text:
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
FootballsFuture.com Home
We are transitioning to a new forum software platform. Your current password will not work after August 12th. Update the email in your profile so you are not locked out. Click here for more information.
2 rounds
Goto page
FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
2017 NFL Mock Draft
View previous topic
View next topic
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 97
Location: Franklin, NC
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:10 pm
Post subject: 2 rounds
1. Kansas City Cheifs Luke Joeckel OT, Texas A&M
2. Jacksonville Jaguars Jarvis Jones OLB, Georgia
3. Oakland Raiders Star Lolutelei DT, Utah
4. Philadelphia Eagles Dee Milliner CB, Alabama
5. Detroit Lions Damontre Moore DE, Texas A&M
6. Cleveland Browns - Dion Jordan OLB, Oregon
7. Arizona Cardinals Geno Smith QB, West Virginia
8. Buffalo Bills Corradelle Patterson WR, Tennessee
9. New York Jets Bjoern Werner DE, Florida State
10. Tennessee Titans Chance Warmack OG, Alabama
11. San Diego Chargers Eric Fisher OT, Central Michigan
12. Miami Dolphins Barkevious Mingo OLB/DE, LSU
13. Tampa Bay Buccaneers Jonathan Banks CB, Texas A&M
14. Carolina Panthers Johnathan Hankins DT, Ohio State
15. New Orleans Saints Sheldon Richardson DT, Missouri
16. St. Louis Rams Barrett Jones OG, Alabama
17. Pittsburgh Steelers Manti Teo, ILB, Notre Dame
18. Dallas Cowboys Shariff Floyd DT, Florida
19. New York Giants - Alec Ogletree MLB, Georgia
20. Chicago Bears Johnathan Cooper OG, UNC
21. Cincinnati Bengals Kevin Minter MLB, LSU
22. St. Louis Rams (from Washington) Kenny Vaccaro SS, Texas
23. Minnesota Vikings Justin Hunter WR, Tennessee
24. Indianapolis Colts Matt Elam S, Florida
25. Seattle Seahawks Keenan Allen, WR California
26. Green Bay Packers Giovani Bernard RB , North Carolina
27. Houston Texans - Terrence Williams WR, Baylor
28. Denver Broncos Xavier Rhodes, CB FSU
29. Baltimore Ravens Eric Reid S, LSU
30. San Francisco 49ers John Jenkins DT, Georgia
31. New England Patriots - Ezekiel Ansah DE/OLB , Brigham Young
32. Atlanta Falcons - Sam Montgomery DE, LSU
Round 2
1. Kansas City Chiefs - Matt Barkley QB , Southern California
2. Jacksonville Jaguars - Jordan Poyer CB , Oregon State
3. Cincinnati Bengals (From Oakland)- Alex Okafor DE , Texas
4. Philadelphia Eagles - T.J. McDonald FS , Southern California
5. Detroit Lions - Logan Ryan CB , Rutgers
6. Cleveland Browns (Forfeit) -
7. Arizona Cardinals - Dallas Thomas OT , Tennessee
8. Buffalo Bills - Chase Thomas OLB , Stanford
9. New York Jets - Mike Glennon QB , North Carolina State
10. Tennessee Titans - Sylvester Williams DT, UNC
11. San Diego Chargers - Kawann Short, DT, Purdue
12. Miami Dolphins - Larry Warford, OG, Kentucky
13. Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Jesse Williams DT ALabama
14. Carolina Panthers - David Amerson CB/S NC State
15. New Orleans Saints (Forfeit) -
16. St. Louis Rams - Robert Woods WR USC
17. Pittsburgh Steelers - Desmaond Trufant CB Washington
18. Dallas Cowboys - D.J. Fluker OT/OG , Alabama
19. New York Giants - Blidi Wreh-Wilson CB , Connecticut
20. Chicago Bears - Jonathan Bostic ILB , Florida
21. Cincinnati Bengals - Tony Jefferson FS , Oklahoma
22. Washington Redskins - Phillip Thomas SS , Fresno State
23. Minnesota Vikings - Shayne Skov ILB , Stanford
24. Miami Dolphins (From Indianapolis) - DeAndre Hopkins WR , Clemson
25. Seattle Seahawks - Corey Lemonier DE , Auburn
26. Green Bay Packers - Gabe Jackson OG , Mississippi State
27. Houston Texans - Bennie Logan DT , LSU
28. Denver Broncos -John Simon DE Ohio St
29. Baltimore Ravens - Arthur Brown ILB , Kansas State
30. San Francisco 49ers - Tavon Austin WR , West Virginia
31. New England Patriots - Bacarri Rambo FS , Georgia
32. Atlanta Falcons - Tyler Eifert TE , Notre Dame
Last edited by cowboys321 on Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Joined: 03 Jan 2013
Posts: 332
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:17 pm
Post subject:
You forgot the Broncos 2nd round pick.
Back to top
Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 2081
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:48 pm
Post subject:
Back to top
Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Posts: 3200
Location: Southwest MO
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:24 pm
Post subject:
I really really dislike the Joeckel pick and here is why. We currently have Branden Albert at LT and he is a very good LT in the NFL. Now we are going to allow him to leave in Free Agency and then draft his replacement in Joeckel. So after the #1 overall pick in the draft we didn't improve any? What a waste of pick.
Back to top
Joined: 28 Jun 2008
Posts: 90940
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:02 pm
Post subject:
I want Geno!
Back to top
Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 11633
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:33 pm
Post subject:
wow montgomery and eifert i'll take that O.o
I don't want Eifert in the 1st round but in the 2nd by god i would love that.
2010 and 2013
Back to top
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 26420
Location: Indianapolis Indiana
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:57 pm
Post subject:
GoodBengals pick
Big thanks to kacymcbryant18 for the sig....^^
Back to top
Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Posts: 351
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:15 pm
Post subject:
the bengals wont go LB with the first pick, but i really like okafor
Back to top
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:46 am
Post subject:
There is no WR worth taking in the top 15 so I have to give this draft for the Bills a F. WR take much longer to produce unless you find a Megatron or AJ Green type and that isnt in this class. We need to add two guys that can produce from day 1 and Thomas is the only guy that could do that.
I would much rather have Te'o or Ogletree at 8 and Ryan Nassib in rd 2.
Max's 2010 Annual Draft Contest Winner
Adopt a Bill 2011- SS George Wilson
CB Drayton Florence
Back to top
Joined: 03 Jan 2013
Posts: 332
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:50 am
Post subject:
The Broncos should take Eddie Lacy in the 2nd round.
Back to top
Joined: 26 Feb 2009
Posts: 6563
Location: New Orleans
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:53 am
Post subject:
Not bad
mike23md on the sig
Back to top
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 3150
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:15 am
Post subject:
Im not a.packers fan but I cant see them reaching.for benard in the 1st, especially with questions about his duribility.
Miami got lamarr miller in the top of the 3rd, so for.me thats where benard belongs.
For the jets... Werner is.ok if he can play in the 3-4
Back to top
Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 2049
Location: Chicago
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:18 am
Post subject:
Bears would take Eifert in the 2nd.
Back to top
Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 1257
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:34 am
Post subject:
Great Patriots draft
Back to top
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 14613
Location: Las Vegas
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:29 am
Post subject:
Im alright with Banks in the first, though I have Rhodes as my number 2 CB, and a better fit for the Bucs
in the second that's a terrible pick. I love Williams as the Bama homer I am, but we have NO need for a NT unless we dont resign Miller. We need a pass rushing DT if thats the route we were going to go, but Tavon Austin, Robert Woods, DJ Fluker, Tyler Eifert or Zach Ertz would all be better selection there.
Hope that helps for future mocks
Back to top
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
2017 NFL Mock Draft
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page
Jump to:
Select a forum
NFL General
NFL News
NFL Comparisons
NFL Draft
2017 NFL Mock Draft
GM Mock Drafts
Fantasy Football
College Football
AFC East
Buffalo Bills
Miami Dolphins
New England Patriots
New York Jets
AFC North
Baltimore Ravens
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Pittsburgh Steelers
AFC South
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Tennessee Titans
AFC West
Denver Broncos
Kansas City Chiefs
Oakland Raiders
Los Angeles Chargers
NFC East
Dallas Cowboys
New York Giants
Philadelphia Eagles
Washington Redskins
NFC North
Chicago Bears
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
NFC South
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
New Orleans Saints
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
NFC West
Arizona Cardinals
Los Angeles Rams
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks
Other Sports
Other Sports
Fantasy/Sim/GM Leagues
This aint sports talk!
Madden 17 and video games
Feedback Forum
Signature and Avatar Help
post new topics in this forum
reply to topics in this forum
edit your posts in this forum
delete your posts in this forum
vote in polls in this forum
Powered by
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


