text:
No doubt you can guess who are the most tired of all.
But first, courtesy of a recent column by Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, an update on the current economy's creepy underbelly. Underneath the myth of the "grateful workers" — the folk happy to have a job, any job — lie the legions of gratefully employed who are nonetheless overworked, possibly underpaid, and powerless to complain. Not only when they are asked to work harder, longer to pick up the slack left by all the empty desks — but when they face discriminatory practices, too.
And those paying the biggest price, Goodman suggests, are women, especially those with kids:
The most immediate effect is on families. The dirty little secret is that workers with families – make that moms – are still seen as "less productive.'' "Discrimination against mothers is still the strongest and most open form of discrimination,'' says Joan Williams at UC-Hastings College of the Law. "When employers have to cut, they turn to the underperformers who may be readily confused with mothers. People who see them targeted are afraid.''
It's not a coincidence that the number of pregnancy discrimination complaints went up by 12 percent in 2008. For that matter, the number of workers calling the Hastings WorkLife hotline with stories of being targeted for caregiving has doubled. We have even seen a decline in births in California and Florida, where the housing crisis hit hardest.
The talk of work-life balance has fallen as fast as a 401(k). There is still a stigma attached to flextime, and only half of workers get a single paid sick day. As Debra Ness of the National Partnership for Women and Families says, worried workers are "less likely to ask for benefits and less likely to use them if they have them.'' Indeed, if fear is more contagious than the swine flu, what's going to happen when workers choose between putting their health on the line or their jobs?
The irony is that, as we reported earlier, by October or November, women may represent the majority of the workforce — but not the payroll or, for that matter, the boardrooms (or anywhere close). And with that inequity and lack of parity come the sounds of silence: Complain? Who me?
Add to that the idea, that somehow, mothers are somewhat less-than when it comes to the workplace (newsmommy, anyone?), and you have the fodder for a darn good riff, if not a rant.
Recent polls by the Sloan Work and Family Research Network at Boston College are also pretty revealing. Here are just a couple of examples:
When asked: With the current downturn in the global economy, do you think that employers are more supportive or less supportive of flexible work arrangements? 70 percent answered less supportive.
When asked: Have you ever used the Family Medical Leave Act? The majority (36 percent) answered no. But what was most telling was this comment:
"I used the FMLA after the birth of my first child, I had income from short-term disability insurance, and it worked well. But for my second child, I wasn't eligible because I hadn't met the hours threshold, and for my third child, I wasn't eligible because my employer had too few employees to be covered. Like a lot of women, I took these ineligible jobs because they offered flexibility. So I've come to think of the FMLA as the 'Firstborn and Medical Leave Act' – because you're most likely to be covered at the point where you've been the ideal full-time worker BEFORE you've started your family."
Clearly, this all comes under the heading of women's work. Ever heard of business-daddies dealing with any kind of discrimination when their wives are pregnant? Or worrying about what taking time off to care for new babies or elderly parents will do to their careers? Or, for that matter, even considering the need for work-life balance or flextime? Yeah, didn't think so.
And yet and still, people wonder why career decisions are tougher for women. Sigh. We'll bring home the bacon. We'd even fry it up in the pan (If only it weren't so high in fat. But that's for another post.) It's just that many of us are too darn tired. "Why women" indeed. Insert rant here.


text:
At least you are making money and it could be worse. I noticed you passed up the family law attorney position and I was curious if lawyers who have been working for awhile think that is a wise move in general. Is it better to wait until something opens up in an area you would really like to work or is it better to just get some type of experience as an attorney? As an example if someone really wanted to be in real estate, but can't find anything would it be wise to work as a District Attorney and get unrelated litigation experience. Or would it better to wait until you found a real estate position?
For those of you in the Silver Spoon crowd who look down your noses on JAG (military service) as a fallback: "Oh my GOD!"Here are the approximate numbers:O-2 (beginning rank for those with only a J.D. and bar passage)/under 2 years serviceBase Pay: $43,300 (taxable)BAS/BAH allowances: $ 20,000 (approximate)PLUS cost of living adjustments up to 25%with tax advantage: $70,000/yearWhy THAT is terrible! Better to sit home and whine on the internet about being unemployed....watching the ticker on thatlaw school debt.FYI, when I retired (after starting as a dirty, uneducated ENLISTED man) my final compensation:Warrant Officer (CWO4) with 22 YRS service:Base Pay: $76,000BAS/BAH: $25,000with tax advantage: $109,000/yearNow I have to make due with making only $35K or so in annual retirement pay (which started at age 42).Oh yeah...forgot about that fully paid BA degree, along with fully paid 1L with $18,000 stipend.Life is UNBEARABLE!
You would have to be beyond retarded to go into the military as an E-4 with the level of education a law school grad has.
For those of you in the Silver Spoon crowd who look down your noses on JAG (military service) as a fallback: "Oh my GOD!"
I don't think going the officer route has as much to do with an "ego stroke" as it does with the fact that a 1st Lt. makes more in their first year than an E-4 makes after 30 years in service, and almost double what an E-4 makes in their first year. Big deal if they don't pay off as much of your debt, you'll make so much more money as an officer it won't be a problem to pay the difference. And if you join the military, I'm fairly certain you can get in on a federal loan forgiveness program. Not to mention the quality of life differences between officers and enlisted.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Red Sox batted around against John Maine in the first inning. After two quick outs, David Ortiz walked, Manny Ramirez homered to dead center, Trot Nixon singled, Jason Varitek walked, John Olerud singled in two runs, and Bill Mueller doubled in Olerud.
In the fifth, Nixon and Varitek doubled, Mueller hit a sac fly and after Miguel Tejada booted what should have been an inning-ending grounder, Johnny Damon belted a two-run home run. After Wells left the game in the seventh -- due to injury? -- the two Chads (Bradford and Harville) mopped up. (I would have liked to have seen Manny Delcarmen.)
He didn't score or knock in a run, but Edgar Renteria is stinging the ball. He lined out to third in the second, had a home run stolen by right fielder Jay Gibbons in the fourth, then missed another home run by about three inches -- the ball hit the top of the wall in right-center for a triple. He added a line single in the seventh.
In New York, the Yankees rallied against Toronto, scoring six runs in their final two innings to win 8-4. Mariano Rivera held off the Jays in the eighth (New York led 4-3), but after the Yankees scored four more runs, Joe Torre sent him back out for the ninth. Rivera threw 25 pitches while protecting that five-run lead, and 36 for the game.
Kansas City rallied to beat Cleveland 5-4, so here is where we stand:
Randy at Over The Monster has the final seven match-ups, as does MLB:
Boston 91 64 --
New York 91 64 --
Cleveland 92 64 --
Boston 91 64 .5
New York 91 64 .5
Can the Sox win three of four from the Jays and two of three from the Yankees?Red Sox Jays/MFY
0926 Schilling Bush
0927 Wakefield Chacin
0928 Arroyo Lilly
0929 Clement Downs
0930 Wells Wang
1001 Schilling Johnson
1002 Wakefield Mussina
The Red Sox -- 50-24 at home, tops in baseball -- are feeling what we're all feeling.
John Henry: "We've got to wait for the final scene of the final act. ... This year, the playoffs started two weeks early." ... Damon: "Every day, every night, every pitch, everything is the most important situation that could come up. It kind of feels like the World Series a little bit." ... Terry Francona: "It's kind of hard to explain the feeling."
Not really. We're pretty used to it by now. We'll be on the edge of our seats all week.
Also: Delta Air Lines' Song affiliate has named one of its Boeing 757s "Big Papi".


text:
The Auckland City Council follow their rules...
From todays article in Sunday News:
The following day, the piece was photographed and carefully removed.
Although the Cut Collective and gallery were delighted by the work,
spokeswoman for the Auckland Art Gallery Kate Orgias said
the council rules dictate that any street art must have consent.
Read the article in Sunday News or here


text:
From inside the book
26 pages matching metastases in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 26
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Page 1 Anatomy of the Genitourinary Tract
Surgical Exposure of the Genitourinary Tract
Clinical Examination of the Genitourinary Patient
57 other sections not shown
Common terms and phrases
abdominal abscess acute aetiology bilateral bladder neck bladder outlet bladder tumour calculi carcinoma catheter cavity cent of patients chronic renal failure Clinical Features condition congenital cyst cystoscopy demonstrate diagnosis dialysis dilatation disease distal diverticulum drainage ectopic epididymis examination excision external female fibrous fistula frequently genito-urinary genito-urinary tract haematuria hydro-ureter hydrocele hydronephrosis hypertrophy iliac incision incontinence indicated inguinal intravenous pyelogram Intravenous pyelography involved kidney lesion loin loop conduit lymph-nodes male malignant mega-ureter metastases micturition muscle nephrectomy neurogenic nodes normal obstruction occur operation Pathology pelvi-ureteric perineal peritoneal posterior present procedure produce prognosis prostate gland prostatectomy prostatic urethra pyelonephritis rectal renal artery renal function renal parenchyma renal pelvis renal vein rupture scrotal scrotum secondary sphincter stone formation suprapubic surgery surgical treatment suture symptoms testicular testis therapy tissue trauma tuberculous tumour ureter ureteric orifice ureteric reflux ureterocele urethral stricture urinary diversion urinary infection urinary tract urine urological urothelial tumours urothelium vagina wall whilst


text:
Al Sharpton said Sunday he won't rest until he gets justice for slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin one day after George Zimmerman was acquitted of manslaughter charges.
The civil rights activist told a TMZ photographer outside LaGuardia Airport in New York City that he was disappointed in Saturday's acquittal.
"We always had a plan B. We now go to the Justice Department seeking civil rights charges," he said. "We're not gonna stop until we get justice."
Earlier Sunday, in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sharpton said he disagreed with the verdict.
"We now have a position on the books, in the state of Florida, where an unarmed teenager who committed no crime can be killed and the killer can say self-defense," he said. "That is dangerous. That is an atrocity. And I think that must be addressed."


