text:
Francophone Studies Curriculum
The Francophone Studies Program at Bowdoin prepares its students:
- to communicate effectively in French
- to be excellent listeners, speakers, readers and writers
- to be knowledgeable about a broad variety of oral, literary and cultural traditions of the French-speaking world
- to be well versed in critical concepts and research methods necessary for their analysis
- to be familiar with the complexly intertwined intellectual movements, histories and social structures of the French-speaking world
- to be insightful and confident analysts of all kinds of texts and images
- to contribute to and thrive in a global world
The Francophone Studies curriculum consists of the following types of courses, all of them conducted in French.
Language Sequence
As these courses are sequential, students should begin their study of language in the fall semester.
French 1101-2204 [101-204]
These courses develop students' fluency in French (reading, writing, listening and speaking) and cultural awareness of the French-speaking world. French 1101 and 2203 are offered every fall and French 1102 and 2204 are offered every spring.
Advanced French through Film
French 2305 [205]
This course introduces film analysis, enhances writing skills, provides in-depth advanced grammar review, and develops mastery of complex structures and vocabulary. Please note that this course is offered in the fall semester only.
Prerequisite: French 2304 or placement.
Introduction to French and Francophone Literatures and Cultures
French 2407 [207] through 2411 [211] introduce students to the study of the cultures and literatures of France and the Francophone world. While each course has a different focus, they are all equally challenging and may be taken in any order or number. We encourage students studying away in France during their junior year to take French 2408 in the spring of their sophomore year. For the major in French, students must take at least one culture course (French 2407 or 2408) and one literature course (French 2409, 2410 or 2411) at this level, or the equivalent in study abroad. French 2407 and 2409 are offered every fall and French 2408, 2410 and 2411 are offered every spring.
Introduction to Culture and Society
These courses broaden and deepen students' knowledge and understanding of French-speaking societies and cultures Students sharpen their skills in cultural analysis. Francophone Cultures (French 2407) introduces students to French-speaking countries outside of France and the histories of slavery and colonization that inform their complex identities today. Contemporary France through the Media (French 2408) examines hot issues in France today through written and visual media and introduces students to the French political system and to key concepts for understanding contemporary France. Courses emphasize oral activities that help prepare students for study abroad in French-speaking countries.
Prerequisite: French 2305 or placement.
Introduction to the Study and Criticism of Literature
These courses expose students to literary works of all genres in their socio-historical contexts. They develop students' understanding of critical approaches to literary texts and their skill in textual analysis. These courses include an important writing component that helps prepare students for study abroad in French-speaking countries. French 2409 and French 2410 examine French literature from the medieval period through the French Revolution and from the 19th through 21st centuries respectively. French 2411 examines works of French expression produced around the world in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Prerequisite: French 2305 or placement.
Topics in French and Francophone Studies
These courses are seminars that bring together smaller groups of students to focus intensely on particular topics often linked to the professor's areas of research. Throughout the semester, students take an active role in leading discussion of course material. They conduct independent work on topics of their choosing and share their findings with their peers.
Prerequisite: French 2407 or 2408 and French 2409 or 2410 or 2411, or another 3000-level course
Independent Study and Honors
Available to seniors who wish to work more closely on a particular topic on which they have conducted research. Students work with an advisor for whom their topic is an area of expertise.
Prerequisites: Application and project proposal approved by the Department, and at least one Francophone Studies course at the 3000 level.
Students doing an honors project must be enrolled in another Francophone Studies course throughout the duration of the project. Please see specific course listings for more detailed descriptions of individual course offerings.


text:
Makes 15 Biscuits
250g Butter, at room temperature
50g of Icing Sugar
250g Plain Flour, shifted
50g Cornflour
1 tsp Vanilla Extract
100g Butter, left at room temperature
100g Raspberry Jam
1/2 vanilla extract
200g Icing Sugar
1. Preheat the oven to 200c/180c fan assisted oven. Grease a baking tray and line with grease proof paper.
2. In a food processor put all the biscuit ingredients in and blend until smooth. This will take a couple of minutes. Make sure you put all of the mixture from the processor into the pipping bag with a large star nozzle (Pipping Bag I used can be seen at the bottom of the post).
3. When pipping the mixture onto the tray make sure the pipping bag is at a 90 degree angle to the tray and squeeze the mixture out a medium size rosettes of dough. Make sure they are spread out so they don't stick together when they bake. Put in the oven and make for 12 minutes or until golden brown.
4. Leave the biscuits to cool on a wire rack. While they are cooling, make the butter icing by mixing the butter, icing sugar and the vanilla extract in a bowl. Mix with a fork until fully combined.
5. Once the biscuits are cooled put a small teaspoon of jam on the smooth side of the biscuit, butter icing and top with a biscuit. Repeat the process until you are out of biscuits. Dust with some icing sugar and serve.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On News 88.9 KNPR
On Classical 89.7
1289 S. Torrey Pines Dr.
Las Vegas, NV 89146
Main Number: 1-702-258-9895
Toll Free: 1-888-258-9895
an member station
Each week during this year's Legislature, we shall report on the latest developments. As Carson City prepares for its biennial deliberations, Colleen McCarty reports on the Governor's 2005 State of the State speech.
Add some items to your playlist to play them.


text:
It's so kind of you to visit my blog! My name is Stephanie Michaels. Ohio is home to my husband and our two sons. Before becoming a full time mommy, I worked in the food service business managing restaurants. Working in that industry was truly eye opening and a blessing that has inspired me to become creative here at home. Whatever comes to my mind, blogging, helps to showcase what I learn and create. It makes me feel artistic! This blog is my palate!
Other bloggers have inspired me and have become an inspiration to many of my ideas or concepts. I hope that you find my blog helpful too! The kindness of comments and endless ideas are what keep me so interested….they're what keep me creating!


text:
UPDATE: "The Flash" Hasn't Cast Savitar, Says Berlanti
TV, Comic Books
Showing results 1-11 of 11
Red Sonja: Vulture's Circle #1
Nancy A. Collins, Luke Lieberman and Fritz Casas' "Red Sonja: Vulture's Circle" #1 sounds like a solid concept when Collins comes to Dynamite to co-write the adventures of the she-devil with a sword, but the execution falls short.
|January 12th, 2015
Lord of the Jungle #2
The adventures of "I Can't Believe It's Not Tarzan" continue. Now with more Tarzan!
|March 2nd, 2012
Lord of the Jungle #1
"I Can't Believe It's Not Tarzan" was too long a title for this book, but for one hundred pennies, you can check out the origin of young Lord Greystoke.
|January 18th, 2012
What If? #200
What if Norman Osborn won Siege? Plus, Stan Lee, Roy Thomas, and Frank Miller make this a pretty cool anniversary celebration issue!
|December 31st, 2010
Warlord of Mars #1
For those who have never read a "John Carter of Mars" story before, some of "Warlord of Mars" will be rather surprising.
|October 13th, 2010
Nemesis #2
A tepid second issue as we learn more about the secret origin of Nemesis.
|June 11th, 2010
Expendables #1
An action-adventure tale featuring a bunch of cardboard cutout characters leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe the movie will be more intriguing.
|May 22nd, 2010
Queen Sonja #6
Jackson Hebert is a heck of an artist, and you get what you'd expect from a Sonja story: metal bikinis, action, intrigue.
|April 23rd, 2010
The Mystic Hands of Doctor Strange #1
This black and white one-shot sure is pretty, but none of the stories feel up to par.
|March 14th, 2010
Blackbeard: Legend of the Pyrate King #3
Highlights from the life of the young Blackbeard, with all the drama of a basic cable biopic.
|February 15th, 2010
Indomitable Iron Man #1
An artistic showcase as Will Rosado and Howard Chaykin deliver 33 pages of striking black and white Iron Man artwork.
|February 3rd, 2010


text:
Ragini scalded; shoots despite pain
"I was shooting a sequence where I find myself fiddling with things in the kitchen. I"ve got to take the lid off a warm utensil. Unfortunately, the lid was still hot and thus I ended up with a burnt finger. Despite this grief, I continued shooting. The directors and the crew realized that I was hurt but didn"t cut the scene so as to make the pain look authentic. Once the scene was over my assistant director rushed towards me asking about the seriousness of the injury. Then to my surprise, they all clapped and praised my performance. Their applause eased the pain a bit," said Ragini.
As the old adage goes - no pain, no gain. Well done to you Ragini.


