text:
Remus provides a desktop integration which lets you easily transfer data from your desktop into the application. This integration consists of two fundamental approaches:
The desktop panel
If you minimize the application (this is only if you are running in Standalone-Mode, if you're using Remus in your Eclipse SDK you have to press the Remus-Icon in your main toolbar) a small desktop-panel appears on the desktop. This panel is your window into Remus. All you need to create new information units can be done via the desktop-panel. The panel can contain several sections, which are configurable in the Preferences under Remus->Desktop-Panel.
By default the panel contains the search section and the drop-section which is pointing to the default-ruleset.
The preference page has three sections:
- Desktop-Configuration The listed sections are describing how your desktop-panel will look like. You can reorder the sections via Drag'n'Drop. If you select one of the sections you can configure a section (see next-point). To delete an active tray-section use the context-menu.
- Properties If you select an active tray-section you can customize individula properties of this desktop-section. Please notice that not every type of tray-section has preferences.
- Available Templates This list a collection of all registered tray-section types. If you want to add a template to your desktop-panel drag the element from the bottom table to the upper table. Please notice that some types can added only once.
An example for the usage of the desktop-panel can be found here
The desktop integration and the creation of new information units is based on a fully customizable rule set definition. Based on the structure of the dropped or copied data Remus can "guess" how to categorize and type the data. Remus comes with an initial rule set definition. Starting from a simple graphical configuration until a groovy-script based rule set configuration your rule set can grow with the requirements that fulfill your needs on desktop-integration. For a detailled information see Remus/Rules.


text:
Framework: HF045 – hf045_0601_v2
1 - Primary or Horizontal Divisions
1 - Secondary or Vertical Divisions
Part of series: HF045 Horizontal Flow 045 – Puzzle Flow
Series Keywords: Key search words: puzzle flow, pieces of whole, horizontal
Unlike most horizontal flows, this framework does not flow from segment to segment. The pieces join together to create a whole, and the whole framework conveys the flow. The example shows how this framework might be used: assembling a whole and then flowing or moving to a new status or next step.
There are three variations in the series. They can be blended with the other horizontal flows, e.g., start with a basic horizontal flow as the first segment in the flow and adding a couple segments from from this series. See the tutorial for more information on blending with other horizontal flows.
The three segments are …
Variation 1: this variation is not strictly a flow, but a bar that is made up of puzzle pieces. This series will also show up in the Segments Category.
Variation 2: this variation is a flow that is sized just like the other horizontal flows, but the segment separations are puzzle tabs and slots. The end segment has an arrow.
Variation 3: this variation is just like variation 2, but the first segment is indented. This is the variation to use if you wish combine with a different horizontal flow segment (see tutorial).
Key search words: puzzle flow, pieces of whole, horizontal

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If they plan on passing an online poker bill in 2014 the California legislature had better get a move on. The clock is ticking down on this legislative session, with just about two weeks remaining before the final buzzer sounds, and online poker has gone from a long-shot to a pipe dream. Outside forces are certainly trying to get the legislature to act, from the 13 tribe coalition pushing their own bill to a group of 25 card rooms who recently sent a letter to two key individuals in the statehouse, Senator Lou Correa and Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer. And how can we forget the efforts of the Santa Ysabel tribe who are threatening to launch their own online poker website without the states permission. With so many possible scenarios capable of being played out over the next couple of weeks lets take a look at what will happen under the most likely scenario, which is the legislature not acting The senate bill has already been pulled off the table according to the LA Times and the Assembly bill starting to look like a lost cause as well and what that will lead to in California. If the legislature punts If the legislature does not act on online poker in the coming weeks we will learn one thing for certain; whether or not the Santa Ysabel tribes threats to launch are real or if the tribe was bluffing to try and get a favorable bill passed. My position all along has been that the Santa Ysabel threat was little more than a bluff designed to either get the legislature to act, and even more likely to make sure that some sort of revenue sharing