text:
I've been following a strange little spat between two of Cyberspace's most prominent conservative commentators, Melanie Phillips of the Mail and Charles Johnson of the popular US blog Little Green Footballs. It concerns, of all things, Intelligent Design. Phillips believes that to characterise ID as an unscientific Trojan horse for Creationism is unfair and inaccurate. She claims to detect "an attempt to shut down argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents". She believes that ID deserves "a fair crack of the whip".
The dispute started last week, after Phillips wrote a furious little squib on her Spectator blog in response to an appearance on the Today programme by the Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller. Miller, despite being religious, is a scourge of the ID lobby. His book Finding Darwin's God was recommended by Richard Dawkins (in The God Delusion!). Mad Mel - who, in this instance at least, seems fully to justify her unflattering soubriquet - claims no religious motive whatever. She is, she writes, "an agnostic if traditionally-minded Jew; not a scientist, not a philosopher, not a subscriber to any kind of -ology but a mere journalist who has always gone wherever the evidence has led".
It's telling that Miller - a believer - is happy to accept Darwinian evolution, while the avowedly agnostic Phillips treats it as an unproved theory of equal status with Intelligent Design. We are not dealing here with a clash between religion and science, but rather one between science and journalism. Miller, as a scientist, knows what he is talking about. Phillips, "a mere journalist", knows how to set up straw men and how to besmirch opponents in bepurpled prose. But, as is embarrassingly evident here, her understanding of science is practically non-existent.
Phillips claims that ID has been "misrepresented", and that it "not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it". Indeed, they are "two completely different ways of looking at the world". While Creationism "comes out of religion", she maintains, "Intelligent Design comes out of science". She imagines that proponents of ID are "mainly scientists" and that the theory holds merely that "there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing". Those who think otherwise are "lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism". Creationism she defines narrowly as literal belief in the Genesis story, and the claim that the earth is no more than a few thousand years old. Her bugbears are "militant evangelical atheists" who "deliberately conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism in order to smear and discredit ID and its adherents".
When Johnson drew attention to some of the deficiencies in her argument, she returned to the case in a longer and even more hysterical post accusing him of being "unhealthily obsessed" with ID and attempting to justify her claim that Creationism and ID have nothing in common. She complains of this "secular Inquisition" that:
Those who have imbibed evangelical atheistic materialism with their mothers' milk, however, find it impossible to get their heads round this. Shouting from the rooftops that ID is not science but camouflaged religion, they react so viscerally precisely because ID does come out of science and talks its language. After all, if people are evil and bonkers for believing in an intelligent creator, why aren't religious believers in a Biblical intelligent Creator also evil and bonkers?
With such absurdities Phillips attempts to put herself on the side of rationality, reasonableness and debate and smear her opponents as unrelenting, closed-minded bigots. Hers is the tactic adopted by Creationists and IDers for almost a hundred years. Thus she asserts that opposition to ID "is characterised by irrationality, distortion and hysteria." It is "a conspiracy theory", "an attempt to shut down this debate" that "runs against every principle of rationality and scientific freedom... the claim that [ID] is rooted not in science but in religious fundamentalism is a falsehood designed to smear and intimidate people into silence". It need hardly be said that this is the precise opposite of the truth.
The depths of the ignorance plumbed by Phillips in these pieces have been explored elsewhere, and I haven't the time or the inclination to write a thorough demolition of the Intelligent Design movement. Suffice it to say that there is abundant evidence that ID is not only scientifically valueless (it amounts to little more than holding up examples of "hard-to-explain" complexity in the natural world and challenging evolutionists to account for them) but that it is also the preferred vehicle for modern Creationists whose desire to pick holes in Darwinism is closely bound up with their fundamentalist reading of the Bible (or, as the case may be, the Koran).
What I do want to draw attention to is what appears to be the crux of Phillips' argument, which betrays a common misunderstanding. She writes,
But ID proponents say over and over again they are not Creationists and accept many aspects of evolution, in particular that organisms develop and change over time. What they don't accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything.
Whether that accurately summarises ID I rather doubt. That organisms "develop and change over time" - in accordance with the laws of natural selection - IS the theory of evolution, after all. But Phillips' most serious mistake lies in the idea that evolution is a theory about "the origin of life, the universe and everything." It's nothing of the kind: it's a theory (clue in the title of Mr Darwin's book, which we have been celebrating this year) about the origin of species.
The ultimate origin of life is to be found in chemistry, the ultimate origin of "the universe and everything" in the further reaches of physics and cosmology. The latter, in particular, remains extremely speculative. There's plenty of room there for the theists to hide out. But there is no room for God in evolutionary biology: that, as the evidence that has accumulated over a century and a half makes perfectly clear to anyone who bothers to look at it, is an automatic system that works according to its own laws. Laws which have nothing to do with blind chance, incidentally. Sensible believers, such as Prof. Miller, realise this, and discover that it doesn't interfere with their faith.
Phillips' mistake perhaps owes something to the misleading propaganda put out by the ID lobby. But it's also an old and widespread fallacy, not just about biology but about science in general. It confuses science as a procedure for discovering knowledge (an activity) with the philosophical belief (sometimes, rather disparagingly, known as scientism) that science can (theoretically at least) explain everything. Some prominent scientists subscribe to such a doctrine, at least in part. Richard Dawkins, for one, has often said that his understanding of biology implies - for him - the non-existence of God. But even Dawkins would admit that not all scientists think the same way, and that they are no less scientists for all that.
Phillips sees ID as little more than deism, as the idea that some "vague kind of intelligent force must have been behind the creation of the universe". Thus, she maintains, it is no more "religious" than the atheist belief that there is no such intelligent force. This forms the core of her assertion that ID and creationism are entirely different things.
There are at least two major problems with this idea. First, it shows a complete failure to understand what ID proposes. Like Darwinian evolution, it is not a "vague" notion about the origin of the universe, but a claim about the origins of particular life-forms: to wit, that they have been individually and intelligently "designed", rather than evolved by a process of mutation, adaptation and survival of inherited characteristics. This is a claim that, if it is "scientific", ought to be susceptible to proof. So far, however, and despite the best efforts of the IDers, the overwhelming weight of evidence from DNA, palaeontology and observation is in favour of the standard Darwinian model of evolution.
The other problem is with her assertion that because supporters of ID are careful not to specify the attributes of the "designer" - though it is clearly meant to be some sort of "god" - it is therefore not "Creationism". She appears oblivious to the fact that, prior to the emergence of the modern ID movement, this was precisely the argument made by Creationists.
The 1987 Supreme Court decision in Edwards v Aguillard concerned an attempt by Lousiana to legislate the teaching of creationism in schools. The state argued that "creation science" (read ID) was not a religious theory, and the fact that its conclusions agreed with the first chapter of the Book of Genesis was purely coincidental. The creationists lost, just as IDers were later to do, but they were not without support from the court's most outspoken conservative. In his dissenting opinion, Antonin Scalia accepted the defence's proposition at face value: "to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration", he wrote. And to some extent he's right: it might be Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, or Amun-Ra, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But this is irrelevant when considering whether or not creationism (or ID) is "science". The proofs of God's existence put forwards by Aquinas, Anselm and others are (with the partial exception of the argument from design) philosophical, not scientific arguments. But ID, like "creation science" before it, does claim to be science. It amounts, in fact, to a claim that the whole of modern biology is based on a fundamental error. An extraordinary claim for which the evidence is extremely weak. There is therefore no reason to give it "a fair crack of the whip", any more than flat-earthism deserves to be given a fair crack of the whip.
I suppose it's not that surprising to discover Melanie Phillips making the same mistake that Justice Scalia made twenty years ago. But it is rather depressing to find the same old anti-science arguments, based on almost total ignorance of the scientific process, trotted out yet again by someone with a prominent public platform. Journalists such as Phillips, or Christopher Booker, or Bryan Appleyard do more damage to public knowledge with their misplaced scepticism than all the creationists and IDers put together.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Melanie Phillips' Unintelligent Designs
I've been following a strange little spat between two of Cyberspace's most prominent conservative commentators, Melanie Phillips of the Mail and Charles Johnson of the popular US blog Little Green Footballs. It concerns, of all things, Intelligent Design. Phillips believes that to characterise ID as an unscientific Trojan horse for Creationism is unfair and inaccurate. She claims to detect "an attempt to shut down argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents". She believes that ID deserves "a fair crack of the whip".
Posted by Heresiarch at 1:54 pm
36 comments:
- valdemar squelch said...
Another fine post. You have the patience of a secular saint to wade into this mire of lunacy. Mel P is quite clearly deranged, as her attitude to MMR showed over and over again.
At least the vast majority of the world's Muslims have the excuse of pure ignorance for dissing evolution. Being unable to read is no small handicap, and even Muslims who can read won't find Darwin (or Dawkins) in their own language.
Western 'commentators' on science have no such excuse. They are the spoilt, squealing brats of the scientific enlightenment, happy to smash all the shiny new toys they've been given in the assumption that more will be provided in due course.
Which brings me to my new game show, 'I'm an Over-Paid Hack and I Can't Get Out of Here!' Mel P, Bryan Appleyard, and all the rest will be dumped on a desert island with a ball of string, a rusty razor blade, a galvanized zinc bucket, and a copy of the Bible. And nothing else. They will then be left to a. chat about the shallow, worthless materialism of Western scientific culture or b. kill and eat one another. I'd give it a week.
- 7 May 2009 at 15:09
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
You seem to be a believer in the existence of "scientism" but like all the others cannot actually find any instances of "scientism". Science clearly does not yet explain everything but there is nothing yet proven that it could never ever explain. The Universe is due to last for many billions of years after all which might well be long enough for future species and intelligences to solve the problems that elude Homo Sapiens.
Scientism is, in the continuing absence of any evidence it actually exists, nothing more than a figment of the fevered imagination of some arationalists. Denouncing Richard Dawkins or others for "scientism" is about as rational as douncing them for "satanism".
- 7 May 2009 at 17:18
- The Heresiarch said...
You claim there's no such thing as "scientism", Woolly, and then write this:
Science clearly does not yet explain everything but there is nothing yet proven that it could never ever explain. The Universe is due to last for many billions of years after all which might well be long enough for future species and intelligences to solve the problems that elude Homo Sapiens.
That is as clear a statement of the faith of "scientism" - a pejorative term, perhaps, but the only one there is - that anyone could wish for.
- 7 May 2009 at 17:23
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
It is not a faith position, its merely an observation about the lack of evidence. There is for example no evidence that there is a Teapot orbiting somewhere between Saturn and Jupiter yet you would claim that I am a believer in "non-Celestial-Teapot-ism" for saying that I require some evidence first.
If you, or indeed anyone else, provide proof of something that can never ever be explained by the scientific process then I'd be most interested.
Science itself is clearly evolving, it has changed markedly even in my own lifetime and will doubtless continue to evolve in the future.
You show not the least doubt about the existence of "scientism" despite your continuing failure to find any believers in it. That is surely the acme of irrationality and a triumph of faith over reason.
- 7 May 2009 at 17:41
- The Heresiarch said...
But I have found a believer in scientism, Woolly. You. Scientism, as I define it, is the belief that science can potentially explain everything. Do you deny that that is what you believe? You certainly give every impression of believing it.
- 7 May 2009 at 17:48
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
I've already explained my thinking and if you still haven't spotted the difference between it and what you call "scientism" then I concede that it is beyond my powers of communication. A reasonably bright child of 11 ought to have no problems but sadly there are none in the office I can test this out on. I am surprised you are struggling with this.
So far science has explained much that was thought impossible to ever explain - the age of the earth, the composition of the sun, the origin of species are three examples. It is unreasonable to claim that the remaining unexplained, including those for which no route to an explanation is even apparent, will forever be outside its scope.
I don't claim that it will definitely explain everything. Nor so far as I know does anybody else. I'm willing to accept the possibility that scientism exists, there are after all some very sad deluded types who claim to be satanists, but would just like to see some evidence. I'd also like to see some proof that it is wrong but it is clear that none is forthcoming!
- 7 May 2009 at 18:17
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
The Heresiarch said...
You claim there's no such thing as "scientism", WoollyI made no such claim. Like the Celestial Teapot it might hypothetically exist but in the absence of any evidence for it I remain properly sceptical.
- 7 May 2009 at 18:20
- Wasp_Box said...
So your argument is really that "scientism" (what a terrible word) is a faith as we can't prove that science will, one day, explain everything.
If that is what you mean (and I accept I may have the mental agility of an 11 year old) then, at least, there is some evidence to back up that belief. Rather more than can be said for the religious believers.
- 7 May 2009 at 19:23
- valdemar squelch said...
Erm, I actually missed the 'scientism' in H's piece. I thought he was attacking the anti-science tendencies in our crappy media culture. Shows what happens when your vision goes wonky, I suppose.
I suppose I'm a believer in scientism in that, in my wholly non-expert opinion, science might (emphasis, might) one day explain anything a sensible person might want to know about the physical universe, including ourselves as parts and products of it.
At the risk of appearing a tit, I think Kurt Goedel supposedly demonstrated that it might be impossible to fully describe the cosmos mathematically even though its laws are mathematical? This is what comes of reading all that sci-fi, of course.
- 7 May 2009 at 19:36
Woolly: "Science clearly does not yet explain everything but there is nothing yet proven that it could never ever explain."
Since science's goal, as far as I understand it, is to explain how the universe works, I'd argue that it stands to reason that science could never explain anything that is logically outside of the universe.
If it were indeed "created" (and I have no idea if it was, and no bias towards what or whom may have been involved), and - as science currently believes - all of time and space began at that singular event; then any creating agent would be by necessity outside of said universe, since the alternative, causality +within it+ requires a previous moment in time for that creation to take place.
Anyway, I have no idea what's right and wrong here, I'm just pointing out that science does not +have+ to be able to explain everything, God and all.
That said, even though I personally have suspicions that the universe is more than just what we now call the "physical" (i.e. I'm sympathetic to those scientists and philosophers that argue for possible connections between the hard problem of consciousness and the mysteries of quantum mechanics), I would still hope that such paradigm shifts would be within the bounds of future science.
Science should be bale to explain everything bar - perhaps - God, and since we may not be able to prove the existence (or not) of God, the question of whether science explains everything could forever remain open.
- 7 May 2009 at 20:00
It is all in the detail and definition: if scientism (I am almost sure it is a made up ugly word) is the belief that scientific methods are the best way to find out about the world, universe and eerything, then OK, what other methods are there?
As far as I am aware there are no others that have successfully explained phenomena.
Phillips likes to pose as a self styled expert on education - she is dangerous. Does she have any redeeming features? I suppose there could be some transitory amusement in watching Phillips and Bunting squabble over some figment of the imagination.
- 7 May 2009 at 21:58
- David Gerard said...
It's particularly stupid as the smoking guns showing that "Intelligent Design" was coined as a Trojan Horse for creationism have in fact been clearly identified - first manifesting as one edition of creationist textbook "Of Pandas And People" using the term "creationism", the next "intelligent design". THEY'VE BEEN CAUGHT RED HANDED AND THEY KEEP DENYING IT. WHAT.
Honestly, I commend your ability to plough through brick walls with your forehead ... dealing with such idiocy just makes me feel stupider.
- 8 May 2009 at 01:29
- Mike Power said...
We are not dealing here with a clash between religion and science, but rather one between science and journalism.It's more a case of a clash between intelligent argument and Mad Mel's usual dopey idiocy.
- 8 May 2009 at 10:21
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
Wasp_Box said...
So your argument is really that "scientism" (what a terrible word) is a faith as we can't prove that science will, one day, explain everything.
If that is what you mean (and I accept I may have the mental agility of an 11 year old) then, at least, there is some evidence to back up that belief. Rather more than can be said for the religious believers. Nobody can prove that the sun will not rise tomorrow but it would be very foolish to bet against it. Similarly nobody can prove that science will one day explain everything but you'd be going out on a limb to claim otherwise.