text:
James Hoggan | October 9, 2008
By James Hoggan • Thursday, October 9, 2008 - 15:11
After years in which North America was the leading international holdout against action on climate change, the continental tide appears to have turned – mostly. Only one leader still stands against the international consensus, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
The coincidence of national election campaigns running in Canada and the U.S. has given us an unusual opportunity to actually compare our leaders. Beginning with U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain and following with the five major Canadian political leaders, everyone has presented a platform and four of the five include credible action on global warming.
Comparisons are, of course, subjective. Politicians have little to gain by presenting policies that are easy to measure or promises that are easy to test. What can we really conclude when Obama says he will cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050? Even if he wins and serves two terms, he'll be long gone before anyone can confirm that pledge.
But Obama's plan still shows that he takes climate change seriously. John McCain seems to, as well. He, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a leader in declaring that global warming is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but a critical issue for the planet.
In Canada, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe and Green Party leader Elizabeth May all agree. All have reasonable plans. All promise to reduce CO2 emissions by between 20 and 30 per cent by 2020 – from 1990 levels.
It's annoying to have to add that qualifier: "from 1990 levels." But it's important. Because when Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper promises to cut CO2 emissions 20 per cent, he dodges the internationally accepted start date of 1990, using 2006 instead. But Canada's emissions rose nearly one-third between 1990 and 2006, which means that Harper is really proposing to reduce emissions by only three per cent from 1990 – and he has no reasonable plan to reach that inadequate target
Harper is out of touch with Canadians on this issue, and he is mistaken if he thinks – as he said recently – that voters have become more "conservative" during his tenure. As the economy has slowed, they may well have become more concerned. They're certainly worried about the economy. But that doesn't mean they no longer care about the environment. In pitting environment and economy against one another, Harper is resorting to old-style Conservative thinking. Research clearly shows that Canadians don't buy it.
In fact, Canadians believe there's economic opportunity in going green.
European countries are showing the way. Many are reducing CO2 and, at the same time, kick-starting the technological innovations that will lead them to greater prosperity. For example, Danish energy policy made possible the success of windmill maker Vestas, which enjoyed revenues of $8 billion in 2007, equal to the sales of all forest products from all companies in British Columbia. And major businesses like Wal-Mart, General Electric – even Toyota – are also increasing their profits by pursuing green strategies.
Canadians care about the environment, and they care about our international reputation. If, despite these concerns, many appear to be supporting the Harper Conservatives, it should not be mistaken as approval for his environmental disregard.
Leading climate scientists agree that climate change is the biggest environmental issue in human history. It's not going away. Canadians will call on any government they send to Ottawa to provide strong leadership on this issue, and if it's Harper, he'll need to start following the lead of his current competitors.
James Hoggan is co-founder of Canada's most popular climate change website, DeSmogBlog.com, and president of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates.
John Lefebvre replied on Permalink
Stephen Harper will change his mind on global Climate Change when he changes his mind on same sex marriage. Never. Because his views are a matter of belief. Faith. In matters of belief, faith trumps fact and experience every time. We can not afford to give him the time to come around. We must interject fact back into the process now. Tar is the dirtiest energy hands down. We will get clean. The only issue remaining is will we be on the selling side of clean or the buying side?
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
In time he will change
He will change as soon as he realizes it's politically correct to reject it due to the evidence that AGW is not happening. What is belief is the nonsensical predictions AGW will do in the future.
Shutting off the tar sands will not only put thousands out of work and drive the price of gasoline up many times current prices, which will put hundreds of thousands of people out of work.
John Lefebvre replied on Permalink
Imagine all the people we could have working if we mined by hand. And children milled cotton. It is also a "belief" that there will be no employment beyond dirty energy.
sgt replied on Permalink
It's also my belief that there is no Easter Bunny
Since we have no reason to believe otherwise, it's a fairly sound belief. Just where are these magic jobs going to come from? Nobody ever bothers going into detail.
Rick replied on Permalink
mining by hand - that sounds
mining by hand - that sounds great - where do I sign up? Do I get a pick axe or is it a fingernails based mining technology?
Gary replied on Permalink
Uh…. Here is a
Here is a question.
With real science is now showing that CO2 is not the main climate driver (like we didn't know that) some deeper questions arise.
Clearly the world will switch to alternate energy sources in good time as a natural progression of technology. So why the panic to force the switch now when it is not necessary?
What groups stand to gain the most from perpetuating this myth.
Oil companies are powerful and are achieving record profits.
The UN has sought Global Socialist Government for years.
All the major environmental activist group have enjoyed the best funding gravy train in history.
Study Grants to rent seeking scientists have flowed like water to anyone with the words global warming and/or climate change in their applications.
Gore and Suzuki and many other band wagon parasites are rolling in it.
Or perhaps we just needed a little cause to believe in and the "save the world" wording of this one has such appeal.
Anyone have any good incites?
"...With real science is now
"…With real science is now showing that CO2 is not the main climate driver…" Prove this.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Burdon of Proff.
That's not how it works. The burdon of proof is on those who claim that CO2 IS the cause of our current warm trend. Well, at least the 1975-1998 warm trend as it has cooled since.
Gary made the claim, and he
Gary made the claim, and he now has to prove his claim. Which he cannot of course because it is false.
Zog replied on Permalink
Duh. Another warmist who
Another warmist who doesn't understand the principles of logic or debate. You, VJ, are the one supporting the wonderous and as yet unproven "big idea." The onus is on you and your fellow cultists to offer proof that you are right - not for us to prove that you are wrong.
For example, if I were to say that a little green man on the moon is directing beams of IR radiation at the earth, you would be fully justified in asking for proof. If I then said, "Well, prove that I'm wrong", that would be just silly.
If that's too deep for you, here's another. If I accuse someone of setting fire to my house, the onus is on me to prove that he/she actually did so, not for the accused to prove innocence.
A few decades ago, elementary logic used to be taught in highschools. I guess there's no longer any time for that, what with all the time needed to brainwash students about the evils of technology, human progress and resource development.
Zog, you made this
Zog, you made this claim, starting by quoting someone else:
"Imagine all the people we could have working if we mined by hand."
Great balls of fire ! That is precisely the approach anti-technology envro-fascists have been advocating for a couple of decades.
Prove that this is true, or everyone will know you are a liar.
And explain who you are referring to as "anti-technology envro-fascists" and justify your use of that insulting term for each of them.
gary replied on Permalink
Just a starting point for you.
Recent article on: Sun Warms and Cools the Earth
New Detailed Analysis of Global Temperature Data Does Not Support Significant Role for Carbon Dioxide
Roy Spencer, climate skeptic, speaks
New Study Confirms Strong Variation of CO2 in the Past Millennium and an Ocean Source of CO2
There is soooooo much more if you would only look.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
You gotta love this
But earlier "scare them to deaths!" morality of "climatists"[2] was explained by Stephen Schneider, one of their top gurus: "On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest" (Schneider, 1989).
Yep, damn the truth as long as the message is what we need to brainwash the public with!!
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Looks like they are succeeding
In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." (Wood,1990) .
John Lefebvre replied on Permalink
because the climate change we experience now is the effect of CO2 injected 30 years ago. The stuff we've burned since has yet to have its impact. And the stuff we burn here on in will impact after that….. sorry but nice try artful dodger
sgt replied on Permalink
So you're saying carbon
So you're saying carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere thirty years ago is somehow different from carbon dioxide present last week?
No wonder you need to pay a PR company to sell your line of twaddle.
No, you are saying that you
No, you are saying that you do not understand plain English. We are noticing effects now from the CO2 we emitted 30 years ago, and the CO2 we are emitting now will have noticeable effects 30 years down the road.
sgt replied on Permalink
Actually ...
Sorry, but I haven't noticed any effects. It still gets cold in the winter and warm in the summer, just like it always has. What "effects" am I supposed to be noticing?
Here in Alberta, it does not
Here in Alberta, it does not get as cold or snowy as it did forty years ago. Maybe you are not a noticing type of person.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
memory for our evidence instead of the emperical evidence itself
This proves nothing. How do you know that this is not just normal variation? Check Environment Canada's website for rainfall, snow and temp changes since 1900. Temps in the 20-30s was warmer in the winter than now. Though the over all trend since 1900 has been a 1.2C increase in the min temp, but only a .75C increase in average temp.
For the 1950's Calgary:
1955 Snow fall: Oct: 3.0 , Nov: 9.1 , Dec: 38.1, Jan: 5.6, Feb: 29.5, Mar: 28.4, Apr: 63.5, May: 26.7 Total for the year: 203.9
2007 Snow fall: Oct: 6.2, Nov: 10.4, Dec: 8.0 , Jan: 12.2 , Feb: 29.4 , Mar: 31.7 , Apr: 43.2, May: 12.8 Total for the year: 153.9
Hardley a major change in snow fall. I suspect if you graph all the years from 1900 to now you will see little increase, just normal variation. I find it interesting that we now rely on memory for our evidence instead of the emperical evidence itself.
Your problem is you have no EVIDENCE linking what you are seeing to HUMAN caused CO2. You are just seeing a change. Means nothing without the emperical link.
Rick replied on Permalink
Big spikes in warming with
Big spikes in warming with no possibility of cooling are a reasonable expectation if AGW theory is solid because human CO2 has increased so much in the last 10 years.
Any multi year cooling trend would seem to be an AGW killer.
Lets see what happens.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Effective or honesty, which?
Hey, VJ, in light of the fact that I have PROVED you wrong on your assertion here, are you going to admit you are wrong and recant your statement or will you stick to the mantra "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest"?
Just wondering.
Where did you get this
Where did you get this quotation "…"Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest"?…" I don't thinbk I wrote it. How dishonest of you.
Zog replied on Permalink
VJ, I don't read JR's post
VJ, I don't read JR's post as an attribution of the quote to you. It was a statement by one of your gurus, Dr. S. Schneider and is therefor, I presume, holy warmist doctrine.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Nothing useful to say?
When you cannot say anything meaningful, insult your opponent.
Gary replied on Permalink
So Just for fun...
I did a little search on how long CO2 remains in the Atmosphere and found some fascinating claims.
50 to 200 years was most popular but some alarmists from the Gore/Hansen school of exaggeration claim at least 1000 years.
Then I remembered this paper derived from more recent (up to date) studies.
See in this brief paper, how the changes year-to-year relate to ENSO and volcanic eruptions rather dramatically which suggests the carbon dioixde in the atmosphere reacts rapidly to changes in the oceans and as Segalstad and others have speculated likely has a far shorter residence time in our atmosphere (5-7 years) than claimed by the IPCC (150-200 years).This could have a significant effect on the ability of climate models to forecast future levels of carbon dioxide and temperatures.
Gary replied on Permalink
Since the science is settled and the dabate is over, this data will simple be sweeped under the carpet and forgotten.
Rick replied on Permalink
The science is clear. CO2 is
The science is clear. CO2 is bad
see without CO2 - there are no plants, without plants, there are no animals and humans, without humans and animals, there is no cancer, heart disease, HIV, poverty, crime, violence and rap music.
Clearly CO2 is the cause of all these bad things. We must ban it.
gary replied on Permalink
I think you are on to somthing here.
Richard Littlemore replied on Permalink
In fact, yes
Carbon has a signature and the source and age can be determined pretty accurately …
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Show us your peer reviewed
Show us your peer reviewed papers to back that claim up.
Richard Littlemore replied on Permalink
A fairly simple explanation and a series of supporting references can be found here.
And please, before anyone starts whining on about the reliability of RealClimate.org (which, by the way, is credited as the most influential climate♦ science blog on the internet ), you asked for a supportive source - including peer-reviewed literature - to back up a specific statement. I have given it. If you want to challenge to challenge the point, deal with the science, not the spear carrier.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
deal with the science, not the spear carrier.
I find your reply very interesting. Interesting because when anyone asks me for a reference, I actually go and get it even though I may have already posted it several times previously. I have everything nicely sorted in folders so I can get to them quickly.
Yet, you prefered not to do this, but sluff off asking me to sift through this site looking for references. Hardley fair.
If you have a reference post it!
Now I know chemistry and CO2 is CO2. The atmosphere does no know, nor care, where it comes from. So there is no mechanism that would disinguish human caused CO2 vs natural CO2 that would affect the climate.
Second, RealClimate is a farce. They routinely delete posts from people they do not want their followers to hear. Including many of my own. They are owned and funded by the Environment Media Services which is a radical left wing political lobby group with deep pockets. Gore routinely funds them too. Gavin's boss is James Hansen. They are in no way impartial and in no way influential. If you want influence you need to see www.co2science.org and www.worldclimatereport.com as they present peer reviewed papers that do not support AGW (and deal with your CO2 issue). Don't even think of claiming they are unreliable because of funding. RealClimate gets funded by those who have a political bent too.
BTW, they did not like the paper that came out about the limit to sea level rise can be no more than 2 meters by 2100. They didn't like that paper because it killed all radical outlandish claims of sea level rise.
"If you want to challenge to challenge the point, deal with the science, not the spear carrier. "
I'll make sure I quote you the next time one of your followers tries to go after me for posting evidence against AGW. Goes both ways right?
It's been widely known for
It's been widely known for ages that industrially produced carbon carries a signature and can be traced. It's not something that needs a peer-reviewed paper on the subject.
And respecting RealClimate and their tendency to delete your posts, has it occurred to you that they just might have higher standards? Take a look at the threads at DeSmog lately, and you will notice that almost all of the comment comes from you, Zog, Gary and the rest of the trolling fraternity, and most of it has strayed wildly from the point after the first few remarks. If RealClimate allowed all of your irrelevent and insupportable comments to be posted, nobody would be able to follow the informed discussion through the dross.
