)
Skin: E50, E53, E00, E11
Hair: E50, E53, YR21
Shirt: R20, R22, R29
Shorts: BG01, BG05, BG09
Shoes/Binoculars: C3, C5, C7
Challenges that I am entering with this card:


text:
|LEGO Block Party!
Event Type: Children's Program
Age Group(s): elementary, preschoolers (ages 3-5), children with an adult
Date: 9/11/2013
Start Time: 3:45 PM
End Time: 4:45 PM
Join us from 3:45-4:45 p.m. the second Wednesday of each month: calling all budding architects! We supply the LEGO blocks (different sizes for different ages) and you bring your imagination!Library: Middletown Branch Library
Location: MD Inside Library
Contact Number: 301-371-7560


text:
Liptrip: Episode 6 – SLAMCAST
"The Liptrip episodes follow us through the season, capture our trips and show "behind-the-scenes" actions and already some B-footage. This episode shows a "Slamarama" since we left our stomping feet at home during our visit at Kaunertal Glacier. Additonal slams from HELL-sinki and AU-stria." - Lipstick Productions. Featuring Urska Pribosic, Diana Sadlowski, Julia Baumgartner, Conny Bleicher, Ana Rumiha, Basa Stevulova, Tini Gruber & Lisa FilzmoserRead More


text:
We're looking for a utility player/catcher to complete the 2013 Team!
If you're interested and looking to develop your softball skills and play in a strong organization contact us for a private try out!
Matt Zuro firstname.lastname@example.com 630-863-0174 14U Head Coach
Dennis Wall email@example.com 708-209-0156 14U Assistant Head Coach
The Nationals Teams have a lot to offer!
Experienced hard working young ladies will receive one on one instruction to better refine their skills while developing
into multi-position players.
Kick it up a notch - Level-up with training, development and exposure.
Use of an indoor hitting facility with a hack attack pitching machine
Full swing video analysis (one one one instruction no additional charge)
We have an indoor facility for Fall and Winter use, supports enough space for two full infield diamonds
We bring an extensive background with onstaff hitting and position play instruction and indoor field for Fall and Winter.
ACTIVE is the leader in online event registrations from 5k running races and marathons to softball leagues and local events. ACTIVE also makes it easy to learn and prepare for all the things you love to do with expert resources, training plans and fitness calculators.


text:
With the game hanging in the balance, East Newton's Sam Swartz stepped up and nailed a jumper at the buzzer to lift the Patriots to a thrilling 61-59 victory over Sarcoxie at the Pierce City tournament.
Swartz, who finished with 21 points, took a pass in the waning seconds, began to drive to the basket and pulled up with a jumper near the free throw line to beat the buzzer and send the Patriots into frenzy.
East Newton (1-2) held a 16-6 lead at the end of the first quarter, but the Bears hit a bevy of 3-pointers in the second half to pull even.
Bryce Zimmerman poured in 14 for the Patriots while Colby Thomas chipped in nine, Payton Cook eight, Deion Clark five, Rocky Liveoak and Aaron Millet two.
Mettlach and Lynch scored 17 points each while Triplett finished with 11 and Myers 10.
"Our kids played the toughest game they've played this year," Patriots coach Kyle Fields said. "They got after it and our defense played better. They played tough down the stretch at the end to win."
On Friday the Patriots fell to Verona, 59-39.
After holding a 10-6 lead after the first quarter, the Patriots didn't have an answer for the Wildcats in the second period as they went on a 17-2 run and took the lead for good. Verona went on to score a combined 40 points in the second half as its offense came alive.
Asencion Estrada poured in 25 points and Seth Losack added 13 to lead the Wilcats.
Bryce Zimmerman paced the Patriots with 20 points while Sam Swartz turned in seven, Colby Thomas and Rocky Liveoak five and Aaron Millet two.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Conde-Frazier, vice president of education and dean of Esperanza College of
Eastern University, to deliver lecture February 27— Princeton,
NJ, February 11, 2014–The Reverend Dr. Elizabeth Conde-Frazier,
vice president of education and dean of Esperanza College of Eastern University,
will give the annual Women in Church and Ministry Lecture at Princeton Theological
Seminary on Thursday, February 27, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the Daniel J. Theron
Assembly Room in the Princeton Theological Seminary Library, at the corner of
Mercer Street and Library Place in Princeton. Her lecture is titled "A
Continuum of Voices, Thoughts on an Emerging Latina Evangelica Theology." Conde-Frazier is responsible
for setting the vision, the strategic direction, and providing leadership for
the programs and faculty at Esperanza College, which provides members of the
Hispanic and local communities with a "Christian faith-based education that is
affordable and culturally appropriate so that they can continue their
contributions to and leadership in their communities and become more effective."
Prior to her appointment at
Esperanza, Conde-Frazier served as professor of religious education at the
Claremont School of Theology and taught Hispanic/Latino/a theology at the Latin
American Bible Institute, in California. She earned a Ph.D. from Boston College,
a M.Div. from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a B.A. from Brooklyn College,
City University of New York, and is the founder of the Orlando E. Costas
Hispanic and Latin American Ministries Program at Andover Newton Theological
School, where she also developed programs for the development of ministers and
lay leaders including youth. She has more than ten years experience as an
ordained pastor and has been a bilingual teacher.Conde-Frazier is the
coauthor of Latina Evangélicas (Wipf
and Stock Publishers, 2013), and wrote Listen
to the Children: Conversations with Immigrant Families (bilingual, Judson
Press, 2011). For
more information, contact the Communications/Publications Office at 609.497.7760.
Princeton Theological
Seminary, founded in 1812, is the first seminary established by the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. Its mission is to educate leaders for the
church of Jesus Christ worldwide, and its more than 500 students and 11,000
graduates from all fifty states and many nations around the world serve Christ
in churches, schools and universities, healthcare institutions, nonprofit
agencies, initiatives for social justice, mission agencies, and the emerging
ministries of the church in the twenty-first century.
© Princeton Theological Seminary P.O. Box 821, 64 Mercer Street, Princeton, NJ 08542-0803, 609.921.8300 An Institution of the Presbyterian Church (USA)PTS Calendars | A to Z Index | Information Technology | Trustees Website
Terms & Conditions | Web Privacy