Anonymous Matt said...
Woolly: "Science clearly does not yet explain everything but there is nothing yet proven that it could never ever explain."
Since science's goal, as far as I understand it, is to explain how the universe works, I'd argue that it stands to reason that science could never explain anything that is logically outside of the universe.Remember that the definition of 'Universe' keeps changing. What was once thought to be the whole of creation turned out to be one continent. The definition had to be extended again to include the whole solar system. Then all the other solar systems were added. Only about 80 years ago it was noticed that our 'universe' was just one of many 'island universes' - the others had been mistaken for stars and the term Galaxy became applied to the Milky Way.
There are already some hypothetical means for detecting the existence of other universes and just because something looks impossible now does not mean that human ingenuity, probably with computer assistance, will not one day overcome it.
Only 200 years ago it was thought impossible to ever know what the sun was made of, how old the earth was or to explain the diversity of life.
There is absolutely no need to invoke the magic of quantum physics to explain either consciousness or free will. The philosopher Dan Dennett explains why in his books at some length. They may be involved since that has not yet been completely ruled out but its unlikely and certainly not in the least necessary.
And as for God, well science explained that long ago. Its just that the religious don't much like the answer!
- 8 May 2009 at 10:46
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
Martin said...
It is all in the detail and definition: if scientism (I am almost sure it is a made up ugly word) is the belief that scientific methods are the best way to find out about the world, universe and eerything, then OK, what other methods are there?
Like democracy and capitalism there are no attractive alternatives on offer. Other methods have been tried and found wanting. Like the other members of the 'Holy Trinity' of Liberalism science adapts and evolves - it is not restricted to the Popperian definitions. String Theory, like most theoretical physics, is still science whatever Karl Popper said.
- 8 May 2009 at 10:50
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
Martin said...
I suppose there could be some transitory amusement in watching Phillips and Bunting squabble over some figment of the imagination. With the 'prize' of being officially recognised as the least professional and most fact-resistant journalist going to the 'winner'!
- 8 May 2009 at 11:02
"Scientism" may be ugly, but it's not a made up word. The second definition in the OED is "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences". The first use cited is from "Back to Methuselah" (1921). The first definition, "The habit and mode of expression of a man of science", dates back to 1877.
- 8 May 2009 at 13:28
I'm quite happy to be a creationist.
I consider myself to be a logical and questioning person and while i think that adaptation occurs ('micro-evolution'?), nothing i have ever read regarding evolution convinces me that the myriad of highly complex and often inter-related forms of life just 'happened' by chance.
2 things evolution has never provided me with satisfactory explanations for are:
The odds against the random events purported to have triggered evolutionary processes are huge, never mind the ongoing development of hugely complex life forms. Such odds in any other arena would consider the event impossible, but not in this one apparently.
For me, it doesn't address the question of information. DNA contains all the information (or blue print) that creates life. Where did this information come from, or is this just as random as well?
To me, evolution requires more faith than creationism.
- 8 May 2009 at 13:56
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
Well Anonymous you really need to read some good biology books. Nobody in their right minds should give a damn what you in your ignorance think because millions of very clever, hard working diligent people who do nothing else have been over the whole thing and rigorously checked and tested every tiny detail. If they're all happy, which they are, then that really ought to be good enough for you.
If you insist on getting your misinformation from nutty Troofer Blogs then you'll never learn anything of value. Evolution is a system, like a chemical reaction, the flow of a river, the weather or the dissipation of heat. Given the starting conditions it is deterministic and inevitable but since it is a complex system it is computationally impossible to predict because it is so sensitive.
Creationism requires only ignorance, prejudice and resistance to reason. I don't have the stubbornness and energy to hide from reality like you.
- 8 May 2009 at 14:35
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
Mark Etherton said...
"Scientism" may be ugly, but it's not a made up word. The second definition in the OED is "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences". The first use cited is from "Back to Methuselah" (1921). The first definition, "The habit and mode of expression of a man of science", dates back to 1877.
Under the second definition I am happy to be an exemplar of "scientism". Its pretty much universally recognised that philosophy will never produce any advances in understanding consciousness or free will, explaining morality and ethics, sexuality and so on. Science by contrast has already made great strides so even if it doesn't get all the answers nobody can deny that its been a great success so far. Give it a few thousand more years and who knows how far it might go?
Outside of the backwaters of academia - the arts departments - its fairly rare for people to regard science as a low-brow or un-intellectual pursuit. There is an inverted snobbery visible amongst most journalists, the Guardian is not alone in this failing, in being proud of their scientific ignorance because it was too hard for them at school or uni. but most people are rightly impressed by science and probably revere the intellects of scientists too highly. Its mostly long hours of boring hard work and within the capability of most people who are sufficiently interested.
- 8 May 2009 at 14:43
- valdemar squelch said...
Anon, the 'problems' with evolution you mention are so rudimentary that scientists have addressed them on many occasions in good books that you haven't read. Shame on you for being smug, ignorant and lazy.
- 8 May 2009 at 14:58
Valdemar, thanks for your opinions on my personal characteristics. I was going to respond in like until i remembered that i didn't actually know anything about you and therefore had little to base those opinions on.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on your assertion that scientists have addressed the rudimentary questions. In your opinion they have, whereas in my opinion they haven't.
- 8 May 2009 at 15:54
- WoollyMindedLiberal said...
Anonymous said...
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on your assertion that scientists have addressed the rudimentary questions. In your opinion they have, whereas in my opinion they haven't.
And it is quite clear that your opinion is utterly worthless.
Valdemar is quite correct that your posts here have been tediously smug, ignorant and lazy. What are you doing here when CiF is your natural home and positively welcomes such brain dead comments?
- 8 May 2009 at 16:23
WML:"Remember that the definition of 'Universe' keeps changing. What was once thought to be the whole of creation turned out to be one continent. The definition had to be extended again to include the whole solar system. Then all the other solar systems were added. Only about 80 years ago it was noticed that our 'universe' was just one of many 'island universes' - the others had been mistaken for stars and the term Galaxy became applied to the Milky Way."
I was actually going to put "universe/megaverse" as I'm aware there may be anything up to an infinite number of others. It makes no difference to the argument that a creation must by definition have taken place outside those mega-multiverses.
I've also read many of Dennett's papers, which are enjoyable and not without merit. But I've also read many of Chalmers' and books by Penrose, Rosenblum, Kuttner and co, distinguished scientists and philosophers all... and their arguments are not without merit too.
That's my point - the jury is out. Any materialist/physicalist who's position is so entrenched that they claim that quantum mechanics is definitely not in violation of that view, or consciousness is definitely just a neural correlate or emergent property of the physical, is just as bad as a creationist that believes that God definitely did it.
Flip sides of the same old coin.
- 8 May 2009 at 18:13
- valdemar squelch said...
In case any genuinely reasonable people are in doubt about the evidence for evolution (which has nothing to do with life's origins, as H has already pointed out) can check out a good general introduction here:
Don't be fooled by creationists. Their agenda is no more scientific than Al-Qaeda's.
- 8 May 2009 at 21:45
Just returning to the original subject, it's not difficult to see why believers jump on the concept of the Anthropic Principle to defend their claims. It's a fact that within our current understanding, it would +appear+ that the universe is incredibly finely tuned in just such a way that allows the possibility for life to exist (adjust the seemingly arbitrary laws of physics one way or another and suddenly the universe doesn't exist long enough, or matter cannot form etc).
However, using the Anthropic Principle as a proof of +anything+ is flawed in just the same ways as I have described earlier.
For starters there are alternative explanations that fit within the boundaries of current thinking, ranging from the multiverse ideas that WML mentions to the extreme end of the Consciousness argument that would have the entire universe and it's corresponding history as some kind of collective solipsism created by ourselves.
Perhaps the most important thing that negates both those who claim AP as "science that supports God" and those that claim that science as a whole supports materialism is the fact that science is so incomplete and/or broken in it's current form.
The whole reason that AP was brought to the fore by the likes of Stephen Weinberg was to try to address the massive problems that makes the two foundations of modern science - gravity and quantum mechanics - so horribly and fatally incompatible. That's what string theory and the search for a "theory of everything" is about after all is it not? And after 50 or so years we're really no closer.
Bottom line. Anyone who thinks the big questions are even close to be decided one way or another is not only ridiculously arrogant, but also ridiculously wrong.
- 9 May 2009 at 03:36
The anthropic principle has got to be daft, it is only in a universe where life exists that anyone could think these things. When the sample size is one, you cannot make any extrapolations of probability or improbability.
It is a sort of Dr Pangloss argument.
- 9 May 2009 at 10:48
That would be anyone's first thought, it was certainly mine.
Being I'm feeling lazy I'll just quote you on this. AP theories have... "been dismissed as truisms or tautologies, that is, statements true solely by virtue of their verbal form and not because they conform to reality. As such, they are criticized as an elaborate way of saying "if things were different, they would be different," which is a valid argument, but does not prove any alternatives. The anthropic principles implicitly posit that our ability to ponder cosmology at all is contingent on one or more fundamental physical constants having numerical values falling within quite a narrow range, and this is not a tautology; nor is postulating a multiverse. Moreover, working out the consequences of a change in the fundamental constants for the existence of our species is far from trivial, and, as we have seen, can lead to quite unexpected constraints on physical theory. This reasoning does, however, demonstrate that carbon-based life is impossible under these transposed fundamental parameters."
It's the plugging-in of seemingly arbitrary numbers into the initial conditions of the big bang that is odd (but certainly doesn't have to be explained by ID (of the universe) in my opinion, although it is a possibility for sure.)
Again, these things are +all+ still a matter of debate and disagreement, AMONGST SCIENTISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS. If they can't agree themselves, what does a layman like you or I claiming to "know" the answer sound like? Stupid right?
- 9 May 2009 at 14:46
- David Gerard said...
Sorry, the argument "I don't understand science so I don't see how anyone else could therefore creationism has something to it" is somehow less than convincing.
- 9 May 2009 at 15:35
I'm not sure if you're referring to my own view, but since that's not my argument I certainly agree with you.
Now suppose that the big bang event is random in nature.
Given that we know that there are fundamental constants in physics that appear to be arbitrary (in that they are seemingly not derived from a deeper mathematical property of the universe), one would expect them to be random.
We also know that changing any of the observed constants by even a fraction would give rise to a universe in which conditions for life to have evolved would have not been possible. (For example, changing the fine structure constant or the cosmological constant by a tiny fraction one way would mean that matter couldn't form and there would just be a big soup, or changing another the opposite way would mean that the universe would have collapsed after a short time)
Being then that there are billions of initial combinations that would +not+ give rise to a universe stable enough for life to evolve, and only a tiny number of combinations that fit with the universe as we actually see, that would suggest one of the following:
a) the values of the constants were not random
b) the universe has come into being many times over until this one appeared in which we are here to discuss it
c) the universe is one of a multiverse that exist simultaneously (cf Leonard Susskind's Landscape and other such ideas)
d) the constants ARE the result of a deeper mathematics/understanding, but we can't see it yet
e) other explanations I haven't seen
f) other explanations no-one has thought of
AGAIN, the point is that we don't know as there are no conclusive facts either way, and AGAIN it's like many people bend so far backwards to deny non-material possibilities that all their otherwise evident rationality seems to leave them!
But then, I understand that. Most IDers, creationists, and the religious base their beliefs on something imaginary called "faith". It's frustrating.
- 9 May 2009 at 16:16
Assumptions, assumptions....
"Given that we know that there are fundamental constants in physics that appear to be arbitrary ...., one would expect them to be random." No such expectation is justified, furthermore, there is no justification in assuming that any necessity that "life" has to closely resemble "life" as we know it.
We can look for the basic requirements for natural selection and these would be reproduction, with a possibility of variation (inheritable mutations), that these variations can be themselves reproduced in succeeding generations and that there is a need for limited resources.
Whilst a different absolute value for the charge on electrons etc might well rule out life as we know it, there would be nothing to rule out a different evolutionary process, based on whatever Chemistry that would result
In any case 'layman' or not, there is no escape from the fact that the anthropic principle attempts to make an extrapolation based on a sample size of one.
- 9 May 2009 at 20:19
You misunderstand the consequences of changing the value of the constants. It would not just result in a universe where humans did not evolve, it would result in a universe where fundamental things would not have happened - for example - matter would not have coalesced and therefore galaxies and stars would not have formed, or where before there was time for such formation to get underway, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself in a big crunch.
"Anthropic" is actually a bit of a misnomer, it has nothing to do with the evolutions of humanity in a direct sense, it is much more universal and important than that.
It also has nothing to do with sample size. A good analogy is to imagine throwing a load of ingredients randomly into an oven, and opening the oven to find that - by sheer chance - a perfect cake was in there. It's not impossible, but one would only find it unsurprising if either you'd done the same thing a zillion times and NOT got a cake, or if someone had actually put the ingredients together on purpose.
Again, that's no proof of God - there are plenty of other explanations. But 1) you can see why the ID brigade can misuse the principle as "evidence", and 2) to posit other explanations, one has to be open to ideas that are way beyond current classical physics....
Which shouldn't be a big deal for anyone with a bit of historical perspective. But it's surprising how entrenched "now" type opinions can be.
- 10 May 2009 at 11:20
For the record I did not mention humans and certainly did not equate humans with life.
My gripe is the loose use of the idea of 'random' when there is no idea of the range of other possibilities (if any). I certainly could not subscribe to your analogy.
I suppose I do find it difficult to shake off the assumption that there are underlying relationships that can account for the constants.
- 10 May 2009 at 14:28
Apologies, yes, I should have said life, but the point as I said is not just that biology wouldn't have developed, but more that even chemistry couldn't have done so, because the underlying physics wouldn't have allowed it.
The "other possibilities" are simply amending the value of fundamental physical constants, especially the coupling constants:
As the bottom of the article says, string theory attempts to resolve the arbitrary nature of these by allowing for variations in them. If you read the likes of "The Cosmic Landscape" by Leonard Susskind, he explains how part of the whole reasoning behind string theory is to try to address what he calls "the mother of all physics problems", that being the bizarreness of the Anthropic Principle.
As you can see from teh full title of the book, "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design", such thinking is needed to counter wacky ID ideas.
I have no idea if string theory is the answer, but my personal opinion is that yes, new science will explain AP.
It's unfortunate that some scientists, and most laypeople, just try to stick their heads in the by claiming AP is tautology, which it is not.
- 10 May 2009 at 15:04
Matt: thanks for the links. Even very fine alterations to the coupling constants, the electron charge in particular would produce radically different chemistry even if g values were compatible with star formation, but I am still doubtful of the point unless other values can be shown to be possible for coupling constants.
- 10 May 2009 at 17:25
Yes, other values are mathematically consistent. The universe +could+ exist with them (or perhaps other universes +do+ exist with them) but the evolution of those universes would be very different, and in almost all cases not conducive to the eventual formation of life.
String theory works with these different possible universes:
As the bottom section says:
"Although few dispute the idea that string theory appears to have an unimaginably large number of metastable vacua, the existence, meaning and scientific relevance of the anthropic landscape remain highly controversial. Prominent proponents of the idea include Andrei Linde, Sir Martin Rees and especially Leonard Susskind who advocate it as a solution to the cosmological constant problem. Opponents, such as David Gross, suggest that the idea is inherently unscientific, unfalsifiable or premature."
These things are debated in science, as they should be. What they certainly +shouldn't+ be is dismissed out of hand, which is what anti-ID materialists have a tendency to do in their (understandable) eagerness to denounce IDers when they misuse the ideas as "evidence" of their claims.
- 10 May 2009 at 18:24