bill was discussed with smaller tribes unable to pay the stiff licensing fees and compete with the larger tribes and card rooms. Santa Ysabel has stuck with the story that they are serious about launching, and if the legislature does punt they very well might. While I dont think their intention was to test the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the definition of Class II gaming, they do have all the pieces in place to do so, including a software provider, a seemingly willing payment processor, and a regulatory agency housing their servers in Canada. Frankly, the Santa Ysabel tribe has little to lose (the tribe is already in severe debt from its failed foray into brick & mortar gambling) but they could alter online poker in the US, and not necessarily for the better. The effect on partnerships We will also see what becomes of the partnerships and coalitions that have formed this year. What becomes of PokerStars tentative partnership with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Bicycle Casino, the Commerce Casino, and Hawaiian Gardens? What about the coalition of 13 tribes? Or the card rooms? Some of the partnerships were simply the enemy of my enemy is my friend relationships and others were tenuous at best. Given a few months to reset and rethink their positions its highly unlikely that these same partnerships will remain when the issue is taken up in the next legislative session. This is especially applicable if (as Ill soon explain) the threat of a Bad Actor clause is off the table. If there is suddenly zero chance that a Bad Actor clause will be included in an online poker bill introduced down the road I would expect the Morongo group and the coalition of 13 tribes and the 25 card rooms to suddenly see their interests aligned, but rifts could form over other policy disagreements, such as revenue sharing and even race tracks. Bad Actor clause will likely be off the table Remarkably, if the legislature is unable to get an online poker bill passed it will likely lead to the possibility of a Bad Actor clause being included next year somewhere in the 0.0 range. The reason I say this is that PokerStars is expected to be licensed in New Jersey in the very near future, and it would be very difficult for any future state to pass a bill with a Bad Actor clause that would cover companies licensed in other states. Its not impossible, but considering the legal fights that have already been suggested in California over the Bad Actor clause it seems highly unlikely that Bad Actor language would be applied if the company(s) in question are licensed in New Jersey. There is also the not so small issue of Amaya Gaming suddenly falling into the Bad Actor category due to its ownership of PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker virtually every casino/online casino uses Amaya licensed games. Many pundits feel that certain tribes resolve against a Bad Actor clause was a stalling tactic to insure a bill was not passed they essentially feigned a desire for online poker when they are actually against it but made sure the wedge issue was not resolved and killed the bill. If this is the case then this will have backfired, as it only slightly delayed the inevitable and further aligned the many divergent interests in the state. Previous Post Next Post amaya|bike|commerce|hawaiian gardens|morongo|pokerstars|santa ysabel About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.
Category: casino slot online indonesia
California iGaming Week in Review: Delays for Online Poker, Bike Battles Kessler over Live Event
Most people in California take their time getting things done. While the state moves forward quickly with some issues, like environmental protections, other issues move like theyve been caught in traffic on the 405 freeway. Such is the case with online poker. Though two bills were pending in the state legislature, both were recently shelved, mostly due to various interests and parties who simply cannot come to agreement on key issues. With one sponsoring legislator set to retire within the next year, the other is left holding the bag of potential money. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer spoke out in greater detail this week with regard to the future of an online poker bill. Meanwhile, the Bicycle Casino is hosting its largest tournament series of the year that leads up to the World Poker Tours Legends of Poker Main Event. But controversy has taken over prior to this weekends start of the event due to some outspoken poker players led by Allen Kessler. And for a change, many poker players agree with him. California Online Poker Will Require Patience It has been a frustrating five-year road thus far for online poker advocates in California. And it looks like they will need to wait at least another year for anything of substance to take form. As noted many times in the media, there are many players in the industry at odds over the details of any online poker bill. Tribes, card rooms, horse tracks, and lottery interests have different feelings about who should be able to offer online poker, details of a bad actor clause, fees for