text:
|© 2007 MLB Advanced Media, L.P. All rights reserved.
Tribe lands Japan's Kobayashi11/20/2007 5:55 PM ET
By Anthony Castrovince / MLB.com
CLEVELAND -- It didn't take a $51 million posting fee for the Indians to land the right to speak with Masa Kobayashi, and Kobayashi doesn't have the same repertoire as one of his country's more famous big league imports. "I don't throw the gyroball," Kobayashi said with a smile Tuesday, through interpreter Kenta Yagi. But what the right-handed Kobayashi does have is a track record that wooed the Indians into signing him to a two-year Major League contract with a club option for 2010. Kobayashi is reportedly guaranteed $6 million over the two years, with a $3.25 million option for '10 or a $250,000 buyout. The Tribe's hope is the 33-year-old Kobayashi can bolster the back end of their bullpen and provide closing depth, should something go wrong with Joe Borowski. "If we're as good a team as we think we're going to be, there are going to be many opportunities to pitch in meaningful situations in the late innings," general manager Mark Shapiro said. "That's what we envision for him." And while Tuesday's transaction, officially unveiled at a press conference at Jacobs Field, might not make the headlines that Daisuke Matsuzaka's deal with the Red Sox did a year ago, the Indians view it as the first tangible benefit of their increased efforts to scout the Far East and a major item crossed off their offseason to-do list. The Indians had the fourth-best relief ERA in the American League last season, the league's saves leader in Borowski and two of its most dominant setup men in Rafael Betancourt and Rafael Perez. But knowing the fickle nature of big league bullpens, the team has sought to protect itself against injuries or ineffectiveness in the back end of the 'pen. Enter Kobayashi, who spent the last nine seasons with the Chiba Lotte Marines of the Japanese Pacific League and is one of the more accomplished closers in his country's history. He saved at least 20 games in each of the last seven seasons, and he tallied 227 saves and a 2.79 ERA for his career in Japan. Don't confuse him with Takeru Kobayashi. The Indians aren't signing this player to boost hot dog sales at The Jake. Kobayashi was an unrestricted free agent, so the Indians did not have to pay a posting fee to Chiba Lotte to negotiate with him. Nate Minchey, an international scout for the Tribe, saw Kobayashi pitch six or seven times this past season, and club scouting director John Mirabelli saw him live twice, as well. What they saw was a confident strike-thrower with a three-pitch mix that includes a fastball that maxes out in the mid-90s, a two-seam fastball that cuts in on right-handers and a mid-80s slider with a hard, downward break. Kobayashi also has a deceptive delivery that some have compared to that of the Red Sox's dominant left-handed setup man, Hideki Okajima.
"His slider is his out pitch," Mirabelli said. "He can throw it any time for strikes. His strength is he's very durable. He's resilient, he can go day-to-day, and he has experience. Put the sum of all those parts together, and you've got a pretty good pitcher." Still, in signing Kobayashi, the Indians, who are usually leery of granting multi-year contracts to relievers, are taking a risk that his stuff will play out in the States. "I'd give every player a one-year deal, if I had my choice," Shapiro said with a smile. "But the market is what the market is. We're talking about a guy who has a very consistent track record of closing ballgames. That consistency makes us comfortable with a two-year deal." Only two Japanese pitchers, other than Kobayashi, have had 200 or more saves in their careers -- Kazuhiro Sasaki and Shingo Takatsu, both of whom have pitched in the Majors. Kobayashi was a member of the Japanese Olympic team in 2005 and the Lotte team that won the Japan Series in 2005. But Kobayashi struggled a bit in 2007, losing a career-high seven games and putting up a 3.61 ERA in 49 appearances. He spent some time on the injured list toward the end of the year with what was labeled "neck irritation," but both Kobayashi and Mirabelli said that was a phantom injury used to send the pitcher down on the farm for a short time after his club had clinched a playoff berth and other pitchers needed innings. Kobayashi was back in the mix for the Japanese playoffs. "I feel healthy," said Kobayashi, who passed the Indians' physical examination Tuesday morning. Now, he has to feel up to the challenge of acclimating to life in a new country and a city he's almost completely unfamiliar with. "Beautiful lake," he said when asked about his knowledge of Cleveland, "and the city has the Indians." That's all he knows. The Indians know they'll hire a full-time translator to smooth Kobayashi's transition, and they expect him to mesh well with a roster already comprised of players from Venezuela, the Dominican Republic and Korea, as well as the U.S. "Baseball is rapidly becoming a multi-cultural game," Shapiro said. "With the kind of attitude our players have, they're going to embrace him and make him feel like part of the team." Kobayashi wasn't eligible for free agency until this year. Once he made the decision to head to the Majors, the Indians were among his most aggressive suitors. "The Indians showed the most interest in me," he said. "I knew the Indians were one of the best teams in Major League Baseball. I was so impressed that they had interest in me."
This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.
Indians Homepage | MLB.com


text:
The Formula 1 grid this year contains six world champions and a depth of talent that stands comparison with any era of the sport.
So at a time when the current field is blessed with so many great drivers, it seems appropriate to reflect on the great names of the past, and how the current top names compare.
BBC Sport will this year run down a list of 20 of the greatest drivers in F1 history, revealing one on the Tuesday before every grand prix, starting next week ahead of the season-opening race in Australia.
The list has been compiled by the BBC F1 team. Each member was asked to come up with their own personal list of the 20 greatest drivers since F1 started in 1950. The rankings provided were combined to produce a BBC F1 top 20, which we will count down through the season from 20 to one.
The BBC list does not pretend to be a definitive all-time top 20 - all such things are in any case subjective, given the difficulty of comparing drivers from different eras.
But what it does is highlight just what a golden age F1 is going through at the moment. Four of the 20 drivers on the list are racing in 2012. Two other current drivers only just missed out, being ranked in 22nd and 23rd places overall when the lists were combined.
That underlines why Ferrari's Fernando Alonso - inarguably one of the greatest drivers of this era - felt moved to say earlier this year that "the level of the championship [is] higher than ever".
The coming season is one to relish - both of itself and in the context of a sport with rich history. A history into which we hope to provide an interesting insight this year.
Number 01 - Ayrton Senna
Number 02 - Juan Manuel Fangio
Number 03 - Jim Clark
Number 04 - Michael Schumacher
Number 05 - Alain Prost
Number 06 - Sir Stirling Moss
Number 07 - Jackie Stewart
Number 08 - Sebastian Vettel
Number 09 - Niki Lauda
Number 10 - Fernando Alonso
Number 11 - Alberto Ascari
Number 12 - Gilles Villeneuve
Number 13 - Nigel Mansell
Number 14 - Mika Hakkinen
Number 15 - Lewis Hamilton
Number 16 - Nelson Piquet
Number 17 - Emerson Fittipaldi
Number 18 - Jack Brabham
Number 19 – Graham Hill
Number 20 – Jochen Rindt
Lets hope he can make up a few more positions by the end of the season.
Mod edit - over the course of this season, BBC are doing the a list of top 20 greatest drivers' of all time, compiled by them. Everyone in their team has been asked, with all of their top 20's being bundled into this list. By November, we shall know Number 1. Keep this thread for the top 20 list and discussion please.
Edited by D.M.N., 02 November 2012 - 18:57.
adding 8 and 9