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Results 1 to 4 of 4
Thread: Hep Vaccine
7th August 2014 04:23 PM #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 14
Hep Vaccine
Is it true that once your bub receives the Hepatitis vaccination, they will always test positive? This really concerns me. I don't like the idea of putting disease into a perfectly healthy child.
9th August 2014 06:18 AM #2
Hi mamajohnson,
Are you thinking about the Hep A or Hep B vaccine?
Either way your child would not actually have the disease so a blood test would only show their immunity levels to the disease not that they actually had the disease.
Warm wishes,
11th August 2014 08:18 AM #3
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Posts
- 14
Sorry I wasn't clear, hep b. I will find the book you recommended. Thank you.
12th August 2014 04:59 AM #4
You may find this information about the hep B vaccine helpful.
Note that the hep B vaccine contains no live virus.


text:
Like vitamins and minerals, there are two types of fats that cannot be produced by your body and therefore must be eaten or supplemented. These "essential" fats are called omega-3 and omega-6 unsaturated fats. Omega-6 fat is plentiful in the foods we eat daily, but omega-3 fat is far more difficult to get, due to its limited availability in the food supply. The two richest sources of omega-3 fats are flax seed oil and fish oil. Omega-3 and 6 fats play many roles within the body, including the production of chemicals called prostaglandins. But it is the ratio of these two fats that plays a vital role in maintaining optimum health. Read on to find out why you don't need to go searching for omega-6 - it's omega-3 you need!
Omega-3 fats promote numerous health benefits to the body. Studies show consuming adequate omega-3 fats can enhance good cholesterol, keep blood thin to prevent clotting, decrease blood pressure, increase mood, enhance nerve function, improve healing, cushion joints, decrease inflammation, reduce cancer risk, and even help build muscle.
Many athletes take omega-3 fats so they can use fewer pain-relieving drugs and enjoy greater joint mobility. Due to their low fat lifestyle, bodybuilders need to take extra omega-3 fats to supply vital cell membrane fatty acids. Without adequate omega-3 fats you may actually limit your muscle growth. Omega-3 fats help build muscle faster by improving recovery and adaptation to exercise through healthy prostaglandin production and by supplying cellular fatty acids. By increasing your omega-3 fat intake and decreasing your non-essential fat consumption, you make it possible for your body to utilize more stored body fat for energy, getting you leaner faster.
Essential fats like omega-3 actually help improve mood by supporting proper nerve function, help suppress hunger by slowing digestion and stabilizing blood sugar levels, and help improve cellular function by providing vital cell membrane nutrients. Omega-3 fats are actually part of every human cell, from brain, to bone, to muscle.
Flax is a vegetable source of omega-3 fat, also known as ALA (alpha linolenic acid). Your body converts a portion of this omega-3 fat into two other health promoting fats, the first being EPA (Eicosapentoenoic Acid) and then to DHA (Docosahexaenoic Acid). These two fats are the "active" forms of the omega-3 fats in the body.
Flax oil, from crushed or pressed flax seed, has a slightly nutty taste and can easily be added to salad with balsamic vinegar, mixed in protein shakes, drizzled over toast or vegetables, mixed into tuna, or just taken by the tablespoon. Be careful not to heat or cook or bake with flax oil because it will smoke at very low temperature. Since it is an unsaturated fat, it can go rancid quickly too. Store your flax away from air and sunlight in order to keep it fresh. Refrigerate the flax oil after opening for maximum freshness. Softgels don't have to be refrigerated after opening since they are already sealed from the air. If you follow these guidelines, you can keep a bottle of flax oil fresh for 3-4 months and softgels even longer. Hopefully you're taking it daily, so it won't even last that long. Take at least a tablespoon of flax oil every day or about 12-15 1,000 mg flax oil softgels. This will provide you with an adequate amount of ALA for conversion to EPA and then DHA.
The idea is to get your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats to end up somewhere between 1:1 and 1:5 with 1:1 (or 50:50) being preferred. Diets rich in omega-6s reduce the conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA by 50%. Since omega-6 fats are relatively easy to consume in a normal diet, it's the omega-3 fats you want to focus your attention on.
Consume at least 5 to 10 grams of fat daily from omega-3 sources with at least one to two grams coming from EPA and DHA (fish oil). A tablespoon a day of flax oil is all you need. Or take 3 to 5 fish oil capsules a day. Better yet, take some of both. Those with a family history of heart disease should lean toward getting a higher percentage of their omega-3s from fish oil.
Menopausal women might consider adding in 3 grams of an evening primrose oil supplement.
By combining flax oil and fish oil supplements, you'll be sure to get your daily omega-3 needs. No matter how you decide to get your essential fats, the long-term rewards for your efforts will far exceed the cost and trouble you took to incorporate them into your diet.