I am looking forward to the application of DeSmog's new criteria. Then we can get back to the subject at hand.
Fern Mackenzie
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
And what is that signature?
And what is that signature? What physical property of CO2 has that signature?
"And respecting RealClimate and their tendency to delete your posts, has it occurred to you that they just might have higher standards? Take a look at the threads at DeSmog lately, and you will notice that almost all of the comment comes from you, Zog, Gary and the rest of the trolling fraternity, and most of it has strayed wildly from the point after the first few remarks. If RealClimate allowed all of your irrelevent and insupportable comments to be posted, nobody would be able to follow the informed discussion through the dross. "
And how do you know the content of the items that were deleted since you could not have seen them? They were ON TOPIC and very relevant questions they refuse to answer, just like here. And I'm not the only one who's been deleted, many others who challenge RC.
I guess you just want an audience where desmog preaches to the orthodoxy. What a bore.
They're called isotopes
They can tell the difference between CO2 that's produced naturally & what's come from fossil fuels. Google "isotopes" & CO2, or look at this site, for a start: http://tinyurl.com/3kaft8
As for RealClimate, I have seen the quality of your posts here, and unless you have been dumbing down for our benefit, I'm not optimistic that your posts at RealClimate would be up to their standards of basic knowledge.
Fern Mackenzie
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Where does it say anything
Where does it say anything that FF CO2 is a different set of isotopes than "natural" CO2?
The two isotopes of carbon dioxide tell us two different stories of the carbon dioxide in the same parcel of air. The C13 of carbon dioxide can distinguish between biogenic uptake and release of CO2 (plant photosynthesis and respiration) or oceanic uptake and release. The O18 of carbon dioxide is a developing story, and one we don't yet completely understand. In theory, this isotope can help us distinguish between changes in the rates of plant photosynthesis versus plant respiration.
As for RealClimate
Read it yourself instead of assuming what I wrote. Again, what youo will not see are the questions I asked that they deleted.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Human signature in CO2 -- NOT!
I suspect you will not reply, so let me clear this "signature" nonsense up.
Only the Carbon in CO2 is from fossil fuels. The oxygen is from the atmosphere during the burning process. Burning, oxidation, cannot alter the isotope of any atom.
Thus the only atom in CO2 that is from the FF is the Carbon atom. Carbon has 2 stable isotopes. C12 and C13 (1.1%). There is no difference in these two ratios in fossil fuels, hence there is no way to know a CO2 molecule came from burning wood, coal, natural gas, or any of the liquid fuels. They all produce the same ratio of C12:C13.
C14 does not exist in FF except in very very very small amounts, and only then as a contamination of the orginal deposit. C14 is created in the upper atmosphere due to ions emitted from the sun.
Hence there is no "signature" from human emitted CO2. This is basic chemistry that any highschool chemist will tell you.
Richard C replied on Permalink
Where's the CO2 from?
RealClimate explains
You ignore the biological preference for lighter isotopes.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
C13:C12 ratios
Real Climate is not a reference one can trust. For example, the RC article is wrong about where fossil fuels come from and hence where the ratios come from. They said:
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere. This is because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (12C vs. 13C); thus they have lower 13C/12C ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same 13C/12C ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere.
Only coal comes from plants. Oil does not come from plants. But marine animals. This includes the methane and propane that we burn that is disolved in the oil. Note the date.
Carbon isotopic evidence for the role of lipids in petroleum formation
Journal Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society
Issue Volume 44, Number 12 / December, 1967
Pages 691-695
S. R. Silverman
Abstract Data available on stable carbon isotope ratios (C13/C12) are reviewed. It is concluded that data for modern and ancient natural carbonaceous materials reveal consistently low C13/C12 ratios for substances of biologic origin as opposed to the ratios for inorganic carbonate minerals deposited in the oceans. Ratios, of modern marine organisms are about 1% higher than those of terrestrial organisms. The average C13/C12 ratio of modern marine organisms is also about 1% higher than that of ancient organic matter in marine sediments. A similar relation exists between the ratios of terrestrial organisms and those of petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter genetically related to nonmarine sediments. Coals of all ranks have the same range of isotope ratios as those noted for terrestrial plants.
Lipid fractions of organisms have consistently lower C13/C12 ratios than do the whole organisms. The average difference between nonlipid and lipid materials for all organisms studied is about 0.5% and ranges in individual species from as little as several hundredths to more than 1.5%. This suggests that petroleums and other noncoaly organic matter in ancient sediments are derived from lipids, or at least from certain components of the lipid fraction. In contrast, coal deposits apparently are derived from whole plants or from the cellulosic fraction of land plants, which is the major nonlipid constituent, of plant tissues.
The isotopic compositions of narrow distillation fractions of petroleums suggest that the lowmolecular-weight hydrocarbon components of the gas and gasoline fractions are formed by decomposition of higher-molecular-weight compounds during the post-depositional history of petroleum. Concurrently with the formation of low-boiling compounds, these transformation processes initiate the polymerization reactions responsible for the formation of some of the most complex petroleum components, such as the asphaltenes. New data obtained from distillates of Colombian crude oil are reported in this paper. The fraction with an average boiling point of 450C and average molecular weight of 420 had the lowest C13/C12 ratio. This suggests that the fraction, which includes the boiling range of typical triterpenoids, contains a major proportion of the primary components from which the light and heavy ends of petroleum are derived. This implication is supported by other geochemical information, including the distribution of optical activity in petroleum fractions and the identification of specific petroleum components which are structurally related to lipid components of modern organisms.
Thus there is a difference in the isotope ratio between burning coal and oil/natural gas. Thus the ulitimate atmopsheric CO2 ratio of C13/C12 cannot be used to get how the CO2 got there. Realize that oil as a fuel was not common until after WWII. The vast majority of FF buring was coal prior to that. Hence the C13:C12 ratio would be affected by that trend.
Now we get this:
More CO2 Peculiarities - The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio
There is another problem with this assumption. Methane from animals. Since they have a lower C13:C12 ratio than the atmosphere, then when they fart or decay, that methane will have a lower ratio. The sun will decompose that methane into CO2, alterning the atmospheric content. Cattle farts is also attributed to so called global warming, but you do not see any call to eliminate all the cows on the planet.
Notice that RC are not only including FF but the burning of ANY carbonized biological substance. Including the wide spread burning of forests for farmland. Also the more we clear forests the less C12 is absorbed, which increases the C13 component in the atmosphere.
Bottom line? C13/C12 ratios is not a reliable "signature" that CO2 is from fossil fuel burning, but can come from a wide array of biological decomoposition.
Richard C replied on Permalink
A review
JR said…
"Now I know chemistry and…";
I hold a Chemistry BSc (Hons) awarded by the University of London, did you want me to congratulate you?
Then he said…
Carbon has 2 stable isotopes. C12 and C13 (1.1%). There is no difference in these two ratios in fossil fuels, hence there is no way to know a CO2 molecule came from burning wood, coal, natural gas, or any of the liquid fuels
He went on to say…
Thus there is a difference in the isotope ratio between burning coal and oil/natural gas.
I see a problem here!
We also have…
Only coal comes from plants. Oil does not come from plants. But marine animals. This includes the methane and propane that we burn that is disolved in the oil
Hmm, so marine plankton has nothing to do with it then?
The there is…
Also the more we clear forests the less C12 is absorbed, which increases the C13 component in the atmosphere.
Wouldn't absorbing the 12C increase the proportion of the 13C?
And of course we have our information sources.
Real Climate is not a reference one can trust. (A blog by scientists studying the climate)
compared with
wattsupwiththat. (A blog by the weatherman from a local radio station)
Next time if I can be bothered, I will explain to JR why the changing ratio of 13C/12C in the atmosphere can be explained by the combustion of fossil fuels, (but I expect I wont be sufficiently bothered).
guthrie replied on Permalink
J R Wakefield- we know that
J R Wakefield- we know that denialist argument hasn't progressed beyond accusing people of what they do themselves, but you don't happen to have any evidence of you posting on Realclimate and then being deleted? Surely a genius like you can take screenshots?
Otherwise, I'm sure you'll understand that I don't take you seriously.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
RC deletions
Yep, I kept everything. But I guess you think I'm lying.
Here is what was deleted:
#199 I asked "Provide peer reviewed evidence it did prior to 1980 and by how much." Regarding CO2 raising sea levels. His reply: "[Response: Tyndall (1863). - gavin]" A theoretical discussion of CO2 and temperature from 1863 somehow have evidence that GMTP-A was caused by CO2! I had to reply to that.
In #225 Gavin omitted my comment about Gore being irresponsible in not providing a time line and asking when they planned to challenge Gore, or where they afraid of losing funding, replacing it with: "[edit - no Gore-bashing]".
#237 I tried to clarify the logic of sea level and temperatures with "A" is not caused by AGW. "B" started with "A" and continues through to "C". "C" is caused by AGW, but since "B" started and is unchanged since "A" then "B" cannot be from AGW.
Simple enough?
[Response: Yes. But wrong. You have no information on the cause of B, nor on its invariant continuation. You can do better than this. - gavin]"
"Do you? Do you have peer reviewed papers that shows that the cause of B (sea level rise) is because of AGW?
[Response: Yes. Domingues et al (2008). - gavin]
To which I replied in #239 with the actual abstract of said paper, and Gavin replied:
"[Response: You're right, ocean warming must be due to some other mysterious energy force that is causing the planet to be out of energy equilibrium. - gavin]"
My reply to this, which was not posted was "Which it has in the past!!! No more faith bases suppositions. Give us your hard evidence that these changes from 1850-1945 were from AGW. If you cannot, science dictates that you cannot assume your position is the truth. Doing so does great disservice to science."
Post #272 was completely edited out. It was a reply to someone else, #260. It read:
""However, I very much doubt that the anthropogenic impact during the early 20th century was nothing at all. CO2 levels were notably higher than pre-industrial, and the radiative forcing of that CO2 is not zero."
So how much? And why, after a 4 fold increase in CO2 emissions did the planet cool from 1945 - 1975 when Hansen was claiming we were heading to a new ice age? BTW, 1850-1945 accounted for only 14% of the current CO2 emissions, the majority of that during WWII. Recall that it's a growth curve with a doubling time, so the first half of the period, 1850-1900 was very very small co2 emissions. The bulk of those emission was in the last 10-15 years of that period. The warming trend was well underway, and about to stop in 1945."
It was all edited out.
To which Gavin replied "[Response: This isn't a soapbox for you to repeat the same old thing over and again, when you have been given plenty of correct advice (and links to the forcings, and links to the model responses). If you are interested in the real answers to your questions, they lie there. If not, go play somewhere else. - gavin]
I sent the following in reply to Gavin's post, but it was deleted:
"Interesting you deleted the whole text so no one knows what I actually said and asked. Hardly fair.
Besides, that data. I assume you are trying to convey the point that only W-M_GHGs rose since 1880 while the rest were essentially flat. Thus you claim that the increase in temp was because of W-M_GHGs from 1880 to 1945. But how does this data explain the drop in temp from 1945 to 1975?"
For example #240 where he included "But I have no confidence that the timescale is 1000 years, and I have no confidence that this implies that sea level rises of 1 meter or more can't happen in a century."
To which I replied, "Your no confidence is nothing more than faith. That is not science. If you disagree with these peer reviewed papers then publish a rebuttal. Until you do you are nothing more than preaching faith based suppositions." Which was never posted.
They also do not want to make sure that wild speculative, faith based predictions, such as Gore's, are corrected. In fact, one of my comments "Or is it OK to misrepresent the data as long as the message is correct" was deleted.
You revealed your dishonset
You revealed your dishonest agenda by Gore-bashing. Here's a hint: scientists don't rely on non-scientists for their scientific information. Whether Gore is correct or not does not affect the science of climate change.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Gore is a liar
Thus you did not understand the content I was refering to. I wasn't saying that Gore is not a reliable scientific source, which he is not. No, what I DID say was that in regard to sea level rise Gore is showing New York City under 20 feet of water. A contemporary New York City. Thus giving the impression that such a rise would be soon. His lack of a time frame that would happen in is the dishonesty of his presentation. Had he mentioned that this would take a thousand years is deliberately omitted because it would not have the alarmist impact he wants to portray.
The fact that we now have a 2 meter maximum by 2100 makes Gore completely wrong. His continued use of his message without the timeframe qualification makes him a liar.
I also pointed out to RC that their continued silence on the issue, not publicly telling Gore to stop or qualify his statement is akin to lying too. Or, as they deleted when I said, is it OK to be dishonest as long as the message is important?
That was the thrust of my comments on RC.
Realclimate has dealt with
Realclimate has dealt with that particular item, if you had ever bothered to look.
…Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today - and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously…
They also reviewed the movie:
The difference being that they looked at the whole thing and didn't cherry-pick a teeny bit that they could misinterpret and attempt to inflate into a monstrous flaw, as you keep trying to do, Wakefield.
You were Gore-bashing, and you look pretty silly doing it on a blog where scientists are busy talking about science.
JR Wakefield replied on Permalink
Where is the time frame?
Interesting that they a) still do not give a time frame for that. Is it 100 years, 300 years, 1000 years or 125,000 years in the future? They can at least give a mininum, such as it is not physcially possible for Greenland to all melt in 1000 years. But no, they do not do that. That is irresponsible. And b) RC is unwilling to ask Gore to include a time frame. Thus RC is just as guilty at lying to the public as Gore is.
If it was YOUR pet theory, would you not want someone who was promiting it to promote it honestly? I would. But it seems RC is not willing to.
BTW, they are not talking science at RC, they are talking dogma.
No, you are the dogmatic
No, you are the dogmatic one; you know nothing about science.
How soon will all the Greenland ice melt? That depends on how much the earth warms and how quickly - and THAT depends partly on how large a quantity of greenhouse gases we humans produce. Which is why realists say there is a problem and that we must act now, while denialists curl up under the piano with their fingers in their ears.