text:
Improving the performance of your employees involves one of the hardest challenges in the known universe: changing the way they think. In constant demand as a coach, speaker, and consultant to companies around the world, David Rock has proven that the secret to leading people (and living and working with them) is found in the space between their ears. "If people are being paid to think," he writes, "isn't it time the business world found out what the thing doing the work, the brain, is all about?" Supported by the latest groundbreaking research, Quiet Leadership provides a brain-based approach that will help busy leaders, executives, and managers improve their own and their colleagues' performance. Rock offers a practical, six-step guide to making permanent workplace performance change by unleashing higher productivity, new levels of morale, and greater job satisfaction.
Download the accompanying reference guide.
©2006 David Rock (P)2011 HarperCollins Publishers
"A Must Read for Anyone in Leadership"
I could not put this book down! It has some profound insights that will greatly help me in dealing with my employees and kids. You have to read it if you are in leadership or are aspiring to.
The analysis of the how people think
Great audio effects that captivate you.
Accomplish more by speaking less. Which questions will switch on the speaker's own capacity to understand and find a practical solution? By asking about their thinking you help them get out of the harried victim mode into a more transcendent clarity vision.
It is quite involved and entails getting used to a special terminology. Applying it in life is even more challenging, because you will sound very much differently from what you usually are. But even a little application of David Rock's 6 steps seems to help me approach all relationships and human interactions in a much more effective way. It shows how to actually contribute to positive and natural solutions.
"Excellent advice for Home and Office relations"
I've definitely seen benefits from implementing some of this advice and helping my employees to think more for those aha moments rather than me giving them all the answers to the problems.
"Very interesting!"
I read the author's Brain at Work book and was impressed so I read Quiet Leadership and was equally impressed. Some of his suggestions I was already aware of. However, what impressed me is that he set up a process that is easy to follow; enough anecdotes and examples to see how it works for individuals and teams. I recommend both books.
"Additional files"
Couldn't find the work filed on line. Not sure where I can get them, thank you for the good job
"Inspiring, but needs attention"
I bought this audiobook after listening to 'Your brain at work' which was fascinating. Quiet leadership was also very inspiring, but it required more concentration to listen to. I usually listen to audiobooks in the car when I am driving and this book needed a bit more focus. There are quite a lot of exercises to put into practice what you are learning about, but I think I will need to listen to it again at home and make notes to get the best out of it. Definitely worthwhile though, and very thought provoking.
"might be a game changer"
I like it though I don't have the extra parties for the audio book. Neither did I do the practice part yet. Some questions seem to be unlikely to work in casual conversations, but the genetic message is clearly valuable. How much? I will find out very soon. Today I tested it and it worked hundred percent.
"Rock's Vision is Best Heard Elsewhere"
Fresh off of finishing Your Brain at Work, I was keen to dive deeper into David Rock's work. As a first-time people manager, I'd hoped that a practical approach and steps to improving thinking would be useful for me. Ultimately, I found that Quiet Leadership was far less memorable than Your Brain at Work, while covering many of the same themes.
The continuous reference to the PDF attachment was also distracting. I prefer audiobook productions to go the extra mile to ensure a good audio experience vs. just a direct reading of the text.
In terms of narration, I found Pete Larkin's performance to be adequate, if a little bit dry.
If you're looking for some new direction on 'thinking about thinking', this is 7 hours well spent, but I think you'd be better served by putting in the extra three hours and going for the much more satisfying Your Brain at Work.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text:
EAGLE-VAIL, Colorado - On Thursday, certified yoga teacher Kristen Burns will be guiding a workshop to introduce students to Baptiste Power Yoga.
Revolution Power Yoga has just celebrated its one-year anniversary, and studio manager Mariah Schuette says RPY is still bringing the heat. She says this upcoming workshop will introduce students of all abilities to a life-changing power yoga practice.
"The Intro To Baptiste Power Yoga workshop will be a great way for yogis in the valley to explore this invigorating and empowering practice," says Schuette. "Not only will students be able to get to know the principles and foundations of Baptiste, but they will also have the opportunity to connect with the amazing community we have here."
This power yoga practice encompasses a methodology of strength, flexibility and mindfulness. The breath-to-movement flow offers a rigorous and structured practice, but allows students to explore creative variations and helpful modifications.
Certified yoga teacher Kristen Burns will be leading the workshop, and she says the two-hour intensive will be great way to break through barriers and make moves in your life.
"Through this practice of meditation, yoga practice, and inquiry, we can get out of our heads, into our bodies and into our hearts," says Burns. "Baptiste is about getting to your true core-your essence. The workshop will be a way to connect with others and open up to something new."
For more information visit revolutionpoweryoga.com or call 970-748-3176.