text:
(incomplete - updates July2)
<< Abu Salim Hospital Massacre {Masterlist}
<< ASHM Research {Masterlist}
We know Abu Salim trauma hospital was opened for media scrutiny mid-day on August 26. At that time, it was painted with blood that sprayed and poured from executions by bullets and blades, and scatted with rotting corpses. These had been Black men and apparent loyalist fighters, so clearly Rebel fighters are the natural culprits. We turn now to what was reported or can be ascertained about what happened there in the days before that.
The Last Working Hospital?
One possible lead, with questions was published August 23. Hurriya alerts me of this Sky News broadcast by Alex Crawford, "apparently the abu saleem hospital."
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16054621 (original link-now directs to:) http://news.sky.com/story/875946/children-shot-amid-sniper-attack-in-libya
The hospital isn't named, but is said to be "in a particularly bad geographical position because it is very close to the Rixos hotel (where western journalists stay), and very close to the Gaddafi compound and Green Square." This fits quite well with Abu Salim trauma hospital, which we suspect was taken out of commission at about this time; it's near the Rixos and Bab Al-Aziziyah. Green Square is quite a ways from both of those, really.
The interior shots are not conclusive, but it seems much livelier - and lighter-skinned - than Abu Salim sounded at the same time. No outside shots are shared. I decided to make this graphic after Googling a few places. I think Tripoli Central Hospital is not the same as Tripoli Medical Center, for one thing. For another, there's another hospital (anyone get that name?) in a spot even more like what Crawford describes.
That would seem to be a place called "Green public hospital," reportedly used a lot for treating wounded Gaddafi soldiers. We've heard very little of the situation in this facility right next to the Rixos, but it was apparently the center of fighting, with reports that loyalist snipers were stationed there and that someone or other verifiably knocked at least one corner out of it with some powerful rocket. Clearly worthy of more study...(details forthcoming, or see comments)
It could also be the northernmost central hospital, only one kilometer south of Green Square, that Crawford visited. Whichever one, she called it "the capitol's only working hospital," which isn't likely true, but the pool was clearly diminished just then. If this is Abu Salim, and it was the last, that would leave zero hospitals running for a spell, and that's not the case.
Inside this hospital: mostly wounded rebel fighters being treated, rebel fighters running around inside, a three-year old dying of a stomach shot (by snipers) and we hear an 11-year-old dead, shot in the head by same snipers. A mortar round fired by someone hit a perimeter wall, while Crawford was there, to illustrate the plight. It was grim, but she was not taken to the hospital in Abu Salim.
The Red Cross Help Before the Storm
The last we heard verifiably from there was the day before that. On the 22nd, the Red Cross/Red Crescent delivered medical supplies to several hospitals, including our subject.
22-08-2011 News Release
"Today, our team started providing medical facilities, including the Abu Slim Trauma Centre, with some of the supplies they need in order to treat casualties. We are delivering enough medical supplies to treat at least 300 casualties. The consignments include surgical kits, dressing materials and intravenous fluids," announced George Comninos, the ICRC's head of delegation in Tripoli.
"In one of the hospitals we visited today, only one doctor was left to look after 25 patients, including 15 seriously wounded," added Comninos. "We are mobilizing a complete surgical team to support the medical staff and help hospitals cope with the situation."
The ICRC is maintaining regular contact with the main hospitals, so that the organization can evaluate their needs and respond accordingly. "So far, we only have limited access because of the fighting. However, we have managed to maintain dialogue with all parties ever since the beginning of the conflict, so we are able to operate despite the highly fluid front lines," explains Comninos. "It is still difficult to get a clear picture of the overall humanitarian situation. We continue to urge both sides to respect civilians and to let medical workers treat the wounded."The lines would soon get too "fluid" to maintain contact with that hospital. Another source confirms the situation described above was at the one hospital named. The Telegraph reported on Aug. 23 from Tripoli Central Hospital.
There are two other major hospitals in Tripoli – they were overflowing with casualties as well, and so were all the private hospitals." Yesterday the Red Cross said its teams had made contact with about six medical facilities in Tripoli. They have confirmed the main problem they is an acute manpower shortage. At the Abu Slim Trauma Centre a team found just [one] doctor looking after 25 patients including 15 very seriously injured.What a strange staff, about the same as the one we'd see doing the same thing on the 26th. No nurses at all, one presumes. Is this visit of the 22nd before or after the rebel takeover of management? That would have accompanied the massacre, presumably. Is it possible the foreigners were brought in but didn't see the dead people? Yes, with a tight-enough guided tour. They wouldn't really start smelling right away.
It's also possible the massacre happened after this, as the rebel occupiers wondered what to do with their "mercenary" captives. Or after they took over and killed the one remaining doctor after the restfled for whatever reason. (??) Maybe seeing outsiders trying to help the "criminals" inside infuriated them enough to go on safari that night.
There would be no further news for three days (or was there? - I'm not sure). It was pretty quiet if so.
Other Clues
Rebels speaking to the media on the 26th and 27th cite time spans of varying number of days (two to five?) since the victims passed away. I'll later cite examples.
The bodies and the maggots can tell the time, but not precisely as read by us, but ... bloating and discoloration suggests days have passed- maggots can hatch whithin 24 hours, but to be visibble size and of any grat number, at least two. Images start only on August 26. One photo ([AM1] as listed here) shows numrous but small maggots on this dead Black man's face as he's wheeled out. Other photos show maggots on the floor, crawling through the blood soup. Thus we're looking at an event most likely at least 2 days prior to this, as many as four days. Massacre date suggested: Aug. 22/23 most likely, 24 possible. Even the 21st is possible, but least likely for being so early in the invasion.
Last Silence before the News Storm
At the end of that three-day's silence after the ICRC visit, the New York Times' Kirkpatrick and Fahim filed a report on August 25 on the hospital situation. Reporting from Tripoli Central Hospital, they found "two doctors said the hospital had treated as many as 500 patients a day this week for gunshot wounds as the rebels..." had nothing to do with it, of course. "Snipers" they usually said. The fighting was described so:
"In their drive to take command of Tripoli, the rebels concentrated their forces on a block-by-block battle for the streets of the Abu Salim neighborhood, a center of Colonel Qaddafi's support. By late afternoon, the fighting had once again swamped Tripoli Central Hospital with wounded civilians and combatants."This piece makes no mention of the hospital(s) in Abu Salim knocked so brutally out of commission. It's as if it never existed - until the news the next day, when bodies mostly dead about 3 days were revealed. The loss of this hospital, plus the loss of any others that were "closed" by the fighting, surely increased the load and decreased survival rates at the overworked remaining major hospital(s). And that's just among those - mostly rebel fighters - the rebels would let be sent to any hospital. They kept their own captives, bandaged a bit or not, or killed them on the spot, usually.
As the rebel militias squeezed Abu Salim, it seems they meant to make it quite clear, as they later would with the city of Sirte, that there would be no medical escape possible from their wrath.
First Views Before that Silence:
On August 25, an MSF medical team rescued two patients in very critical condition from Abu Salim hospital, which was surrounded by intense fighting at the time, and transferred them to Tripoli Medical Center.Libya: MSF Scales Up Response in Tripoli Amid Shocking Scenes in Hospitals (Aug. 27)
There should have been a shocking scene there by that date, but no news cameras 'til the following day, late afternoon (I think - Al Jazeera English footage, from the 26th, first video? photos not analyzed to get chronology yet...). What did they see there?
"When we arrived at Abu Salim, we faced quite a shocking scene: dozens of dead bodies were lying in the hospital's compound," reports Jonathan Whittall, MSF emergency coordinator. "Abu Salim hospital had been completely cut off by the nearby fighting and 22 patients were stuck inside, together with five medical staff. We managed to evacuate the two most critical patients—who would have probably died otherwise. Later on, the remaining patients were transferred to safer facilities."Two early removals well before the news cameras - the rest were only taken out the next day.
MSF sent three tons of dressing materials and much needed surgical material, including external fixators, from Tunisia into Libya.What they really needed there was lots of lime powder and garbage bags. It seems they were supplied with enough.
It's interesting to note this visit was not reported on the same day, in a MSF dispatch from Aug. 25, but only after everyone else mentioned it first. Perhaps the visit was late in the day of the 25th and missed this deadline, but neither did they pipe up on the 26th,


text:
Opinion: There's little familiarity with these 1-10 Leos because there's little familiarity with the players, the coaches or front office
Ed Willes: B.C. football fans left wondering who the Lions are
During his team's recent bye week, B.C. Lions general manager Ed Hervey spoke with longtime CFL coach Mike Benevides.
Both men confirm the conversation took place. As for its substance, Hervey declined to comment and Benevides said a job on the Lions' staff wasn't discussed for this season.
As for next season, we invite you to use your imagination. Benevides was Hervey's defensive co-ordinator in Edmonton for two years. He was also the Lions' head coach for three years and a member of Wally Buono's staff for nine years before that.
He is, in short, a dyed-in-the-wool Lion, a man who is associated with this team and who is known to its fan base.
That also sets him apart from 90 per cent of the current team, and therein lies our story.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the Lions face any number of challenges as they try to restore consumer confidence in their brand. Their 1-10 record is principal among these challenges. A changing fan demographic is another.
But there's another issue confronting the Lions. For the vast majority of their fan base, there is little familiarity or connection with the team because there is little familiarity or connection with the players, the coaches or the front office.
This is also a problem for the CFL, which we'll get to in a moment, but if the Lions want to begin rebuilding their relationship with their fans, they should take a long, hard look at how they're constructed.
"This is one of the rare times I'll talk about my playing days," said Hervey, who spent seven years with the Edmonton Eskimos as a receiver. "We wanted to stay in one place and we signed long-term deals to stay in that one place. It was almost a pride thing.
"We joke about it now, but I don't think it's a joking matter when we say those days are over. You don't have those six, seven, eight guys you know are going to be around and who want to be around who form the core of your team. This has become somewhat of a journeyman league, which doesn't necessarily bode well for fan interest."
Which, unfortunately, describes the Lions' problem perfectly.
While the Lions' record stands out like a big, red zit in the middle of their forehead, they haven't done themselves any favours with the composition of their team.
Lions fans know Mike Reilly, the free-agent quarterback and former league MOP who signed a ground-breaking contract this off-season. They know Bryan Burnham, the talented receiver who's in his sixth season with the team. They might know defensive back T.J. Lee, another six-year vet who made the CFL All-Star team last season.
Beyond that, well, go ahead and name another Lion. Name another player you associate with this team or who's become a fixture in this market. Hell, name another player, period.
We're still waiting.
The league, as a whole, went down this road this off-season, but it's ripped a hole in the Lions that will take time to mend. Yes, long-time Leos like Solomon Elimimian and Manny Arceneaux were starting to show liver spots and Travis Lulay's body just couldn't take any more punishment.
But there were wholesale changes across the board that created a team that didn't need playbooks so much as they needed letters of introduction. There are 15 new starters on the Lions this season. There were also 53 first-year Lions at this year's training camp.
But it doesn't stop there. First-year head coach DeVone Claybrooks was given free rein to pick his own staff. This meant familiar faces like defensive co-ordinator Mark Washington, offensive line coach Dan Dorazio and special teams coach Jeff Reinebold were let go and replaced with younger, more inexperienced coaches.
The hiring of new offensive line coach Kelly Bates signalled a change in that direction and repatriating Benevides would reinforce that change. You can also expect more turnover this off-season. But while we're on the subject, Hervey was associated with the Eskimos as a player and administrator for 17 years and team president Rick LeLacheur was president of the Eskimos for nine years.
In the meantime, Lions stalwarts like Geroy Simon and Lulay are employed by the team but aren't especially visible.
B.C. Lions vs. Ottawa Redblacks
7 p.m., B.C. Place Stadium, TV: TSN; Radio: TSN 1040 AM
As for the players, the vast majority of this year's Lions signed one-year deals which means they're likely looking at more upheaval in 2020.
But this isn't just a problem in Vancouver. Owing to a new collective bargaining agreement and changing market forces, there were — wait for it — 322 free agents across the CFL at the conclusion of last season. These included four starting quarterbacks who changed teams in Reilly, Trevor Harris, Jonathon Jennings and Zach Collaros plus a fifth who stayed put in Bo Levi Mitchell.
It also included some of the league's best defensive players: Elimimian, Micah Johnson, Willie Jefferson and more receivers than we could possibly list here.
Hervey, who describes himself as "old-school" CFL, isn't a fan of this new world order, but it's a world in which he has to conduct his business. He'd like to identify those six, seven, eight players to form the core of the Lions; players who can build something here, players to whom the fans can relate.
But it will be difficult in the current environment.
"It's just a changing time and we have to adjust to that," Hervey said.
Or maybe it's the league that should adjust.
CLICK HERE to report a typo.
Is there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email email@example.com.