text:
Do you want to make Ohio.com your homepage?
By Rick Armon
Beacon Journal staff writer
Click here to read or leave a comment(s) on this story.
WASHINGTON: The government told all U.S. blood banks Friday to start screening for Zika, a major expansion intended to protect the nation's blood supply from the mosquito-borne virus.


text:
Brazilian Wax
- One Brazilian Wax
What we love
- A Brazilian wax from this Brentwood salon will have you beach ready in no time.
- You won't have to worry about post-wax bumps or skin irritation in the hands of one of their talented aestheticians.
- This salon has a roster of star clients, but you'll always feel like a top priority. The sleek, modern space is painted white with soft lights and wood accents.
- Since changing hands in 2000, Juan Juan has been lauded by magazines including Elle, Allure, Cosmopolitan and Marie Claire. Owners of the original Beverly Hills spot opened the second Brentwood location in 2005.
What to know
- Redeem by: Tuesday, December 3, 2013
- This offer is subject to Terms and Conditions
- This offer is final sale and non-refundable
- Offer valid for Brentwood location only
- Valid for new clients and returning clients who have not been to Juan Juan Salon Brentwood in the last six months
- Offer is valid Tuesday through Saturday only
- Offer valid for select stylists only
- Offer is subject to availability; please call well in advance of desired date
- Please give 15 minutes notice if you're running late
- Limit one per member
- 24-hour cancellation policy applies or voucher is forfeited
- Voucher may be used to obtain the discount until December 3, 2013; after this date, the voucher is valid for the amount paid for five years from date of purchase, longer if provided by law