text: Home Pictures I wonder how many NTSB reports contain the phrase "Hold my beer." I wonder how many NTSB reports contain the phrase "Hold my beer." via Reddit RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Pictures Work Stories from an Airline Mechanic Pictures A319 flyby at cruising altitude captured by a GoPro on a weather balloon Jokes So, we're privatizing Air Traffic Control now? Pictures 1950s Buenos Aires, where you pray for a delayed departure. Pictures Tower: Lunch is Served! Pilot: … Pictures Namesakes LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Current ye@r * Leave this field empty


text:
Coulter quoted Donna Brazile out of context; mocked her as "liberals' idea of a 'competent' black woman"
Research ››› ››› SIMON MALOY
Just last month, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter labeled Democrats as "racist" for questioning the credentials of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In her December 2 nationally syndicated column, titled "It's Dr. Rice, Not Dr. Dre," Coulter claimed that the "closest black woman to most of the liberals accusing Rice of being incompetent is the maid they periodically accuse of stealing from the liquor cabinet." Coulter then quoted former Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile out of context in an attempt to support her claim that "[i]t's extremely valuable for Democrats to be able to campaign in black neighborhoods while talking about the 'white boys' running the Republican Party." Coulter also described Brazile, in the context of Gore's failed presidential bid, as "liberals' idea of a 'competent' black woman."
Coulter wrote that when Brazile was running the Gore campaign, she said "she was not going to 'let the white boys win in this election.'" As The Washington Post reported on November 16, 1999, Brazile did say that she would not let the "white boys" win. But Brazile, the first black woman to serve as campaign manager for a major-party presidential campaign, made clear that she was speaking about the "white-boy attitude" toward black women in politics. She did not attribute this attitude to Republicans or any other political group.
The Post article provided the context for Brazile's quote that Coulter's column did not:
She [Brazile] is in that perilous and burdensome position of being a "first," and she both fights the symbolism and embraces the position. The last reason Gore chose her, she says, was her race and gender. But the reality is that in this world, the only time race and gender don't matter is . . . never.
"A black female in America is the most invisible object in the world," Brazile says. She will not let the "white boys" win. And that's not a description of "gender or race, it's an attitude. A white-boy attitude is 'I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind,'" Brazile says. "They don't see it or think about it. It's a culture." It is the sense of utter entitlement. And that she will not have.
Coulter, however, wrote the following in her December 2 column:
It's extremely valuable for Democrats to be able to campaign in black neighborhoods while talking about the "white boys" running the Republican Party. When she was managing Al Gore's 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile said she was not going to "let the white boys win in this election." (If I had a nickel for every time I've confused Al Gore, [Senator] Joe Lieberman, [Democratic National Committee Chairman] Terry McAuliffe, [CNN Crossfire co-hosts] Paul Begala and James Carville for the Jackson Five ...)
Continuing her false accusation of Democrats, Coulter wrote:
The closest black woman to most of the liberals accusing Rice of being incompetent is the maid they periodically accuse of stealing from the liquor cabinet.
Coulter ended her column with:
Sure enough, Brazile was instrumental in not letting a couple of white boys - named Al and Joe - win the election. I guess that's liberals' idea of a "competent" black woman.
- Posted In
- Diversity & Discrimination, Race & Ethnicity
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.


text:
- Kurse
High quality English language training for motivated adults
- Nützliche Informationen
Accommodation, services, travel and visas, living in London
- Über LSE
Organisation, news, careers and franchise information
Find your Market Manager
We have six Market Managers who look after partners and clients from different regions in the world. Each Market Manager has specialist knowledge of their regions and visits as frequently as possible. Please find your Market Manager below.


text:
Notice: Use of undefined constant DISCLAIMER - assumed 'DISCLAIMER' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 3
Notice: Use of undefined constant FAIR_USE - assumed 'FAIR_USE' in /home1/improba1/public_html/911truth/includes/fair_social.php on line 10
Sunday, December 2 2012 - Resources and Materials
The 9/11 Toronto Report Now Available
by James Gourley
It is with great excitement that I announce the release of the Final Report of the Toronto Hearings, which is titled The 9/11 Toronto Report. It is now available for purchase on Amazon.com, for a reduced introductory price of $12.76. I encourage you to review the content of the book using Amazon's "Look Inside" feature, and if you like the book, leave a positive five-star review. The book has already received a one-star review from someone who has not read the book, and we need to counteract these kinds of reviews.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.