text:
Visit Chicago Joes:
Hours & Location:
Sun - Mon: Closed
Tues - Fri: 11AM - 10PM
Saturday: 5 PM - 10PM
820 S. 4th Street
Las Vegas NV 89101
See our
Events page for Events and Pictures!
Chicago Joes is the place for
you! Always ready to serve, with a huge
local following, come in and experience Chicago
Joes for your self! Like many locals you
may even enjoy a quick conversation with Joe himself!
Chicago Joes a wonderful Italian Las
Vegas restaurant. Offering the best in Las
Vegas dining with a down home atmosphere.
The big city service with the small town taste!
Chicago Joes Restaurant © 2013 | All Rights
This site was created by BMP
Technical Services


text:
"A literary confection of . . . gossamer deliciousness. . . . There is no end to the pleasure that may be extracted from [this book]."
—The New York Times Book Review
"Enchanting. . . . In the Company of Cheerful Ladies may be the most compelling of the lot." —Daily News
"Put on the teakettle, find your place in the sun and settle in for a genteel journey. . . . McCall Smith has brewed up a gem of a story as rich as . . . red bush tea."
—Rocky Mountain News
"Beguiling, lyrical. . . . Cheerful Ladies is blessed with . . . McCall Smith's richly detailed portraits of life in Africa and his flair for storytelling with an engaging cast of fully realized characters." —Los Angeles Times


text:
2009 Audi Q7 in Winnipeg, Manitoba, $17,922
General Information
- EngineV6
- TransmissionAutomatic
- Body StyleN/A
- DrivetrainAll wheel drive
- Doors4
- Exterior ColourSilver
- Interior ColourBlack
Stop by our dealership and discover our great offers at Autotown Pre-Owned Super Centre. Check out this amazing used Audi Q7 2009 near Winnipeg. Inspected and certified by our experienced technicians, the Silver model has logged 79471 km. You can buy this pre-owned Audi Q7 2009 at a great price of $17922. It's a N/A with 4 doors, Automatic transmission and All wheel drive. This Audi Q7 2009 is powered by a engine that runs on Unleaded fuel. If you'd like to learn more about this used Audi Q7 2009 for sale in Winnipeg, don't hesitate to contact us by phone at 204 668-2886 or on our web site at http://www.myautotown.ca/index.htm.
Make the most of your visit at Autotown Pre-Owned Super Centre and discover our entire lineup of new and used vehicles. Our expert sales consultants will provide clear and precise answers to all your questions. Don't miss the opportunity to test drive the vehicle you're interested in. We offer financing solutions for all budgets. At Autotown Pre-Owned Super Centre near Winnipeg you will find a vehicle that meets your needs at a great price. And remember that our after-sales service is impeccable.
If you demand the best deal for your money, then come down to Autotown Pre-Owned Super Centre at 810 Regent at Plessis. Winnipeg owned and operated since 1999, we are committed to getting you the best deal on used vehicles. We do careful market research in the Winnipeg and surrounding area to make sure our prices are always the most competitive you will find. We empower our customers with We Prove It Pricing, an independent, live and objective market evaluation. Not only will you see the prices for our vehicles, you can compare prices, colors and mileage in real time of other matching used vehicles for sale. If you find a better price let us know and we will be sure to give you the absolute best value. We also have one of the best reputations in Manitoba. Check out hundreds of online reviews and our 2016 Dealer Rater Customer Satisfaction Award at http://www.dealerrater.ca/dealer/Autotown-Pre-Owned-Super-Centre-review-32794/ We Service What We Sell. We Want Your Trades. Top Dollar Paid. We Offer Guaranteed Approvals, No Payments For 3 Months And No Money Down (OAC). For More Great Vehicles At Unbelievably Low Prices Visit Our Website, www.myautotown.ca! Or Call 204-668-2886 To Set Up A Test Drive. *Price does not include PST & GST* Dealer Permit #4308 * While every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, we are not responsible for any errors or omissions contained on these pages. Please verify any information in question with Autotown
CARFAX Canada is Canada's most trusted vehicle history report.
A CARFAX Canada report gives you full details about a vehicle's past when you buy or sell a used car.
Review Highlights
Model Information
1Minimum MSRP (2009) $54,200
2Average Price (used) $17,922
3Maximum MSRP (2009) $75,100
4Seller's Price (used) $17,922


text:
The Place to Be
A vibrant, healthy and safe community.
Values - P.R.I.D.E.
People: Our customer service priority
Our commitment to people will be demonstrated by:
- Using effective two-way communication through seeking input, active listening and respecting diversity and other points of view.
- Providing timely and reliable customer service by being proactive, courteous, friendly, helpful, open-minded and results oriented.
- Practicing leadership through our own actions, empowering employees, clarifying expectations, expecting accountability, providing growth opportunities and building leaders.
Respect: How we treat people
We will maintain a respectful working environment by:
- Acknowledging and supporting decisions and being part of the team.
- Being sincere and consistent in words and actions.
- Listening and being supportive of the needs of others.
- Being caring and understanding.
Integrity: How we carry out our responsibilities
We use integrity to get our work done by:
- Maintaining consistency between stated values and actions.
- Following through on commitments.
- Correcting errors and omissions in a timely manner.
- Practicing open, transparent and honest two-way communications.
Dynamics: How we strive for innovation
We will promote a dynamic workplace that values a freedom to explore which will foster creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation by:
- Being a customer-focused workforce.
- Being accepting of failure in trying new ideas.
- Celebrating successes.
Expectations: How we anticipate the future
We will create a business approach that anticipates the needs of the community by;
- Aiming to go beyond expectations.
- Having a lasting effect on creating and sustaining a progressive community.
- Respecting the need for ongoing change and new innovative solutions.
- Recognizing the need for lifelong learning, training and education.


text:
WASHINGTONVILLE, N.Y. — Authorities say a 62-year-old man has been charged after he drove his car into a police officer who had told him to move out of a line at a Hudson Valley gasoline station during the post-Sandy fuel shortage.
Police in the Orange County village of Washingtonville tell the Times Herald-Record of Middletown that 62-year-old Robert Rabinowitz was at the end of the line at convenience store on Sunday when the officer told him to drive around again because he was blocking the entrance to a neighboring gas station.
Police say Rabinowitz argued with the officer, then drove into him. The officer suffered injuries to his leg, back and head. He was treated at a hospital and released.
Charges against Rabinowitz include reckless endangerment and assault. Information on his lawyer wasn't available.


text:
- 2012 Long Island Indoor Championships -
Jamaica, N.Y. - The Farmingdale State men's and women's indoor track team competed in the Long Island Indoor Championship at St. Anthony's High School on Friday, January 20th, hosted by St. John's University. The men's team was highlighted by a new school record in the Weight Throw, while the women improved two ECAC qualifying marks.
Junior Edward Brown IV (Bay Shore, N.Y.) set a new school record with a toss of 57' 5", improving his old record of 17.44m - 57' 2.75" and winning the event by 1.10 meters. Brown is now listed with the 14th best mark in Division III. The Rams took the top 3 spots in the event, with 2nd place going to freshman Ieshawn Johnson (Queens, N.Y.) and 3rd place was junior Mike Jang (Lynbrook, N.Y.).
Sophomore Alix Lamarre (North Bellmore, N.Y.) took 2nd place in the Triple Jump with a 12.82 meter mark (42' 0.75"). He also took 3rd place in the Long Jump at 7.02 meters (23' 0.5"). His mark in the Long Jump is ranked 7th in the country among all Division III.
Freshman Frederick Harris (North Baldwin, N.Y.) jumped an ECAC qualifying 6.80 meters (22' 3.75") as the top rookie in the Long Jump with a 5th place finish. The Rams took the 3rd, 4th and 5th spots in the event out of 15. Lamarre in 3rd and junior Donnell Jones (Brooklyn, N.Y.) took 4th place.
On the All-Time lists, Jones moved to 6th place for the Long Jump. For the Weight Throw, Johnson moved to #3 All-Time and Jang moved to the #4 spot.
For the women, junior Victoria Mandat (West Babylon, N.Y.) improved her ECAC qualifying time at 9.33 in the 60 meter Hurdles. Mandat finished 3rd in the event. Freshman Druscilla Dickson (Copiague, N.Y.) improved her ECAC qualifying mark in the Triple Jump at 36' 9.5" (11.21m) and finished 2nd in the event.
The 4x400 meter Relay team of junior Marjorie Diemicke (North Massapequa, N.Y.), Dickson, freshman Akimmie Parker (Brooklyn, N.Y.) and junior Kathleen Clermont (Uniondale, N.Y.) moved to 6th All-Time with a fifth place finish in a time of 4:25.24.
Farmingdale State will compete next on February 3-4 at the New Balance Indoor Games at the New Balance Track and Field Center in New York, N.Y.