text:
Now to the children of the jungle comes the European emissary Hernán Cortes, representing the Piscean avatar, the "Prince of Peace" — an incarnation of Vishnu/divine love. It happens to be 1519, and the Amerindians have been expecting the return of their bearded Quetzalcoatl — also an incarnation of Vishnu/Venus/Tlaloc. Everyone was right! Avatars don't have to be — and aren't usually — received and interpreted as their followers expect them to be. That's part of what makes them magique…and somehow, magically, it all works out! —K'uhl Mut(i) Ahau.
k AQUARIUS (1.19-2.17) Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma'am! Jigsaw. She saw. Outta da can. We made it through da first terd. Das' da werd. Only our…
entered on 01/22/13 at 08:32 PM | read more »
It's going to be an early spring. I'm not a meteorologist but remember Dylan's words: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Plants and animals have an innate weather forecaster that's readily observed and recent past points to an early growing season. Plants are blooming sooner than ever and squirrels aren't hiding their nuts with such a stubby winter.
In case you haven't noticed, it hasn't rained much in these parts the last couple years. Snowfall this winter was hardly worth the "snow emergency" scam the city fathers perpetrated, generating a $36,000 windfall in parking tickets in the process. Fifty-degree days in January aren't supposed to be so common.
We're deep in…
entered on 01/18/13 at 06:17 PM | read more »
Let's take it back to the "Primitive Beauty." The media hype surrounding the "end of the world" had/has it all wrong. (Whatever sells, right?) The focus of the Aztec, Mayan and Incan culture's galactic synchronicity around December 21st-23rd should have emphasized not the end — but rather, a/the new beginning. I can feel it. Before the Iron-Age conquistadors smashed through the Bronze-Age weapons of the Mesoamericans' culture, they were not just a group of native spearchuckers. Instead, they were the greatest mathematicians/astronomers of all time. Let's meditate on the primitive beauty 'til the Europeans show up in the picture next week — when once again, we speak. —K'uhul Mut Ahaw
j CAPRICORN (12.21-1.18) The party's…
entered on 01/14/13 at 07:53 PM | read more »
Estimates say that up to 90 percent of pharmaceutical drugs owe their origin to plant and herbal remedies that have been in use for millennia. Using reductionist science — the questionable skill of tearing apart natural substances to isolate what modern scientists call "active ingredients" — Big Pharma produces potent versions of medicines that often cause more harm than good. Disrespecting the holistic nature of healing, modern science extracts isolated chemicals that can be patented for profit. Yet there is a way to optimize the healing potential of natural substances without compromising their innate characteristics. That method is the ancient art of alchemy using the Spagyric process. Big Pharma doesn't do it that way but you can make medicinal…
entered on 01/11/13 at 04:03 PM | read more »
Seismic shifts in conference alignment have been rocking college athletics over the past few seasons, and it appears likely that Creighton could get caught up in the shift. Speculation has been running wild around the Creighton program in recent weeks regarding the Jays' future conference plans.
Last month the presidents of the 7 Catholic colleges that compete only in basketball in the Big East Conference elected to defect and form their own league. DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall, St. Johns, and Villanova are expected to add either 3 or 5 teams to their ranks, with Creighton's name high on the list of potential new members.
The timing has never been better for Creighton to…
entered on 01/10/13 at 10:03 PM | read more »
Happy Cazimi New Moon in Capricorn, at 1:44 in the afternoon (Omax time) on Friday the 11th. Very lucky; especially for Capricorns and Libras, old people, old rich people, yogis and yoginis, Tantrikas, bosses, fathers and very horny old goats! How's your little "goatee"? We'll see…?
j CAPRICORN (12.22-1.20) Are we having fun yet? Well, for you, Zippy, the fun's just begun! You're on a run to seize the Sun, just caught by the Capricorn Cazimi (which means "Heart of the Sun") New Moon on Friday the 11th, at a quarter of 2:00 in the afternoon. Make a wish a half hour before or after (either way), and see what your gods/loa/saints have…
entered on 01/07/13 at 06:57 PM | read more »
Time for a news recap so here's some stories you may have missed during the end of the Mayan Calendar.
Frankenfish on the menu. This has been all over the news. Our friends at the Food and Drug Administration have ruled in favor of genetically modified salmon coming to your table unannounced, that is, without a label. (Incidentally, the FDA is headed by Michael Taylor, a former vice president of Monsanto, the main genetic engineering company in the world. Taylor also served as an attorney and lobbyist for Monsanto prior to his appointment as "food czar.") The GM salmon merges DNA from an eel and two salmon species that do not interbreed in nature. For those wondering, in…
entered on 01/04/13 at 05:42 PM | read more »
When Terence "Bud" Crawford defends his WBO lightweight title June 28 at the CenturyLink Center, he'll fight for himself, his tight-knit family and a...more »
Bo Pelini behaved as if he had coached his last game at Nebraska, based on his sideline and post-game decorum, or lack thereof. That was the...more »
If not for Sam Burtch, the most dramatic play of this Nebraska football season might never have happened.
If not for Burtch, Ron Kellogg III...more »
Planet Power: Nov. 21 - 27, 2013
Happy Thanksgiving. Let's be nice to each other and cultivate warm thoughts. You are what you think…
i SAGITTARIUS...more »
Planet Power: Nov. 14 - 20, 2013
This issue marks my 17th year here at The "READER." Thanks to John, Eric, my beloved Carrie, et al., for all your help, encouragement and...more »
Planet Power: November 7 - 13, 2013
The new Aquarian-Age astrology is/will be ruled by the planet Uranus (yeah, I've heard that joke before). Traditional astrology, prior to the...more »
Planet Power: Oct. 31 - Nov. 6, 2013
Happy Halloween! Let your subconscious desires flow as the twilight fades into the black of the night of the year. Don't fear the night. You have...more »
Between the balmy, carefree beats of the Beach Boys and the edgier introspection of the Beatles, showing less grit than Dylan and more mysticism than...more »
There are two kinds of medicine being practiced in the United States and mostly they are diametrically opposed. One form is of the traditional sort,...more »
Yes, we live in a red state. When it comes to red meat, Nebraska has more beef on the hoof than any other state save Texas. And if you're like most...more »
The Dog Days of deep summer can make a body desperate for help. The humble watermelon can help you make it through the plight. In August, with most...more »