text:
Committed to innovation since five decades
1. Pidilite controls and operates this web site from India and makes no representation that the materials are appropriate or will be available for use in other locations. If you use this web site from outside the India, it would also be subject to the additional condition that you are entirely responsible for compliance with all applicable local laws applicable to you, along with the provisions of the exchange control laws applicable in India.
2. Pidilite may have several websites offering products, services, content and various other functionalities (collectively the "Services") to specific regions worldwide. The Services offered in one region may differ from those in other regions due to availability, local or regional laws, shipment and other considerations. Pidilite does not make any warranty or representation that a user in one region may obtain the Services from the Pidilite site in another region and Pidilite may cancel a user's order or redirect a user to the site for that user's region if a user attempts to order Services offered on a site in another region.
3. Information that Pidilite publishes on the World Wide Web may contain references or cross references to Pidilite products, programs and services that are not announced or available in your country. Such references do not imply that Pidilite intends to announce such products, programs or services in your country. Consult your local Pidilite business contact for information regarding the products, programs and services that may be available to you.
1. In your use of the web site, you may enter into correspondence with, purchase goods and/or services from, or participate in promotions of advertisers or members or sponsors or sites linked from the web site. Any such correspondence, advertisement, purchase or promotion, including the delivery of and the payment for goods and/or services, and any other term, condition, warranty or representation associated with such correspondence, purchase or promotion, is solely between you and the applicable third party. You agree that Pidilite has no liability, obligation or responsibility for any such correspondence, purchase or promotion between you and any such third party.
2. This website may be linked to other websites on the World Wide Web that are not under the control of or maintained by Pidilite. Such links do not indicate any responsibility or endorsement on our part for the external website concerned, its contents or the links displayed on it. These links are provided only as a convenience, in order to help you find relevant websites, services and/or products that may be of interest to you, quickly and easily. It is your responsibility to decide whether any services and/or products available through any of these websites are suitable for your purposes. Pidilite is not responsible for the owners or operators of these websites or for any goods or services they supply or for the content of their websites and does not give or enter into any conditions, warranties or other terms or representations in relation to any of these or accept any liability in relation to any of these (including any liability arising out of any claim that the content of any external web site to which this web site includes a link infringes the intellectual property rights of any third party).
1. None of the material contained in this Site may be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any form or by any means including, but not limited to, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of Pidilite Industries Limited. All copyright and other intellectual property rights in this material is owned by Pidilite or have been licensed for use to Pidilite by the owners of the rights.
Copy (whether by printing off onto paper, storing on disk, downloading or in any other way), distribute (including distributing copies), download, display, perform, reproduce, distribute, modify, edit, alter, enhance, broadcast or tamper with in any way or otherwise use any material contained in the web site. These restrictions apply in relation to all or part of the material on the web site;
Copy and distribute this information on any other server, or modify or re-use text or graphics on this system or another system. No reproduction of any part of the web site may be sold or distributed for commercial gain nor shall it be modified or incorporated in any other work, publication or web site, whether in hard copy or electronic format, including postings to any other web site.
Remove any copyright, trade mark or other intellectual property notices contained in the original material from any material copied or printed off from the web site; or link to this web site, without our express written consent.
The trademarks, service marks and logos (Trademarks) used and displayed on this Site are registered or unregistered Trademarks of Pidilite Industries Limited. Nothing on this Site shall be construed as granting, by implication, estoppels or otherwise any license or right to use any Trademark displayed on the Site without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner. Pidilite Industries Limited prohibits use of any Pidilite Industries Limited logo and Trademark even while creating links on any sites, unless the establishment of such link is approved in advance by Pidilite in writing.
Careers privacy statement
Pidilite Industries Limited shall take all reasonable steps to safeguard personal information provided by you while applying for a job in Pidilite via the Careers section of this web site While making online applications for job vacancies in Pidilite, you should provide complete and correct information to the best of the your knowledge. Providing false information will lead to rejection of your application.
By applying for a job in Pidilite via the Careers section of this website, you authorise Pidilite and/or its authorised agents to undertake a background investigation including, but not limited to, a criminal background check, a job reference check, and verification of any information you have provided, and you authorise all corporations, companies, educational institutions, persons, law enforcement agencies, criminal and Civil courts, and former employers to release information they may have about you.
Disclaimer of Liability
Under no circumstances, including but not limited to negligence, Pidilite or its directors or employees shall have any liability of any nature whatsoever, in respect of personal information provided by you on this website.
You are ?*
Company / Organisation
Address / City / Country
Enter the Code Shown Below
Regent Chambers, 7th Floor
Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 208, Nariman Point
Mumbai - 400021
Maharashtra. INDIA
Phone: +91 22 2282 2708
Fax: +91 22 2204 3969
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
"Paritosh", 4thFloor,
Near Darpan Academy,
Usmanpura, Ahmedabad - 380018.
Phone: +91 790 30014700
Fax: +91 790 27550927
H.V.S. Apartments,
Edward Road,
Bengaluru- 560052.
Phone: +91 80 3056 3000 / 3056 3001
Fax: +91 80 22281579
Plot No. 72,
Industrial Area, Phase II,
Phone: +91 172 2642845
Fax: +91 172 2642846
Tel: 0172-4246002 / 4246010 / 4246013 / 4246017 / 4246018
6TH Floor Vikas Deep,
Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
Vikas Marg, Delhi - 110092.
Phone: +91 11 45529000
Fax: +91 11 22422916
Regent Chambers, 7th Floor
Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 208, Nariman Point
Mumbai - 400021
Maharashtra. INDIA
Phone: +91 22 2282 2708
Fax: +91 22 2204 3969
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Plot No. 23/24,
Sahu Layout, Khadgaon Road,
Wadi, Nagpur - 440023.
Phone: +91 7104 221094
Fax: +91 7104 221081
Get alerts on the latest updates to www.pidilite.net : sign up for RSS newsfeeds.
What are RSS feeds?
RSS feeds provide real-time information on the latest website updates. An RSS feed is a stream of free website content. It includes article headings, summaries and links to the full text for you to read online. It gives you access to online content as soon as it is published.
www.pidilite.net RSS newsfeeds : You can sign up for different newsfeeds on pidilite.net
RSS Company News :
RSS Financial News :
1. To participate in the contest, user needs to buy new Steelgrip 7 mtr insulation tape and give a missed call on 08744972020.
2. There will be call back through IVR and pre-recorded message will be played.
3. To be eligible to participate in the program, the consumer has to listen to the complete message played through IVR and answer two random questions asked to the participant by pressing dial key as per options given through recorded message.
4. Everyday randomiser will select 10 persons who answer all the questions correctly.
5. Winners will be declared on next day and call centre executive will get in touch for ascertaining details of the winners for despatching the gift. Gifts will be disbursed on confirmation of address.
6. Only one gift will be allowed per registered mobile number.
7. Terms and conditions applied. Visit www.pidilite.com for terms and conditions.
1. This offer is valid till 31st July 2016
2. This offer is valid only on purchase of new Steelgrip 7 metre SKU roll
3. Offer valid in India states except Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Telangana & Karnataka
4. To be eligible to participate in the program, the consumer has to listen to the complete message played through IVR and answer two random questions asked to the participant. For further details please see the details under the heading 'Process for participation' (visit www.pidilite.com for 'process for participation')
5. The answers given by the customer will be judged by a panel of judges of Pidilite Industries Limited (Company)
6. Company's decision in selection of winners shall be final
7. Only one gift will be allowed per registered mobile number
8. This offer cannot be clubbed with any other offer
9. Gifts cannot be redeemed for cash
10. All gifts are non-transferable and non-refundable.
11. The Company will not accept any responsibility for claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses or liability of any kind whatsoever arising from or in connection with the gifts offered
12. Under any circumstances, SKU/s once sold with this offer will not be taken back.
13. Recipients of the gifts shall ensure compliance of procedural requirements as may be stipulated by the Company
14. Gifts will be disbursed on confirmation of address. A verification call would be made to the consumer
15. The Company reserves the right to modify, cancel, extend, or discontinue the Offer or any part thereof without giving any reason or prior notice
16. By accepting this offer it is deemed that the user has read, understood and accepted all the terms and condition of the offer including those mentioned herein
17. The decision of the Company is final & binding
18. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts at Mumbai applicable


text:
The Relay for Life Team is sponoring a Spring Basket Raffle on Wednesday, March 6 through Wednesday, March 27. The baskets will be on display in the Victoria College Bookstore. Ticket may be purchased at the Bookstore, Student Activities Office, in the Allied Health Building, Room 100, or from any Relay for Life team member.
Raffle tickets are $1 each or 6 tickets for $5.
The raffle of baskets will take place at the Spring Carnival and Easter Egg Hunt at 6:00 p.m.
For more information, contact Elaine Hensley (361) 572-6440 or firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Drake to release songs before new year
Listen to Drake on iheartRadio
Drake is planning to roll out new music by the end of the year.
In an interview with Vibe.com, the rapper reveals that he has four or five records ready to hit the airwaves. Among them is the highly anticipated Hit Boy-produced track "Trophies," which has been teased during his "Would You Like a Tour?" dates.
Drizzy adds that the remix to "Wu-Tang Forever" featuring a number of Wu-Tang Clan rappers may also be among his upcoming releases. Apparently, whether "Wu-Tang Forever" makes the cut depends on his producer Noah "40" Shebib, who he says "has all the verses."
While Drake didn't reveal exactly when the tracks will arrive, he did say that he plans to release them via his website, OctobersVeryOwn.com.
Photo Credit Getty Images


text:
Washington : Government Printing Office
|Chap. 264
|Flathead Reservation. Cutting of timber.
Page 505
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second proviso of the Act entitled "An Act for the relief of certain members of the Flathead Nation of Indians, and for other purposes", approved February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 452), is amended by striking out "when the merchantable timber has been cut from any lands allotted hereunder" and substituting in lieu thereof "when the first cutting of merchantable timber from any lands allotted hereunder has been completed".
The right heretofore reserved to the United States in any of the patents for allotments issued under the provisions of said Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 452), to cut and market timber for the benefit of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation shall be limited to the cutting of so much of the merchantable timber on such allotments as may be cut during the first cutting operations on such allotments, and when such cutting operations have been completed, the title to the residual timber on such allotments shall thereupon pass to the respective allottees or their heirs or devisees.
Approved, June 16, 1950.