text:
Quick Explanation: From time to time, venerable properties already covered in this space will be remade again, prompting additional thoughts. This essay is hereby updated to cover Danny Boyle's filmed stage version.
First Commentary by Adam-Troy Castro
Frankenstein aka Edison's Frankenstein (1910). Directed by J. Searle Dawley. Written by J. Searle Dawley, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Augustus Phillips, Charles Ogle, Mary Fuller. 16 minutes. **.
Frankenstein (1931). Directed by James Whale. Written by Frances Edward Faragoh and Garrett Fort, from the play by Peggy Webling and novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, John Boles, Mae Clarke. 71 minutes. *** 1/2
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957). Directed by Terence Fisher. Written by Jimmy Sangster, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Hazel Court, Robert Urquhart. 83 minutes. ***
Frankenstein aka Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994). Directed by Kenneth Branagh. Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, John Cleese. 123 minutes. ** 1/2
National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011). Directed by Danny Boyle. Filmed Play by Nick Dear, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller. Approximately 2 hours. ****
Other Versions and Sequels: Too many to list, including a large number of sequels to both the 1931 and 1957 versions, TV-movies, breakfast serials, sitcoms like The Munsters and parodies like Young Frankenstein and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Even if you know better, the first image to leap into your mind is almost certainly the wrong one.
Somebody says "Frankenstein," and before you can remind yourself that Frankenstein was actually the name of the irresponsible (not necessarily "mad") scientist, you flash on the image of the creature first embodied on film by the actor who was, in the opening credits at least, listed only as "?": a hulking, flat-faced, walking corpse with bolts on his neck and a primal aversion to fire.
People persist in calling the guy with the clodhopping boots and dialogue that consists of a large number of variations on "Urrrrrrhhh!" Frankenstein, even after sequels like Son of Frankenstein (1939) took pains to include scenes that – showing a fair degree of irritation on the part of the screenwriters – explained the elemental difference to the audience one more time.
It's probably a losing battle. To the public at large, the monster stitched together from various scavenged corpses will always have a name that sounds Jewish.
In truth, though, the nigh-total colonization of our collective imaginations by the 1931 version of the story, even among those of us who have never seen it and only know the various ways in which its central image has been echoed and repeated all the way down to the present day, the makeup first worn on-screen by one Boris Karloff is no more definitive a portrait of Frankenstein's monster than any other. Mary Shelley, the remarkable teenager who first told the story, did not describe him in exhaustive detail. She simply wrote that he was about eight feet tall, horrific in appearance, and possessed a withered, translucent, yellowish skin that barely concealed his musculature and blood vessels. In the novel, as in several later versions, its unparalleled ugliness is what drove Frankenstein to suddenly come to his senses and flee in revulsion, leaving his creature to wander the earth alone, be treated with hatred and fear wherever it went, educate itself through a remarkably convenient encounters with books, and ultimately hate the man who brought it into existence only to abandon it; but having provided us with a modicum of description, Shelley then leaves the rest to the reader's imagination, trusting us to envision a horror more personal than any we ever could.
This is of course not an option for moviemakers, who may tease the monster but must ultimately show him to us, ultimately giving us the opportunity to grow used to his grotesque features and perhaps grow to love them. In 1931, when Boris Karloff first appeared on screen as the monster, first backing into the room and then turning around to reveal his horrid visage, some audience members passed out in fright. By the time this essayist grew up in the 1960s, the same makeup formed the face of bumbling, loveable Herman Munster, in a sitcom suitable for small children. The Karloff version and its sequel used the decreasing impact borne of familiarity to fine dramatic effect. Others took an entirely different tack. The differences are remarkable given that they all started with the same source material, which to date has never been interpreted with complete fidelity.
"Edison's Frankenstein" (1910)
The 1910 version was not, as some fanciful accounts would have it, "directed by Thomas Edison." It was produced at a studio owned by Thomas Edison, whose company briefly produced films to go along with its motion picture cameras and projectors. An actual Edison-directed Frankenstein would be an interesting artifact; perhaps it would consist of backdated blueprints the company could use in a patent grab. Full-length motion pictures still lay in the future, thanks to the new technology's status as toy and the widespread belief that nobody would ever sit still for any movie much more than ten minutes long, so the story is told in broad strokes, with acting that largely consists of outstretched hands and extreme pantomime, giving modern eyes the impression that nobody in these early films ever said anything unless they wanted to proclaim it to the heavens.
Thanks to the volatility and low life expectancy of silver nitrate film, as well as the blind belief by early dabblers in the form that the art was disposable and that any films that had completed their theatrical runs could be burned for their silver content, this nevertheless important artifact was considered lost for decades, before it turned up in the hands of a private collector. It still shows the ravages of time, unfortunately, but it can be followed with a little close attention. Here, for your pleasure, we imbed the entire epic.
Because the images no longer possess the clarity they once did, we also provide this still of Charles Ogle as the monster.
Looking back on this film a full century later, it is very possible to find grounds for laughter. The acting style is only part of it. For instance, Frankenstein's letter to his beloved is downright funny to modern eyes, especially his tight-assed signature, "Frankenstein." (Elizabeth must swoon.) But despite its crudeness, the film is clearly still capable of evoking chills and magic, even today. That scene of the monster's creation, a brilliant early special effect, was accomplished by burning a wax figure of the monster in a furnace and then showing the footage in reverse. As a result, it seems to congeal, the pieces coming together out of thin air (or someplace far more terrible), and joining a human form that is neither born nor stitched together, but somehow, terribly, summoned. And its pathetic death, an outright rejection of its plans to disrupt Frankenstein's wedding that attaches an additional level of the fantastic with its disappearance inside a full-length mirror, possesses a wan pathos that was only exceeded by the next, and still most famous version.
James Whale's Frankenstein (1931)
You've got to say one thing about the James Whale version: as infected as some of its key sequences have been by all the parodies and homages it has seen since, it still possesses a remarkable power, most notably in this key scene that was considered so horrific in 1931 that it was soon cut from all theatrical prints and was not permanently restored for decades.
The version this essayist always saw on WPIX, growing up, was also the only one that most people my age got to see for years: it ended with a remarkably clumsy cut, just as the monster (Boris Karloff) reached for poor little Maria, and cut away to happy Henry Frankenstein's wedding preparations. The rationale behind this was that the drowning of the little girl was far too horrific for any audiences to ever want to sit through. (Think of that in the age of Hostel, and marvel.) One effect of the cut is, of course, that the audience is then free to imagine a fate far more horrific than anything that was shown on-screen in the first place. You could even, if you choose, imagine violations greater than a mere tragic accident, at the hands of an overpowered infant who never meant the little girl any harm.
It is worth noting that by the time this scene takes place, Karloff's monster has already committed two murders: one of Frankenstein's hunchbacked assistant Fritz (played by Dwight Frye, who was deeply typecast in roles like this), and one of Frankenstein's old mentor Doctor Waldman (Edward Van Sloan). The careful exposition about the accidental use of an abnormal brain aside, both occur after the monster has been abused, imprisoned, chained, and terrified. He is an infant, trapped in a world he cannot understand, and lashing out because Frankenstein, the irresponsible fool, has never made sure that the sadistic Fritz can be trusted not to torment the seven-foot-tall powerhouse with lit torches. But now? Treated with warmth by somebody too innocent to know that she should be afraid, he is charmed; he is delighted; he shows that he is capable of responding to kindness. The drowning of the little girl is an accident no more malicious than a three-year-old spilling a glass of milk, and the censors who cut out the terrible moment in order to protect the audience's sensibilities also robbed those audiences of one of the greatest moments of Boris Karloff's career: the creature's bereft, despairing horror upon realizing what it has done.
Placing this scene after the two prior murders has the effect of also underlining the terrible thing Frankenstein has done. Everybody who watches the movie understands that the monster is a monster, but also knows that it has a soul, and that is soul is in pain, and that Frankenstein has done it a tremendous disservice by making every possible error he could, after successfully bringing it to life.
(Nor is this a narrative accident. James Whale's far superior sequel, Bride of Frankenstein, provides the same lesson by allowing the monster – again, after a murder or two – to encounter another innocent capable of treating him with kindness, this one an aged blind man who delights in the arrival of a vagabond who can benefit from his hospitality, and wisdom. In that movie, the monster is so moved by the first real warmth he's ever felt from a human being that he weeps. This is naturally ruined by the arrival of sighted relatives who can see what the new houseguest looks like, but again, the lesson is clear: the so-called monster is not unambiguously evil, but a powerful, untamed child who probably deserved much better from the life Frankenstein bequeathed him.)
As for the story itself, it's told with remarkable narrative economy. We open with Frankenstein already deeply involved in nasty business that includes the robbing of graves. Ten minutes in, we know that he's up to nefarious doings, and what that involves. Twenty minutes in, we know that he's virtually abandoned his fiance in order to pursue his madness, and we know that he's about to start to create life. Thirty minutes in – after a creation scene that has never been equaled, not in all the years that followed – the monster is alive. Having only seventy minutes to tell your story in has some advantages, in the same way that a short story provides advantages over a big fat novel: your story needs to eschew the fat. The climax begins, plays out, and is over in ten minutes, wonderfully effective and startling to those of us living in an age when the final battle between hero and villain involves a battle's worth of explosion and about ten or twenty reversals. (Which are rarely as effective as this film's brief moment of chilling eye contact between creature and creator, through the machinery of the old windmill.)
This is not the same thing as saying that oddities didn't arise as a result of some of the shortcuts.
For instance, there's Elizabeth, who's played by Mae Clark, the same actress who got mashed by James Cagney's grapefruit. Frankenstein allows her and Doctor Waldman into his lab, to witness the birth of his creation. This is in large part so Colin Clive's Frankenstein, overacting wildly to modern eyes, can provide them (and through them, us) with an explanation of what he has done. Okay; so she sees the monster's birth. The movie glosses over the point so deftly that it's possible not to notice, but we never do find out what she thinks of her beau's "accomplishment." Is she proud? Disgusted? Horrified? No; as far as we can see, she remains fixed on her number one priority, getting her guy out of that lab so the wedding can go ahead as scheduled. This is one focused bridezilla. Later on, Frankenstein discusses the monster's doings with other people who know that he's responsible – while four family servant girls, who always appear on screen together as if they're joined at the waist, stand within earshot hearing everything that gets said. That, doctor, is no way to safeguard a dire secret. The happy ending, with Frankenstein and Elizabeth enjoying a happy tete-a-tete while his proud father beams, is unlikely in the extreme, and becomes even more unlikely with the sequel.
Still, these are small nits. James Whale's Frankenstein is one witty and stylish piece of work, that is still deeply entertaining today, and deserves its central place in the pantheon of cinematic Frankensteins. It spawned an immediate sequel that is itself a classic and then a handful of others that, for the most part (the Abbott and Costello outing being the biggest exception) followed the law of diminishing returns. The main problem with those sequels is that, though they abandoned the original, human Frankenstein to follow the various further misadventures of the monster he created (as played in subsequent years by Lon Chaney Jr., Bela Lugosi, and Glenn Strange), it abandoned the early canny handling of that monster's mistreated soul, as well as the ability to speak he picks up in Bride, and reduces him to a mere lumbering brute, who can be trained to obediently kill on command but is never again the deeply betrayed figure he is in those first two outings. By the third film, Son Of Frankenstein, he is only a McGuffin.
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
Few actors have had as deep and as lasting an impact on fantastic film as Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, who entered the genre working for Hammer Films in the 1950s.
Cushing played Doctor Frankenstein in one long-running series of films and Professor Van Helsing in another; he was also Sherlock Holmes, an early Doctor Who and, in Star Wars, the coldhearted son of a bitch who orders the Death Star to blow up Princess Leia's home world.
If anything, Christopher Lee established an even more remarkable resume, playing Dracula, the Frankenstein Monster, Kharis the Mummy, Sherlock Holmes, Mycroft Holmes, the Devil, Death, James Bond's enemy The Man With the Golden Gun, Rasputin, Dr. Fu Manchu, the murderous swordsman Rochefort in the best Three Musketeers movies, Willy Wonka's father, the evil wizard Saruman from Peter Jackson's Lord Of the Rings movies, and Count Dooku from the lamentable Star Wars prequels. He also had a hilarious cameo in something called The Stupids. Trust me.
Both are on hand for The Curse of Frankenstein, which began Hammer's own long-running series of Frankenstein movies. It was a series that followed a fascinatingly different course from the Universal franchise; the monster lives and dies (and lives again and dies again) in this first film, but is no longer a factor in the handful of sequels. Instead of following the further misadventures of the monster as the Universal films did, these sequels all follow the further adventures of the Baron, who not only persists in his experiments after the first time they lead to disaster but each time persists in continuing to make the same elementary mistake, which is to say constantly leaving his creations unattended and thus constantly inviting the disaster that always ensues whenever one wanders off. You would think the guy capable of discerning the one common factor that led to all of his life's greatest fiascos, but you'd be wrong.
He's also a far different interpretation of the character than anything the movies have shown before. He's a bastard. He has no real feeling for any human being but himself, has no problem with committing murders to keep himself well-stocked in body parts, also has no problem with forcing his attentions on women, and – indeed – may be a sadist as well as sociopath. In this film, he murders an elderly savant just to gain access to his brain, and in another scene deliberately locks his pregnant mistress in a room with his murderous creation just because that's the easiest way of dealing with her threats of blackmail. Subsequent films have him committing crimes just as nasty. In short, it can be said that this series is not about the Frankenstein monster, but about the monster, Frankenstein. The remarkably slow-learning monster, Frankenstein.
The closest the series comes to an actual adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, this film takes the form of an extended confession as a haggard imprisoned Frankenstein (Cushing), who is awaiting the guillotine for an initially unspecified crime, tells a priest about his experiments and how they came to ruin. At the end, he goes off to his execution (for the murder of that luckless mistress), without any independent verification outside the flashback; it is very possible to interpret the entire story as the delusion of a common murderer rendered mad by guilt. I prefer to believe that the story is true, especially since it sets up the sequels, but your mileage may vary. Either way, the dramatic arc is the movie-length battle of wills between Frankenstein and his mentor and partner Paul Krempe (Robert Urquhart), who early on revolts in horror and spends the rest of the movie alternately calling Frankenstein mad and begging him to stop.
It's good stuff, as far as it goes. But one thing's for sure. If the story is indeed supposed to be objectively true, nobody in it acts the way a human being acts. Once he sees disaster coming, Krempe passionately begs Frankenstein's cousin and fiance Elizabeth (Hazel Court) to leave the house and never come back; he doesn't explain why, probably to avoid horrifying her, but after some initial anger at him for ever making such a impudent suggestion, she continues to show a level of warmth and affection toward him that seems downright odd coming from any betrothed woman who finds herself nagged about breaking it off by a guy who's supposed to be her beloved's best friend. Every woman I've ever met would take their guy aside and say, in confidence, "I want you to know that your best friend's a real creep." As for Krempe, who storms off in righteous disgust after the monster has already committed a murder, he later returns for the wedding party with a big smile on his face, and nothing but polite interest when his estranged friend Frankenstein tells him that there's something in the lab that he really ought to see. (And you thought this version's Frankenstein was a slow learner.)
Cushing's performance covers a magnitude of sins, even though he's easily a quarter of a century too old to be playing the driven young genius established by the young boy played by another actor who first hires the already-adult Krempe to be his teacher; by the time Cushing takes over the part, Frankenstein somehow seems to have not only caught up with Krempe in age, but leaped right past him to the point where he's by now by a couple of decades the older man. (The age issue isn't nearly as much a problem in the sequels, where it really doesn't matter that much how old Frankenstein is.) Alas, Christopher Lee is not nearly as good as Cushing, here, because, for the most part, he is not given a character to play. His monster has some moments where it is as put-upon as the Karloff version, but for the most part, he's a shuffling corpse, who kills reflexively, because he can. Encountering his own version of what is now a recurring theme, the blind man, he just up and kills the guy: not because he's threatened, not because he's angry, but because killing is what he does. He kills Frankenstein's mistress just as reflexively. There is no pathos to play; again, he's just a McGuffin. This is not fatal to the film, because it happens to be about the Baron, not the monster. But at a mere 83 minutes, the movie isn't so long that it couldn't have shoehorned in a few scenes where the monster demonstrated a soul of his own. Frankly, the character deserves it. (His one-sided malice is more forgivable if you buy the interpretation that the entire flashback with the monster is only a function of Frankenstein's delusions, but, even so: in any movie, the story you're watching is the story you're watching, even if it's only supposed to be a dream sequence.)