text:
Today marked the retirement of the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Chaudhry has played a central role in many of Pakistan's most dramatic developments in the past eight years during which he served on the court. AP has a capsule summary of some of those events:
He was appointed chief justice in 2005 and attracted national prominence two years later, when he was sacked by then-President Pervez Musharraf. He was reinstated in 2009 after a protest movement led by the nation's lawyers.
I must confess to having been turned into a huge fan of Pakistan's lawyers during this time. The images of hordes of lawyers clad in black suits and marching in support of the rule of law led to many fantasies of such things happening here in the US. It took two years of demonstrations and the election of a new government after Musharraf was forced to step down, but Chaudhry eventually was released from detention and returned to his spot on the bench.
It should be noted that current Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif played a large role in the final movement that procured Chaudhry's release. The first four minutes of this story from Al Jazeera provide a good summary of those momentous developments:
[youtuber youtube='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT5CyK9AsbM']
Chaudhry will be a very tough act to follow.
While the US enters its eleventh year of maintaining the Guantanamo Prison that Barack Obama pledged to close by the end of 2009, Pakistan now finds itself in the glare of international condemnation for its own practice of indefinite detention without charges. Just last month, Amnesty International released a report (pdf) in which they pointed out widespread torture and abuse in Pakistan's tribal areas while prisoners are held by the military and intelligence agency without charges:
Amnesty International research shows that, rather than seeking to apply and strengthen the human rights safeguards of Pakistan's ordinary criminal justice system in the Tribal Areas, the Pakistani authorities are applying old and new security laws that authorise prolonged, arbitrary, preventive detention by the Armed Forces, and breach international human rights law. The Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulations 2011 (AACPR) in particular, along with the century-old Frontier Crimes Regulation 1901 (FCR),5 provide a framework for widespread human rights violations to occur with impunity.
Both the AACPR and FCR come into play in a case argued today in Pakistan's Supreme Court. From Reuters, we learn that although this case addresses just 11 men (now 7 due to four deaths, more on that later), the government now admits that over 700 are being held without charges:
Pakistan is holding 700 suspected Islamist militants without charge under a law that has come under fire from human rights groups, its attorney general said on Thursday.
The admission marked the first time that the strategic U.S. ally detailed how many militants it is holding in the tribal areas of the northwest under the Actions in Aid of Civil Power Regulations law.
"There is a military operation in Waziristan. Under the law we cannot try these 700 people, nor can we release them, unless the operation is over," Attorney General Irfan Qadir told the Supreme Court, referring to a tribal area near the Afghan border.
The Reuters report, however, seems to miss the mark on several important issues in this story. First, Reuters says the case is about "seven suspected militants held without charge since May 2010". Both Dawn and the Express Tribune point out in their stories today that the case originated with 11 men. Here is how Dawn describes that part of the background:
The 11 prisoners in the said case went missing from the gate of Rawalpindi's Adiyala Jail on May 29, 2010 after they had been acquitted of terrorism charges pertaining to their alleged involvement in the October 2009 attacks on the Army General Headquarters and the Inter-Services Intelligence's (ISI) Hamza Camp in the garrison town.
Later, four of the 11 died in mysterious circumstances. The Supreme Court forced the ISI and military intelligence to produce the remaining seven men in court on February 13 — an unprecedented move. The men, all in deteriorating health, were sent to the Lady Reading Hospital in Peshawar on court orders. After five of them recovered, they were shifted to an internment centre in Parachinar.
The other point that Reuters seems to miss comes when Reuters says of the men that the "Supreme Court is calling for their release" while it appears on closer reading of the Pakistani press that the "release" is from military detention into the hands of civilian authorities who would then try the men. Here is the Express Tribune: Continue reading