text: OverviewBack to top Nature's Plus - Herbal Actives Red Yeast Rice Extended Release 600 mg. - 60 Vegetarian Tablets Item# :48520UPC# :097467073616 Brand:Nature's Plus Size/Form:60 Vegetarian Tablets Ship Weight:0.44 Servings:60 Dosage:1 Tablet(S) Nature's Plus Herbal Actives Red Yeast Rice Extended Release 600 mg. - 60 Vegetarian Tablets Nature's Plus Herbal Actives Red Yeast Rice Extended Release extract is a uniformly standardized supplement. Each Nature's Plus Herbal Actives Red Yeast Rice tablet is a revolutionary extended-release system that provides rapid and sustained results. Providing the greatest concentration of active botanical principles, Nature's Plus Herbal Actives Red Yeast Rice maximizes the synergistic benefits of the whole extract. Nature's Plus Herbal Actives Red Yeast Rice 600 mg Extended Release Mini-Tabs are the latest addition to the Herbal Actives red yeast rice family, delivering sustained benefits in convenient, easy-to-swallow mini-tabs! Red Yeast RiceParts Used and Where GrownThis substance, native to China, is a fermentation by-product of cooked non-glutinous rice on which red yeast has been grown. The dried, powdered red yeast rice is used medicinally. Historical or Traditional UseSince 800 A.D., red yeast rice has been employed by the Chinese as both a food and a medicinal agent. Its therapeutic benefits as both a promoter of blood circulation and a digestive stimulant were first noted in the traditional Chinese pharmacopoeia, Ben Cao Gang Mu-Dan Shi Bu Yi, during the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). Practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine use red yeast rice to treat abdominal pain due to stagnant blood and dysentery, as well as external and internal trauma. In addition to its therapeutic applications, red yeast rice has been used for centuries as a flavor enhancer, a food preservative, and a base for a Taiwanese alcoholic rice-wine beverage. Active ConstituentsIn addition to rice starch, protein, fiber, sterols, and fatty acids, red yeast rice contains numerous active constituents, including monacolin K, dihydromonacolin, and monacolin I to VI. Researchers have determined that one of the ingredients in red yeast rice, called monacolin K, inhibits the production of cholesterol by stopping the action of a key enzyme in the liver (e.g., HMG-CoA reductase) that is responsible for manufacturing cholesterol. The drug lovastatin (Mevacor) acts in a similar fashion to this red yeast rice ingredient. However, the amount per volume of monacolin K in red yeast rice is small (0.2% per 5 mg) when compared to the 20–40 mg of lovastatin available as a prescription drug. This has prompted researchers to suggest that red yeast rice may have other ingredients, such as sterols, that might also contribute to lowering cholesterol. Along with its evaluation in animal trials, red yeast rice has been clinically investigated as a therapy for reducing cholesterol in two human trials. In one trial, both men and women taking 1.2 grams (approximately 13.5 mg total monacolins) of a concentrated red yeast rice extract per day for two months had significant decreases in serum cholesterol levels. In addition, people taking red yeast rice had a significant increase in HDL ("good") cholesterol and a decrease in LDL ("bad") cholesterol. Elevated triglycerides were also found to be lowered. A double-blind trial at the UCLA School of Medicine determined that red yeast rice in the amount of 2.4 grams per day (approximately 10 mg total monacolins) in capsules significantly decreased total- and LDL-cholesterol levels in a sample of people with elevated cholesterol after 12 weeks of therapy. Triglycerides were also reduced in those taking red yeast rice. However, unlike the original study, HDL values did not increase substantially. How Much is Usually Taken?The red yeast rice used in various studies was a proprietary product called Cholestin™, which contains ten different monacolins. The amount of Cholestin used in these studies was 1.2–2.4 grams (5–10 mg of monacolins) per day in divided amounts for 8-12 weeks. Note: Cholestin has been banned in the United States, as a result of a lawsuit alleging patent infringement. Other red yeast rice products currently on the market differ from Cholestin in their chemical makeup. None contain the full complement of ten monacolin compounds that are present in Cholestin, and some contain a potentially toxic fermentation product called citrinin. Despite these concerns, other red yeast rice products are being widely used and anecdotal reports suggest that they have a similar safety and efficacy profile as that of Cholestin. Are there any side effects or interactions?The Cholestin brand of red yeast rice has been generally well tolerated with possible temporary mild side effects such as heartburn, gas, and dizziness. This product should not be used by people with liver disorders and its safety during pregnancy has not been established. As in the case of medications that inhibit HMG-CoA, it is advisable that people using red yeast rice products also supplement 30–60 mg of coenzyme Q10 daily. There is one case report of muscle weakness and joint pain occurring in a man who was taking red yeast rice. Because the man was also taking several prescription drugs, it was not clear whether the symptoms were caused by red yeast rice. In another case report, a woman developed severe muscle pain with laboratory evidence of muscle damage while taking red yeast rice. In that case, red yeast rice appeared to be the cause of the muscle damage. These reports should be taken seriously, because muscle problems are common side effects of prescription HMG CoA-reductase inhibitors. There is one case report of hepatitis developing in a woman taking red yeast rice. She was also taking two medications that have been reported to cause hepatitis, so a cause-effect relationship with red yeast rice was not proven. However, since statin drugs have been reported to cause hepatitis, it is possible that this complication can also result from taking red yeast rice. Are there any drug interactions?Certain medicines may interact with red yeast rice. Herbal Actives from Nature's PlusThe Nature's Plus Herbal Actives line of herbal supplements and vitamins are the most complete line of powerful standardized herbal formulas ever developed! Many ancient civilizations used health-promoting native plants, botanicals and trees, but more than any other, Chinese and Ayurvedic health traditions have continued from generation to generation. Herbal Actives draws on this rich tradition of natural health-promoting botanicals to create standardized top-quality herbal supplements and vitamins, enhanced and empowered with the latest herbal research and technology. Millions of consumers around the world rely on Herbal Actives to support their goals for health and well-being. The extensive line of Herbal Actives herbal supplements and vitamins consists of the most sought-after herbal products on the market, including: Echinacea, goldenseal, St. John's Wort, ginkgo biloba, Korean ginseng, pomegranate, valerian, red yeast rice, super fruits, green tea, milk thistle...plus over 100 of the finest herbal supplements and vitamins! The Nature's Plus standards of excellence in quality manufacturing practices guarantees products that exceed industry standards for potency, purity, quality and bioavailability. How Nature's Plus Creates the Highest Quality Herbal Supplements and Vitamins Standardized, Superior-Quality Herbal Ingredients - The effectiveness of Herbal Actives supplements and vitamins starts with using the highest quality, purest herbal extracts and active ingredients. With standardization, every Herbal Actives herbal formula not only provides the highest concentration of active botanical principles, but also maintains the herb's complete profile of balanced constituents, to maximize the synergistic benefits in every serving. You'll find this consistency in every herbal supplement and vitamin produced by Nature's Plus . Backed by an Independent Laboratory Assay - Nature's Plus is proud to regularly submit a random sample of all Herbal Actives vitamins and supplements to an independent laboratory for objective proof of quality. This is our mark of excellence and your objective guarantee of quality. Innovators of Herbal Supplements and Vitamins - For over 40 years, Nature's Plus has been a pioneer in the supplement industry. As the first full line of standardized herbs, Herbal Actives ingredients work together synergistically in a perfect balance for maximum support of your health and well-being. HerbaShield Packaging - Nature's Plus exclusive purity and safety system provides each product with a light-resistant bottle, airtight inner seal, moisture-absorbing packet, tamper-evident safety cap and tamper-proof full bottle seal. Guaranteed Maximum Potency - Each Herbal Actives formula is scientifically standardized to the highest level of active principles. Look for the Guaranteed Maximum Potency logo as your guarantee of consistency and potency in all herbal supplements and vitamins from Nature's Plus.Strict GMP ComplianceThe Herbal Actives line is manufactured under strict GMP compliance. GMP refers to "Good Manufacturing Practice" regulations established by the US Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceutical drug companies. The Nature's Plus manufacturing facilities are so exceptional that the FDA gives other manufacturers a guided tour of our facilities to show a "model manufacturing facility." Take a closer look at Herbal Actives' rich variety of botanical and herbal vitamins and supplements from Nature's Plus , the industry's gold standard bearer for quality, innovation and reliability. Place your order online with confidence. Your satisfaction is guaranteed! About Nature's PlusNature's Plus has been considered the gold standard in Natural Vitamins and Nutritional Supplements for over 40 years.The BeginningIn the early 1970s, when Gerald Kessler founded Nature's Plus, he had a clear vision of the kind of products he wanted to produce. Carefully studying the natural vitamin market, he observed that consumers were seeking energy and an enhanced quality of life from their vitamins. He knew that only a supplement made with superior ingredients and the highest standards of manufacturing could result in exceptional products with the energy-releasing results consumers demanded.Over 1,200 Natural Vitamins and Nutritional Supplements LaterThey continue to fine-tune their products and raise the bar for quality and performance in their industry. Today Nature's Plus products are unsurpassed in their ability to release natural energy and provide the ultimate feeling of well-being. That's why they call them the "Energy Supplements."The Nature's Plus Quality CommitmentNature's Plus has worked hard to earn the loyalty of millions of satisfied consumers and health food retailers worldwide with our emphasis on high quality at every stage - from manufacturing to on-time delivery to retailers: Selection of the highest quality safe and natural ingredients Over 1,200 natural vitamins and nutritional supplements to meet a wide variety of needs Customized nutritional products for men, women and children that deliver maximum results State-of-the-art manufacturing facility. Their facilities, which are FDA registered and NSF certified, maintain continuous adherence to cGMP compliance and superior standards through consistent review by their Quality teams. Ongoing research and development continues to bring you and your family the most effective vitamins and supplements based on solid, scientific findings Innovative vitamins and supplements enhanced with special combinations of ingredients for maximum health and energy benefits 100% Consumer Satisfaction Guarantee. Nature's Plus is committed to supplying superior quality natural vitamins and nutritional supplements that meet the high-energy demands of their customers without shortcuts or compromise.