One minor point of interest: the film includes a moment where Peter Cushing peers through a magnifying glass, spectacularly enlarging his eye. He also does this a couple of times in his appearances as Sherlock Holmes. This is no doubt the source of the gag in the Zucker Brothers comedy Top Secret! where a much older Cushing also peers through a magnifying glass and lowers it to reveal that his right eye actually is that grotesquely enlarged. It's a film-buff joke as well as a funny sight gag. Just thought you ought to know.
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
Despite the existence of a TV-movie called Frankenstein: The True Story, which a surprisingly large number of people who haven't read the novel take at its word and defend as an accurate adaptation of the Shelley novel (apparently operating under the assumption that Shelley really did write about a Frankenstein monster who came out looking beautiful, and only gradually rotted in both mind and body), there has never really been a major filmed version that adapted her story with anything approaching fidelity.
This one doesn't, either. It comes damned close for most of its length, up to and including Elizabeth's murder at the monster's hands…at which point it departs radically from the text and throws in a twist that really should have worked better than it did.
Part of the problem is its extended length. In eighty-four years, the changing grammar of cinema has increased the acceptable length of a feature film from just over ten minutes to more than two hours; and that really is fine, but coupled with the film's mission statement of honoring Shelley, it does spend an awful lot of time on framing material, including the arctic expedition stuck in the ice and the discovery of a dying Dr. Frankenstein, who tells the Captain his story. After that it goes on to detail Frankenstein's childhood, the death of his mother in childbirth, his declaration of love for his foster sister Elizabeth, his entry into medical school, his interest in unorthodox medicine, his friendship with Henry Clerval, and so on. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this, but it does delay the actual creation of the monster for a long time, and Kenneth Branagh's direction takes what should have been Masterpiece Theatre material and treats it with palpably desperate energy, that includes swooping cameras and some of the most intrusive soundtrack music you have ever heard in your life. Had he let the material alone, it might have bored some members of the audience…but as it happens, the desperate over-the-top style alienated even more.
Things pick up a little bit with the creation of the monster. Branagh, who didn't just direct but also starred as Frankenstein, got a lot of flack at the time for running around with his shirt off – a touch that was largely regarded as narcissism – but one's got to admit; it does communicate the character's frenzy. Still, we then get to the problematic birth scene…which culminates in Frankenstein and his creation flopping around, for what seems forever, on a floor soaked with his experiment's shiny amniotic fluid. It's not scary. Some people regarded it as horrifying, and others thought it hilarious, but the audience I saw it with groaned throughout.
The monster is played by Robert De Niro, who was at one point one of the greatest actors alive (even if he now seems to have used up his entire bag of tricks); but though he's been rendered hideously scarred with canny makeup, the result is not that he looks like an unnatural monster, but like a hideously scarred Robert De Niro. Once he has his first actual conversation, with this movie's gentle blind man, the distancing effect of the monster makeup is completely spent; in subsequent scenes where is seen from a distance, it almost disappears completely. This, alas, extends to the actual universe of the film. The very first thing the monster does after it escapes from Frankenstein's workshop is run from a mob; and it's worth noting that the mob chases him, not because he killed anybody, or because they're horrified by his appearance, but because they think he's a sick man, spreading cholera. In short, this is a movie where the Frankenstein monster can pass as a run-of-the-mill ugly guy.
Further developments including the murder of Frankenstein's younger brother, the framing of Justine, the monster's confrontation with his creator and his offer to go away if Frankenstein builds him a mate, all play out as they do in the novel, and, for a time, the movie works at the level it needs to. (It's too bad the opening hour doesn't.)
That is all before we get to the part that is original to the film, the part that you may consider one of the worst scenes in any Frankenstein movie to date, or one of the best; Frankenstein finds his murdered bride and, for what may be the first time, does what Frankenstein would do, create a new monster using her as spare parts, in a doomed, mad and desperate attempt to get her to live again. Only, hideous as she now is, she might now be more suited for the monster than the doctor.
The scene that results is horrible, hilarious, awful and wonderful at the same time. It is not the Frankenstein of Mary Shelley, but the Frankenstein that might have been made by Stuart Gordon; and though some people will never talk to me again because I said this, I confess to adoring it. The problem is that it simply doesn't fit anything that came before. It belongs to a campier Frankenstein, a Frankenstein that Kenneth Branagh did not think he was making. If the entire film had been played at that level, he might have had something.
When we return to the icebound ship in the far north and Frankenstein concluding his confession only to die, and after that to the monster hollering, "He was my father!", it's all deadly anticlimax, there not to finish the story in any way the audience cares about, but to delay the closing credits. There's very real genius in the film, but unfortunately, the whole fails to work.
National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011)
This brings us to a splendid oddity stretching this blog's usual definition of "film" — a filmed play by Nick Dear, directed by Danny Boyle and shown in select theatres, internationally, for premium prices. It is very much a stagebound production, with every attribute that implies: i.e., stagecraft that includes gas jets, a turntable, and trap doors, allowing the introduction of sets and a range of locations that include everything from elegant drawing rooms to drafty old scottish castles. As Dr. Frankenstein and his unnamed monster we have two fine british actors, Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller, who on stage alternated the two roles, nightly — a splendid stunt that was duplicated by the two versions of the show available in cinemas, which also alternated showings. We saw the one with Cumberbatch as the monster and consider it the best version of the story ever filmed; we assume the Miller-as-monster version to be just as good, but can only swear to Cumberbatch.
One geeky aspect to the casting is that both Cumberbatch and Miller both play updated modern-day versions of Sherlock Holmes in TV series running concurrently (Cumberbatch in BBC's splendid SHERLOCK and Miller in American TV's ELEMENTARY, not yet premiered as of this writing). So there's that. There's because of this also a nice geeky triviagasm involving just how many actors known for playing the great detective have also been important to various versions of the Frankenstein tale: not just Basil Rathbone, who was one of the two or three most identifiable players ever to perform as Holmes but also a Doctor Frankenstein in one of the Universal sequels, but also Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Gene Wilder (who, admittedly, only played Holmes's smarter brother). Now we have Cumberbatch and Miller to add to that. Impressive.
Of the play, we report that it's even more faithful to the Mary Shelley novel than the Branagh take, with one marvelous bit of streamlining that actually adds to the telling, and one innovation not found in Shelley that accomplishes the same. The streamlining is the innovation of beginning the story at the moment when the monster, naked and infantile and pathetic, claws its way from the membrane of the artificial womb where he has been kept. The story provides us with a Frankenstein who at first appears only long enough to reject his creation and then disappears for most of the play's first half, while the creature staggers alone and afraid through a world that hates him on sight. This is actually kind of brilliant, because pretty much everybody knows who Dr. Frankenstein is, and the pre-creation part of the story often lies like a turd on screen; this way, we get to experience the plight of the forsaken creature, as he learns about the world around him, acquires an education, becomes articulate, and finally works his way back to his maker, seething for revenge. He is as far from the rather soulless creation played by Christopher Lee as one can imagine. As he says, he has a legitimate grievance.
We will note also that in structuring its adaptation in this manner, the play begins with a scene that Branagh's handles much the same way, but renders ludicrous: the monster's birth. Branagh's has the newly-born monster flopping around in goo, at considerable length, and it's dire; he doesn't accomplish anywhere near the level of horror and pathos he's going for, but instead accomplishes slapstick. This version goes on for even longer with the newborn creature twitching and writhing and attempting to stand and gradually achieving some spastic level of control over its body. We're talking long minutes, here. An eternity. It's a war that ends with the creature finally, at long last, achieving enough muscular coordination to stand up — and it hits where it's meant to hit. It's pathetic and horrifying and riveting, a brilliant bit of physical acting that pays off utterly. By the time this monster stands up, we know him; by the time he learns to speak, we love him; by the time he confronts Frankenstein, he's a murderer, but he's also unquestionably the figure who's been most cruelly wronged. Karloff's version gives us some of this, but not nearly as much as this one. It's devastating.
The innovation, a brilliant one, is that the play actually (and finally) has a purpose in mind for Elizabeth other than being threatened, killed, or turned into a monster herself, one that doesn't actually contradict Shelley. In the novel, Frankenstein bursts into the honeymoon chamber to discover that his love has been murdered by the monster — but he doesn't see what transpired between them, beforehand. The implication is that the monster just terrorized and killed her. In this version, forewarned by the creature that he's repulsive, she shows him compassion, makes peace with him, offers him friendship, and promises that she will use her wifely influence to make sure that his creator does right by him. She doesn't say any of this out of fear. She says it because these are the gestures that come naturally to her. It is absolutely breathtaking, a new wrinkle on a classic that is both totally true to that classic, and previously unsuspected by anybody…and it culminates in the tragedy we know only because the monster, who knows and appreciates that she's sincere, cannot let go of his own bloody vow of revenge. This scene, alone, would earn this production a place as one of the great Frankensteins of all time.
The Doctor's Notebook
1910 version, a fascinating artifact from a distant time, with some touches of pure genius. 1931 version, a permanent addition to our shared visual language. 1957 version, a flawed but entertaining visit. 1994 version, a misshapen creation with moments of pure genius, and moments of unbelievable awfulness, stitched together to create an unnatural whole. 2011 version, a masterpiece.
And now, the wife declaims toward the Heavens as she flips the third switch…
Second Commentary by Judi B. Castro
Frankenstein aka Edison's Frankenstein (1910). Directed by J. Searle Dawley. Written by J. Searle Dawley, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Augustus Phillips, Charles Ogle, Mary Fuller. 16 minutes. **.(Only based on the techniques used at the time)
Frankenstein (1931). Directed by James Whale. Written by Frances Edward Faragoh and Garrett Fort, from the play by Peggy Webling and novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Colin Clive, Boris Karloff, John Boles, Mae Clarke. 71 minutes. ***
The Curse of Frankenstein (1957). Directed by Terence Fisher. Written by Jimmy Sangster, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Hazel Court, Robert Urquhart. 83 minutes. *1/2
Frankenstein aka Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994). Directed by Kenneth Branagh. Written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm, Tom Hulce, John Cleese. 123 minutes. ***
National Theatre Live: Frankenstein (2011). Directed by Danny Boyle. Filmed Play by Nick Dear, from the novel by Mary Shelley. Starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller. Approximately 2 hours. ****
Other Versions and Sequels: Too many to list, including a large number of sequels to both the 1931 and 1957 versions, TV-movies, breakfast serials, sitcoms like The Munsters and parodies like Young Frankenstein and The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
So, here we are, readying ourselves for the Father's Day guilt-a-thon, and we decide to review films retelling the tale of the worst of all dead-beat dads. Great timing on this one Adam!
The 1931 Frankenstein is one of those films that became an integral part of every American childhood whether they had seen it or not. Halloween was bombarded with it, kids played run away from the monster, and as Adam has pointed out, even our breakfasts digested it. The images from the Whale version are iconic and yet soooo wrong. Did any film version come close to capturing the look and feel of the novel? Well yes and no, but that's film in a nutshell.
To begin at the beginning, and I truly mean the beginning, The 1910 Frankenstein is a masterpiece of ingenuity. The imagination used to create the images is amazing considering the youth of the medium. However, storytelling has been around since man began to communicate and this doesn't even come close to the story told in the book. This version is a bad game of telephone played by children being deliberately vague. It deserves its place in film history (as do the early Wizards of Oz films) for the mere fact of being the first, not for being a great film.
Then, we get to the 1931, James Whale directed Frankenstein. Is this truly a great film? Not really. Again, the story deviates vastly from the source, and much more attention is paid to the look than the plot. But, come on, lets face it. Who is the face we place with the Creation? In this version we have the Doctor (hmm gives me an idea, but that can wait for another time) creating his child in front of an audience, just to prove himself sane. Once he completes the task, he turns away in disgust and even joins in the quest to destroy the creature he created. Why? because he's an irresponsible child, too spoiled to realize that he is the one who must take responsibility and care for this being. His idea is to take the easy way out and destroy the evidence, thus ridding himself of all guilt. Yea, bury the broken vase deep in the garbage and Mom will never notice. Good job Herr Doktor! Oh and spoiler alert, All is well in the end. Right!
The next on our list is the awful Hammer film The Curse of Frankenstein. I feel that the makers of this film should have just said "Hey guys, we were told this story, but can't really remember much , so we're gonna make it up as we go." Here we have the names and some of the basics, but now we have Frankenstein as a rich orphan, set on creating life with no background motivation other than He wants to do it. This guy is sleazy. He has his way with a servant girl, all the time knowing he is going to marry his "cousin". He not only rejects his creation, he actually imprisons the creature and trains it with torture. Of course, in this film, he has no father to teach him how to be a Dad. His father figure is busy being a friend to seemingly keep his cushy position. After all, he was hired by the master to be his tutor giving him room and board and a salary (we assume) and this goes on past adulthood, would you easily give up that gig? Ok. so the creature gets loose, does the killing thing, is killed, resurrected and killed again. Frankenstein the man is declared an insane murderer and supposedly sent to his death. The end. But this is about life eternal, so of course death(as in superhero comics) is never forever. Thus , we have the sequels (or series) of the Hammer legacy.
The Kenneth Branagh version heels closer to the source material, actually including the pre and post creation scenes. I actually feel that this is the best of the films we viewed for these essays, but still a weak sister for all its pedigree. While there is nothing glaringly wrong with the film, it just doesn't feel satisfying. The look is right, the script good enough, even Branagh's direction (mostly of himself) is not too far over the top to kill the feel. But this film left me wanting another try. The changes made didn't weaken the story. This was only the second time I had been exposed to an intelligent version of the creature on film. (I recommend seeing the TV movie Frankenstein the True Story to give a fair comparision).
Can Hollywood film this parable without overblowing it, or underplaying it? This is a story that deserves a really great retelling, and the 20 year cycle is coming soon (see the filmography and dates of release). Anybody wanna try that?
OK, so Hollywood didn't quite take the challenge but the Brits did, kinda.
See, in 2011, the British National Theatre, as part of their "LIVE" series filmed the stage play of Frankenstein. Directed by Danny Boyle and starring Benedict Cumberbatch (yes his real name) and Jonny Lee Miller (aka Angelina Jolie's first husband). The leads alternated roles nightly as the doctor and his creation, so the series filmed it both ways. Skillful in both art and sales. Double the audience and ticket sales out of sheer curiosity. Wow! If the production hadn't been so incredible it still would have had a bit of a following just on the sheer audacity. But, the play holds true.
Here we have two remarkable actors ripping through these characters and actually fleshing out, what had been heretofore bare bones caricatures. Even the previous best attempts left me wanting more, but not here. The writing, by Nick Dear, pares down the slow moving intro and thrusts us straight into the abandonment and horror of the creature lurching into this world alone and unwanted. He also gets the story moving without the interference of side tales and heightens the death of Elizabeth to more than just a simple ruse, but now a true sacrifice for the cause.
The technicians and craftspeople on this team were superb. The sets were constructed as minimalist as possible, while still conveying all we as an audience could need for our interpretation of place and time. But the cast is truly the crowning achievement here. They all play the roles as if these are the freshest of characters, giving new energy and strength to these well known roles.
All in all, this is the most magnificent pair of films to ever grace the name of Frankenstein. I would deign to name them the Shakespearean Frankenstein duo.