text:
Any Old Port! is a 1932 short film starring Laurel and Hardy, directed by James W.Horne and produced by Hal Roach.
Sailors Laurel and Hardy disembark and book in a sleazy hotel. The
owner Mugsie Long intends to marry a young girl against her wishes, but
Stan and Ollie come to her rescue. After fleeing the hotel, the boys
find out they've left their money in their room, but an old pal of
Ollie's offers $50 if Ollie will fight in a boxing
ring that night. Ollie agrees but predictably makes Stan the fighter
and himself the manager. The catch is Stan's opponent is Mugsie himself.
Knowing how tough Mugsie is, Ollie makes a seemingly wise bet with a
drunk on Mugsie to win. The drunk accepts the bet, making himself seem
to Ollie a sucker. Seeing Stan as his opponent, Mugsie loads his glove
with metal before the fight begins. However, during the course of the
fight, Mugsie and Stan accidentally switch gloves, causing Mugsie to
comically run away from Stan knowing he has the loaded glove. Stan, who
doesn't realize the glove is loaded despite it weighing his arm down,
manages to knock out Mugsie by raising his arm upward. Ollie is forced
to give the drunk the money they received for entering the fight, and he
and Stan flee from the arena.
By: bandit1200
In: Other Entertainment
Tags: Laurel & Hardy, Any Old Port, 1932, Full Movie
Location: United States (load item map)
Views: 8254 | Comments: 2 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 128 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 3
Advertisement below
|Liveleak on Facebook
|LIKE Liveleak.com
Confession Of An Economic Hitmen (Full Movie) PART 2/3
Confession Of An Economic Hitmen (Full Movie) PART 1/3
Your Old VCR is Full of Hundreds of Dollars Worth of Gear!
"Childish Korean Nationalism" Part.05 - Does there exist any old Korean map which depicted Dokdo
1932, A True History of the United States (Full Movie)
Confession Of An Economic Hitmen (Full Movie) PART 3/3
Laurel & Hardy - Block Heads 1938
Now I Know - Full Movie
Two old Geezers review the movie superbad/ funny
The Zionist Matrix of Power - Full Movie
See Comedy Legends Laurel & Hardy 'Dancing To The Hits
Jewish Rabbi burn his Israeli Passport - Full movie


text:
Mark Livingston is Senior Vice President of Cognizant Business Consulting. Livingston is a long-time consultant, having done stints at AT Kearny and Deloitte before signing on to lead Cognizant's consulting practice.
Cognizant at a Glance
Founded in 1994, Cognizant provides information technology, consulting, and business process outsourcing services.
Industry experience: Includes financial, healthcare, manufacturing, technology, retail, communications, and information services.
Clients: Almost 600, including 46 Fortune 100 companies.
Employees: 78,000 in 25 offices
Source: Cognizant.com
We asked him about the trends he's observing in the market and how firms and individuals can succeed in the current environment.
McLaughlin: How's the IT services market doing? Is demand picking up, staying steady, or declining?
Livingston: I read the same news as everyone else and worry about my personal investments. But I've also been out there and talked to a lot of CIOs. Mostly what I hear is that IT spending this year will either be flat or slightly up from last year.
We are seeing bullishness on the part of CIOs to undertake bigger programs than they did last year. These more ambitious programs will need consulting services. I think we are seeing good demand out in the marketplace for IT services in general.
McLaughlin: When you talk to CIOs and others, what are the key issues they're struggling with that are creating that demand?
Livingston: I've joked for years that you could take the same presentations that I used in 1985, and some of those issues are still pervasive today. We haven't resolved some of the basic underlying IT issues, which continue to resurface year after year.
One of those unsolved problems is that we still see extremely poor business-to-IT alignment, as IT continues to struggle to find its role in business. Second, we have the issue of complexity reduction.
When we got rid of COBOL, FORTRAN, and other legacy systems, we swapped them out for a whole other set of Oracle SAP-type legacy systems that have their own complexities. So we haven't succeeded in making things less complex for clients.
And third, we still have the challenge of IT cost optimization. That is, how does a company best use its IT dollars in the most productive areas?
In spite of the current economic uncertainty, CIOs are drowning in a sea of conflicting demands, including operational issues, minimizing costs, optimizing expenditures, and continuing to drive innovation.
The good news is that businesses are willing to take a little more risk as they try to position themselves for growth in what we are calling the "reset" economy.
McLaughlin: In this "reset" economy, are clients changing the way they evaluate and purchase services? And if so, what's the nature of those changes?
Livingston: Well first off, everybody is cost conscious today. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the lowest-cost provider wins. I think clients are being more careful than ever about making sure that you're qualified to do the work. They want you to show them where and how you've done the work before.
I don't know if it's any more pervasive than in the past, but clients expect service providers to take some risk and have a stake in the game. They are looking for real partners who are willing to make an investment to help them improve their businesses. And clients rightly expect that, as a partner, you should understand their businesses as well or better than they do.
We're also seeing consolidation of vendors. To gain some scale advantage and drive down costs, clients are reducing the number of strategic or preferred providers they use. Basically, the idea is—stratify the partners that you work with, get down to a select handful, and give those vendors more business.
McLaughlin: Do you think that too much consolidation of providers can shift the balance of leverage to the service firm?
Livingston: Yes, I think it can. It's almost like you're too big to get rid of. After a certain point, there's no scale advantage either.
If one service provider ends up entrenched in the majority of a client's strategic initiatives, the client's flexibility is reduced. And it can be risky for the provider too.
McLaughlin: Clients complain that they have trouble telling one service firm from another. What does Cognizant do to transcend the commoditization or lack of differentiation that we hear so much about?
Livingston: One client, who also works with a number of the big players, did an annual report card for their partner service firms. The client scored Cognizant as the only partner with "green" status. Everybody else got yellow or red.
One reason the client cited is the ease of working with us. We have good relationships with the client's people, and they feel like we're part of their organization. Second, the client pointed out that we don't turn over staff as much as other firms. The others swap people in and out like there's a sale going on, but we don't do that.
Another important aspect according to clients is that we understand their industry sectors very well and bring them innovative, creative ideas that nobody else does. We are still small enough to be entrepreneurial, so we're very responsive and I think clients appreciate that.
McLaughlin: If could give consultants just one piece of advice about succeeding in today's market, what would it be?
Livingston: I'd point out that successful consultants are not always the ones with the highest IQs. You need a healthy balance of IQ and emotional intelligence to build relationships, sell your ideas, and make a team of people want to work with you. The most successful consultants recognize that early on in their careers and develop those skills.
In my twenty-plus years in this business, I've seen a lot of really smart people who didn't get past the first couple of levels in consulting. They didn't have the ability to forge relationships or sell their ideas. Without those skills, they couldn't manage change for clients. And I think those are the skills that really count.
McLaughlin: Thanks for your time.
To learn more about Cognizant, visit www.cognizant.com.