text:
Finding flights from the Dominican Republic couldn't be easier with Skyscanner, who have hundreds of airlines and thousands and of destinations around the world to search. Better still, if your dates from the Dominican Republic are flexible, then Skyscanner will show you the best priced dates to fly from the Dominican Republic.
Skyscanner is fast, free and easy to use and will compare cheap flights from the Dominican Republic to thousands of destinations around the world. Flights from the Dominican Republic can be booked directly by clicking though to agency and airline sites.
Try using Skyscanner Hotels to find a great deal on hotels and make your next trip perfect wherever you are going.
Once you have discovered your ideal flight from the Dominican Republic, try bookmarking Skyscanner.net and book your next great big adventure.
© Skyscanner Ltd 2002-2017


text:
Can i haz it nao?
Some of the members and friends of Northern California Sheltie rescue got together for a Sheltie Romp on the 4th of July. These are just some of the 39 four-legged attendees… The little tri-color right in the middle is 14 year old Sunny – rescued from a 'backyard breeder' at the age of five.


text:
Author: Ee Venn Soh
Malaysian-born Ee Venn Soh loves to see technology from a design and psychological perspective and vice versa. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the self-taught and currently New Zealand-based professional digital artist and illustrator also boasts a formal education in Computer Science.
Currently working as a developer and designer in a leading agency, he's "obsessively passionate" in his work. You can catch him at work under his creative identity of EIII.
In this tutorial, Malaysian design maven Ee Venn Soh shows you how to recreate this vibrant illustration that puts a modern spin on the classic pin-up style.
See also: 86 Best Photoshop tutorials
You'll discover how to make the most of Photoshop CS5's latest features, such as the Refine Mask, Puppet Warp and Repoussé tools.
You'll also learn how to sharpen your composition skills to create the perfect, detailed photomontage.
After following the steps here, you'll gain a valuable insight into the importance of creating balanced arrangements and paying more attention to detail; spending crucial time on those little finishing touches
to a piece using simple filters is often the difference between good artwork and great artwork.
Most of the images you'll need to create this can be found on our project files. The anchor shot can be freely downloaded from stock.xchng here.
Time to complete
7-8 hours
Adobe Photoshop CS5 or later
Project Files
Next Step »


text:
Changes related to "Care sunt structurile de control in Haskell ?"
From HaskellWiki
This is a list of changes made recently to pages linked from a specified page (or to members of a specified category). Pages on your watchlist are bold.
No changes on linked pages during the given period.


text:
Reviewed By Brian W (Manhattan, KS) Reviewed for a 1971 Chevy Camaro —9/12/2009 9:14 AM
This is a great product, I have added JBA headers, K&N cold air intake, duel exhaust, better plugs and wires, and now the superchip. My 2003 Chevy Silverado Z71 is alive, just wish that to adjust the trans shifting had more literature on better adjustments. Anyway all and all AWESOME!! Thanks


text:
Arizona Lucky and the Savoy Pizza ReviewFriday, August 31st, 2007
Weather: Sunny and 78°F (25°C)… Can it get any better?
Road Conditions: Congested, as always, since the bridge collapse.
Arizona Lucky meets Frogwing… Joy ensues.
We were supposed to get together last Sunday…
Arizona Lucky, and his Lady Luck, had come up to visit relatives and friends for the Minnesota State Fair and other local attractions. But they got so busy with these things that we finally had to reschedule for Thursday night. That meant fighting late rush-hour traffic, around dinner time, but it all worked out just fine in the end.
Both Minnesota natives, they now live in the great state of Arizona, where you can ride year-round, if you can stand the 100°F + temperatures.
Arizona Lucky writes the blog linked in my sidebar called, strangely enough, "The Great Motorcycle Pizza Tour ". This man is a connoisseur of crusts, a sage of sauces, and a Titan of toppings (Alliteration is such an ugly thing, when it gets out of control…).
I wanted to test his expertise on the best pizza within my stomping grounds, but I didn't really have a clear favorite. My family and I kind of like a place called Carbone's, which is close to home, but more often than not, we end up with a Take-n-Bake from Papa Murphy's ™.
So last night found Amy, Emily, and I at the corner of Seventh Street and Lafayette near downtown Saint Paul. Savoy's Pizza resides there, and they are the oft-recognized champions of the local pizza scene. Ask anyone, from Hastings to Hinckley, where the best pizza is, and they will likely tell you Savoy's.
The crowd inside certainly confirmed this, when we arrived shortly after six pm.
Don't click on this image unless you want to drool on your keyboard.
But I won't presume to go in-depth on a pizza critique when I know that the maestro himself is going to hold forth on his own site at a later date.
Let me just tell you that everyone at the table was really satisfied, and you can see for yourself that the pizza was packed with quality toppings. If I had to voice any complaint, it would be that there wasn't enough sauce. Savoy is supposed to have a sublime, spicy sauce on their pizza, but I could barely detect it under the mass of toppings on their house Special pizza.
Next time, I'll order a side of sauce for dipping.
So, that was all we saw of Arizona Lucky and Lady Luck. They will be flying back south soon, away from our unpredictable weather. Arizona might have cooled down a bit since they've been gone.
Let's hope so, for their sake.


text:
sorry guilty as charged.
Printable View
sorry guilty as charged.
get off my wave burn out
I like getting toasted and cruising on some waves. By far favorite thing to do when my train of thought is altered brotha!
this **** again? c'mon stoners
****ing hippies
Good luck with that...
lol@ reefer addicts.
listen to these closed minds. Study after study finds that it's ****ing wonderful stuff, yet opposition comes from... where? Why? Just because uncle sam say's so? I better not see any J-walking or speeding out there from our model citizens. How many of you people bash mary jane but turn around and abuse alcohol? It's hypicritical, and becoming stereotypical. Open your minds and stop fighting progress. When the (trillion dollar) war on drugs is over, this will be a beautiful place!
Doesn't it cause brain damage?
Smoking drugs makes you smash eggs.


text:
What's Shibboleth?
Shibboleth is a standards based, open source software package for web single sign-on across or within organizational boundaries. It allows sites to make informed authorization decisions for individual access of protected online resources in a privacy-preserving manner.
The Shibboleth software implements widely used federated identity standards, principally the OASIS Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML), to provide a federated single sign-on and attribute exchange framework. A user authenticates with his or her organizational credentials, and the organization (or identity provider) passes the minimal identity information necessary to the service provider to enable an authorization decision. Shibboleth also provides extended privacy functionality allowing a user and their home site to control the attributes released to each application.
The Shibboleth project began as an Internet2 Middleware activity in 2000, and later that year the project connected with the work of the OASIS SAML Working Group. Shibboleth 1.0 was released in 2003, and was quickly adopted by research and education communities worldwide. With SAML 2.0 in 2005 and Shibboleth 2.0 the following year, the SAML standards grew to include all the multi-lateral, metadata driven approaches pioneered by Shibboleth.Shibboleth is developed as open source software and is released under the Apache Software License. More information about the individual components is available on the Products page.
Shibboleth® is a registered trademark of Internet2®.


text:
It's a great idea but it doesn't seem to work for me. Either that or I still don't understand how to properly use it.
I can't wait for this tweak to work. I wanted a tweak like this for a while now. No need to have a passcode when sitting at home and we all know its a pain to turn it on and off through settings.
Only things i have on my lock screen are forecast and music control swipes.
Those that this doesn't work for: have you tried setting the timer to the "Require Passcode" field (in the "Passcode Lock" section of the "General" section) to "Immediately"? I initially had my iPhone 5 set to password protect after 1 minute of being locked, and it didn't password lock it when using the activator method to lock it (I assume that it would lock after 1 minute in this case), but after changing the delay interval to "Immediately", TapTapPass works exactly as it was intended.
Anyway, one thing I would like is to have the sleep button trigger what this does (i.e. passwording locking it, like usual), while an activator-controlled locking method would cause no password protection. In other words, reversing the controls. This way, you won't forget and accidentally lock it the regular way while in public, only to be super unlucky and have it stolen at that time. But that's probably much harder to do, especially with how this is implemented.
TapTapPass is meant to give users the ability to control whether a passcode is needed or not to unlock the device when you lock it.
When you set it to "Immediately", locking the device the regular way would cause no need for a password, whereas locking it using an activator method assigned to TapTapPass would require a password (even if you were to immediately try to unlock it), thus the point of the tweak. If the delay timer is still set to something else, then even with TapTapPass, you'll still need to wait pass the delay amount after locking the device for it to password protect the device, which beats the purpose of this.
But I don't know if you, or anyone else having problems with this, are still having problems even after trying this. I'm just mentioning this for those that have their problems stemming from not having the delay set to "Immediately".
Yay! Works for me now after the new update.
Thanks for a cool tweak!


text:
These visual news innovators will be speaking at the September 19 "Reinventing TV News and Video" conference, sponsored by the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism…
- Home
The City University of New York's CUNY Graduate School of Journalism offers a top-notch, affordable education teaching traditional journalism values while preparing students to thrive in a rapidly changing media landscape.Learn More →
The course of study for the M.A. in Journalism degree is challenging and requires full-time attendance. Students complete 45 units of course work in three semesters, participate in a comprehensive summer internship, and produce a substantial final or capstone project.Learn More →
Our Program
Media Specialties
Our goal is to attract a diverse group of the highest caliber aspiring journalists to our Master of Arts in Journalism program, then to guide and support them every step of the way, from application through graduation and beyond.Learn More →
Why CUNY?
Learn More
Admitted Students
- Faculty
Career Services
Career Services
The Career Services Office will work with you from the beginning of your time here to the day of graduation -- and beyond. (We're available to help alums, too.) Among other things, we review resumes, weigh in on cover letters, brainstorm with you about internship and employment choices...Learn More →
Job Search Tips
- Research Center
Donating to CUNY J-School
The CUNY Graduate School of Journalism depends on privately raised funds for the scholarships and academic enhancements that will ensure its success as a top-flight graduate program. Learn More →
Learn More