text: Funding Finder Are you looking for financial support for your studies? Or do you need funding for your research? Please check our website! On our newly constructed database, you will find all relevant funding types of scholarships, study loans, grants, awards, prizes and other financial helps that foster your studies or your research career. Funding Finder of the University of St. Gallen


text:
"Seinfeld" star Michael Richards may have lost his cool once again.
The man who played eccentric Cosmo Kramer has been sued by photographer Brendon O'Neal for unleashing his fist upon the cameraman in a Los Angeles confrontation that hurts to read about, TMZ reports.
In a lawsuit filed on Friday, the photographer accuses Richards of walking up to him on the street a month ago in a "menacing manner....with closed fists," punching him in the face and smacking him down to the pavement where he "proceeded to kick [O'Neal] numerous times, directing the blows to [O'Neal's] arms, hands and camera."
U.S. & World
O'Neal claims the August 25th assault caused "great mental, physical, and nervous pain and suffering" and he is demanding an unspecified amount of money for damages and medical expenses. The suit includes no details on what may have sparked the alleged whooping, and calls to Richards' representatives have not yet been returned.
The actor suffered a career blow of his own when he went on an racist tirade at West Hollywood's Laugh Factory in 2006. The usually jolly comedian was reportedly devastated when video caught him spitting out the "n"-word and other offensive comments to two hecklers in an outburst.
Friend Jerry Seinfeld was none too thrilled about the 2006 incident, saying he was "sick over this" and that "Michael is also sick over this horrible, horrible mistake." He was present on The Letterman Show when Richards publicly apologized about the incident shortly after the footage was released.
Richards said in his apology, "For me to be in a comedy club and flip out and say this crap, you know, I'm deeply deeply sorry."