text:
This is the editing server. Do not link to this page or any page that starts with cmstest.gannon.edu.
📷 Morosky Academic Center
Applicants must hold a master's or other post-baccalaureate professional graduate level degree from a regionally-accredited institution of higher education. Applicants should have a minimum graduate GPA of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale, and at least two years of post-baccalaureate work experience. Admission is based on a review of a total profile with careful attention paid to the fit between the needs and aspirations of the student, and the learning objectives of the program.
Each applicant must submit the following information:
Applicants for whom English is not their first language may be required to submit scores from the Test of English as a Foreign Language and Test of Written English along with a financial declaration and supporting documentation.
Students are encouraged to contact the Program Director early in the application process to discuss alignment of educational aspirations with programmatic goals and to address any questions regarding admissions requirements.


text:
So I get a warning and my post deleted for a fake vagina but death gifs are acceptable? Wow.. just wow..
So I get a warning and my post deleted for a fake vagina but death gifs are acceptable? Wow.. just wow..
The video's just nasty. Those dudes catch fire.
Stop being so polite, godammit.
Plus Shinx got his post deleted because of me, to be honest. I reported it as a joke and Mxy called my bluff.
Moral of the story: be careful when trolling Mxy
Apparently this needs to be posted again:
These guidelines cover every section of the forums, not just the image posting threads. They apply to both photographs and drawn/digital artwork.
- No female nipples, no vags, no buttholes, no visible pubic hair. Also no cocks. For women the aerola counts as the nipple; the darker flesh-tone must not be visible through wet shirts, see-through tops, or any other covering. If something is iffy or unclear due to image size/resolution, we will err on the side of caution.
- Underwear is required, unless the area is significantly covered up. This includes views from the front and the back (i.e. no bare asses or pubic regions). A bit of ass crack is okay. Some skin from side views are generally okay, as long as the model isn't fully nude. Thong underwear is sufficient in most cases.
- Fetish pics are okay as long as the above restrictions are followed. Images that would be considering shocking, disgusting, or illegal to most people (scat, golden showers, implied violence/rape, models that appear to be underage) are not allowed. Please use common sense when posting.
- Do not post or link to graphic depictions of executions, dismemberments, extreme violence, medical abnormalities, and so on. Images that would disgust and horrify the average person do not belong here.
- No external linking to images, video, or sites that violate these guidelines, not even behind a NSFW link. If you can't get away with embedding something here, don't link to it either. If there is something you want to share but isn't acceptable to post in the forums, include the name and people can search for it themselves or contact interested users in private.
- If you can use image editing to make a pic appropriate, feel free to do so.
- A general rule of thumb to follow is if it's not something you'd see in a print magazine sold to minors (i.e. Maxim, FHM), it probably isn't a good idea to post it here.
- It is not acceptable for community members to post mostly nude pictures of themselves on the forums. This has gotten way out of hand, and will no longer be tolerated. Doing so will result in a warning. In other words, don't post pictures you wouldn't be okay with your parents/grandparents seeing on your Facebook.
- Please understand that sometimes we will remove pics you personally feel should be acceptable. The Mods will have to play it safe occasionally so everyone can continue to enjoy the image threads.
- If you see a pic/link posted that breaks these rules, DO NOT quote it. You're making the mods' job more difficult and you will be reprimanded the same as if you were the original poster.
- These guidelines can be amended at any time, and this post will be updated to reflect any revisions. If you have any questions, please contact one of the moderators and we'll be happy to help clarify things for you.
Jeez Mxy. They were just bears...
Last edited by Sir Legendhead; 12-18-2012 at 12:00 AM. Reason: lol :P