text:
South and East Cork Development (SECAD) held its innovative 'Time to Change' programme at Cumann na Daoine, Catherine Street, Youghal on Wednesday 19th September 2012.
The programme is designed to help people who are currently unemployed or who want to return to the workplace to evaluate where they are now and to develop new skills to reach their full potential. The 10 week programme is funded by SECAD and free to participants.
Inputs by specialists on adult education, career development, CV preparation and social welfare advice forms an important part of the programme. There is one to one support for each participant and confidentiality is assured at all times.
A number of events will be held throughout the SECAD area to publicise the programme starting with the Opportunities Mornings. . The speaker at all events will be former Olympian, Gillian O'Sullivan. The Opportunities Morning in Youghal will be held on Wednesday, 19th September and the speaker will be Dr Michael Ryan from the Centre for Education and Developing Human Potential at LIT-Tipperary. They will talk about how self-motivation, resilience and positive thinking can enable us to become fulfilled and happy human beings.
Agencies that can provide support to people who are out of work have been invited to come along to meet people. These include the Department of Social Protection, VEC, FÁS, Volunteer Centre, etc. The event starts at 10.00am to give visitors the opportunity talk to people from the agencies. At 11.00am the guest speaker will be invited to talk and participants from previous courses will also speak about how the course has helped them. The Opportunities Morning is open to the whole community. Come along to get information from the agencies and others present, and maybe to sign up for the next course.
A coffee morning will also be held before the course begins to give potential participants the opportunity to come in to meet the tutor and to discuss whether the course would be suitable for them. Courses will start in during the first week of October. For further information please contact SECAD on 021-4613432 or info@secac
Visit the website http://www.secad.ie/
Time to Change' Autumn 2012 Schedule – Youghal
Wednesday, 19th September, ——- Showcase event – Cumann na Daoine, Youghal
Wednesday, 26th September,————- Information morning – Cumann na Daoine
3rd/4th October, ——————————— Course start date – Cumann na Daoine
29th October –————————————————— 2nd November, Mid-term
12th/13th December, —————————————————- Course completion


text:
Beef jerky, Rice Krispie treats and four varieties of Mazzio's pizza are a few of the à la carte choices in the lunchroom at Jenks High School outside Tulsa, Okla., where football is king and the players have royal appetites. But those items, plus the one-pint cartons of whole chocolate milk beloved by many players -- average weight on the offensive line is 250 lb. -- could be gone now that the federal government has issued new restrictions on fat and sodium offered during the school day.
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements.Learn more


text:
Hey guys, remember Cheryl? She's a SELF staffer who's totally rockin' our 7-Day Detox. She's reached her halfway point, and inquiring minds want to know -- how is it going? Here, she checks in on Day 4.
Well, I'm feeling great. Like awesome. I actually have a ton more energy than I usually do. Recently, I've had a hard time getting up for my AM, #UpNOut workouts, which means that my alarm goes off at like 5:15. (Ouch, right?) However, this morning -- I was awake, chipper and ready to tackle the HIIT workout that was on my agenda. (At 5:12, thank you very much!) To be honest, I think the fact that I'm eating so clean and healthy -- and not cheating -- is what's making me feel so rejuvenated, refreshed and more alert than normal. Not only am I not hungry, but more importantly, my stomach feels flatter. Score!
Speaking of hunger, I have not found a recipe on this diet so far that I don't like. [Ed. note: This is not a lie. And, girl can COOK. – RJ] Well, except maybe for the Detox Elixir booster, which is made with fresh OJ and apple cider vinegar (which may aid in weight loss!), plus powdered ginger, cayenne and tumeric; it's basically a hefty dose of antioxidants. Obviously not a combo made for sipping — I like to think of it as a shot. Day 1, though, I practically gagged from it. However, it's gotten easier — and it definitely gives me a boost of energy, although I'm not sure if that's from the "I just drank something gross" high I experienced after or because it is actually energizing.
My absolute favorite recipe so far, though, has been the Roast Pork, dinner from Day 3, that you make with some freakin' delicious cherry chutney. Like really delicious. And because you only need five ounces of pork for the recipe, I have a sizeable amount left over that's uncooked. I'll be using it again next week. With the same recipe. In fact, I'll probably make a bunch of these again after Detox is over.
The hardest part so far of the diet is the exercising, which is really surprising, considering I'm a total gym rat. I spend at least four days a week doing cardio and weight training, but the 7-Day Detox workouts, well, they've been kicking my ass. Like hardcore. Adding those weights I told you about? Five pounds was hard enough, but tonight's workout calls for 10-12 lb. dumbbells. If you hear from me on Monday, know that I'm OK.
Wanna check in on my progress? Follow me on Twitter and Instagram!
Image Credit: Courtesy of Subject (2)


text:
Definition of topcoat in English:
1An overcoat.
Example sentences
- Overcoats, topcoats, jackets, blankets, sweaters or other items can be wound around your forearm to protect it from knife slashes or hits from hard objects.
- From military looks to classic topcoats, check out all the cool outerwear available for fall 2004.
- Crutches, walking aids as well as blankets, quilts, topcoats, hats, scarves and gloves for people of all ages are urgently wanted.
2An outer coat of paint.
Example sentences
- And avoid fast-drying topcoats: They may be convenient, but the ingredients in many formulas tend to shrink the polish, making it more prone to chipping.
- If you don't wear polish, try to put on a clear topcoat to show that you put some effort into your grooming.
- Simply clean that surface with a wax and grease remover, then topcoat with any of these topcoats.
For editors and proofreaders
Syllabification: top·coat
Definition of topcoat in:
What do you find interesting about this word or phrase?
Comments that don't adhere to our Community Guidelines may be moderated or removed.
= trending


text:
The UK parliament's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is considering whether or not to recommend a ban on the private keeping of non-human primates.
We believe the complex social, psychological and physical needs of these highly intelligent and complex animals cannot be met in a home environment and that they inevitably suffer both mentally and physically as a result. Monkeys and other primates belong in the wild, not in our homes.
Please act to protect these animals, say no to the keeping of primates as pets.
To add your name in support of this campaign, complete the form and click "Submit". UK residents only please. Photo: Wild Futures
Your information:
Petition text:
To the UK government:
Primates Belong in the Wild – End the Keeping of Primates as Pets.
I support a ban on the private keeping of non-human primates in the UK and on the trade to supply private keeping.
Primates belong in the wild, not in our homes.
© 2015 Humane Society International/United Kingdom |
All Rights Reserved.
Humane Society International/United Kingdom |
5 Underwood Street | London, N1 7LY United Kingdom
email@example.com | Freephone 0808 126 1880 | www.hsiuk.org