text:
pens2005 wrote:nocera wrote:pens2005 wrote:nocera wrote:pens2005 wrote:Mike Lange's call on the Niskanen goal was classic! Absolutely fires me up!!!
Is it online yet?
Didnt know it ever goes online???
I was listening to the x's radio replays.
The official site will usually throw them up the next day.
Never had noticed. Thanks!
Highlight is already up on the Podcast section of the Pens web site. It's already on my phone as my new ringtone.


text:
Hi guys, I'm very new to programming in general, and two days old in my java experience.
I've been messing around with many guides and been creating my own programs with the guides. Right now, I thought it would be interesting to create a program solving my favorite mathematical formula -- the Quadratic formula. Ya know that one with the song!
Anyways, for some reason I'm having a NaN outcome for my current line in the program.
Also! I have been having a lot of problems with if- statements and strings. My last program had the same issue.
I would love for some feedback here.
import java.util.Scanner; public class calc_Quadratic { public static void main(String[] args) { Scanner keyboard = new Scanner(System.in); String reply = null; String hint = null; int a = 0; int b = 0; int c = 0; System.out.println("Welcome to the homemade Quadratic Formula Calculator."); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("This program will help you solve for the possible zeroes in your specific equations."); System.out.println("The quadratic formula is as follows -- ((ax^2) + bx + c)/2a"); System.out.println("If your equation is in the said formula, please continue and fill out the following variables with their corresponding numbers."); System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("(ax^2) [otherwise known as a x squared]: "); a = keyboard.nextInt(); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("bx: "); b = keyboard.nextInt(); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("c: "); c = keyboard.nextInt(); System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("Are you ready for the answer?"); reply = keyboard.next(); if (reply == "yes") { System.out.println("First we must take the opposite of b (positive/negative): " + -b); } else { System.out.println("Please type in 'yes' when you ready."); } System.out.println(""); System.out.println("We should then take the square root of ((b^2) - 4ac): " + (Math.sqrt(Math.pow(b, 2) - 4*a*c))); } }


text:
|Watch for Parts SaverTM items throughout the Futaba S148 Standard Precision Servo Parts List. Parts SaverTM items qualify for a base shipping and handling charge of only $1.99 for orders exclusively containing Parts SaverTM qualifying items.
|All prices shown in U.S. dollars – Universal Currency Converter
— Sorted by Manufacturer Number —
Back to Original Sort View
|Sort by Stock Parts / Optional Parts


text:
For people that don't know it is:
1. Tank
2. Heals
3. CC/Down time reducer
DPS is not and never was part of the 'holy trinity'.
People use it now (thanks to no down time in MMOs anymore) for:
1. Tank
2. Heals
This is incorrect because DPS is still an outsider due to massive popularity over the Tank and Heals roles.
The Holy Trinity meant that if you played this class you would get groups quickly. In fact, having one was a beacon for the other two. I can remember days where if you were looking for a healer, the healer would ask if you had a tank or Enchanter (really, it was just the Enchanter class in EQ, later also the Beastmaster somewhat) and if you didn't, they'd pass or ask you to tell them if you did get one.
Now people use it to describe the three critical roles or foundation roles in a MMO: Tank, Heals and DPS.
Still isn't anything Holy in DPS – it's needed but there are so many of you (us) that you're pennies in someone's pocket.


text:
Soladek Vitamin Solution: Unapproved Product May Contain Dangerously High Levels of Vitamins A and D
Audience: Consumer
ISSUE: Tested samples of Soladek contained levels of vitamin A and vitamin D that were many times the recommended daily allowances for these vitamins. Intake of excessively high levels of these vitamins poses a risk to human health. Symptoms of vitamin A toxicity include anemia, anorexia, alopecia, joint pain, bone weakness, bulging eyes, liver abnormalities, and birth defects. Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include weakness, fatigue, headache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, changes in mental status, increased blood pressure, abnormal heart rate or rhythm, kidney damage, and coma.
BACKGROUND: Soladek is marketed with claims that the product treats "hypo and avitaminosis, rickets, growth, dentition, lactation, fractures, infection, convalescence, protection and regeneration of certain epithelium (bronchial, glandular, ocular, cutaneous), corticotherapy, aging and pregnancy." The product is sold in a box labeled in Spanish and containing a vial of the solution.
The FDA received seven reports of serious health problems occurring in consumers using the product. The problems include decreased renal function, elevated levels of calcium in the blood, fatigue, heart arrhythmia, vomiting, and diarrhea.
RECOMMENDATION: Consumers who are in possession of Soladek should stop using the product immediately. Any consumers who have been using Soladek and are experiencing any of the above symptoms should see a doctor immediately.
Healthcare professionals and patients are encouraged to report adverse events or side effects related to the use of these products to the FDA's MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program:
- Complete and submit the report Online: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/index.cfm
- Download form or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
[03/28/2011 - Press Release - Indo Pharma, S.A.]
More News Resources
- FDA Medwatch Drug Alerts
- Daily MedNews
- News for Health Professionals
- New Drug Approvals
- New Drug Applications
- Drug Shortages
- Clinical Trial Results
- Generic Drug Approvals
- Monthly Update Archive
Subscribe to our Newsletter
Whatever your topic of interest, subscribe to our newsletters to get the best of Drugs.com in your inbox.