licensing, and partnerships allowed. At present time, no one seems to be willing to compromise, and that is largely due to the lack of a larger interest forcing conversations between the parties. State Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer will have his hands full when he introduces another online poker bill as promised. Even to draft the legislation will require that he reconsider the divisiveness of his last bill and how he might be able to find more agreement amongst the parties. When he shelved his last bill this month, Jones-Sawyer said that he fully intends to introduce another in December of this year for the next legislative session. His latest statement on the topic reveals more about his recent decision: One of the major reasons that I did not move AB 2291 this legislative session was that the Department of Justice and the California Gaming Commission did not have enough time to review the language and make relevant recommendations on the regulatory structure of the bill. His plan involves meetings in the months leading up to December so he can offer a more universal bill for the 2015/2016 session. The key issue, according to Jones-Sawyer, is the bad actor language. Does he believe that his new bill will be the one? His confidence, or lack thereof, is striking. Instead of pinning hopes on 2015, he instead asks all parties to remain patient. We have come a long way, he admitted, but we have to be patient so we can get this right. Setting a standard in California that will be an example for the entire nation is my ultimate goal. While this sounds like the ultimate online poker legislation will be fair to all and inclusive of all parties and concerns, it also sounds like 2015 is far from a promise for it to happen. Speaking of Bad Actors (Ahem, Newsweek) As states like California experience their own setbacks with regard to legalizing online poker, national news articles that take over the cover of a magazine like Newsweek dont help the cause, either. How Washington Opened the Floodgates to Online Poker, Dealing Parents a Bad Hand by Leah McGrath Goodman is a biased piece of writing that leads with a cover photo of a young, sad boy holding a tablet with a poker hand displayed on it. Many writers in poker have tackled the rebuttals to the story, so there is no need to do it again. Suffice it to say that articles that serve as scare tactics for online poker and gaming in the United States do nothing to encourage states to pursue legislation that will regulate a currently rogue industry and pursue extra revenue for their states. WPT Legends of Poker Feeling the Chainsaw Effect The Legends of Poker is the Bicycle Casinos largest tournament series of the year, and it culminates in a Main Event with the WPT. The series actually started on July 28 and has been seeing a fair turnout. The Main Event begins on Saturday, August 23. The buy-in is $3,500 + $200. The problems begin with the casino noting a $4 million estimated prize pool, which looks like a guarantee but most certainly is not. Reentries will be allowed; if eliminated, a player can reenter on the following day. Players can also buy-in directly for Day 2 for $10K. Allen Chainsaw Kessler was so angry about the Quantum Reload tournament that he decided to boycott the WPT event and write an open letter to WPT President Adam Pliska about it. He noted that players who struggle to make it through the first day of play and advance then have to face a whole new wave of skilled players who can buy in and start fresh. He claims this gives an edge to deep pocketed skilled pros over regular tournament grinders. The Bike Tournament Director Mo Fathipour responded to say that the poker economy is evolving and allows players of all skill levels and bankrolls to play. He claims the Quantum Reload concept has been a huge success for the Bicycle Casino throughout our poker series. It is unclear as to whether Kesslers protest will have much effect on the overall field. Previous Post Next Post bike About Jennifer Newell Jennifer has been writing about poker for nearly a decade, including extensive work as a freelancer, where Jennifer has worked for numerous gaming-related websites, magazines, and blogs with a focus on players, news, and interesting stories. Follow Jennifer on Google+ and Twitter.
Weighing In On The Political Messages At The Poker Table Debate
Let me start this column by saying I dont have a dog in the highly contentious political fight between Israel and Palestine, and hopefully by the end of the article youll say I have no idea which side he is on. Frankly, this is a complex issue that most people, including myself, simply dont have a full understanding of, and definitely not to the extent that I would feel comfortable offering up an informed opinion on who is right and who is wrong, and what level of blame each side deserves. Second, let me explain right off the bat that I completely understand PokerStars right to ban whatever they want, and I have no problem with their decision. In fact, Id like to see them go even further and implement a stricter dress code. I understand 1st amendment rights are limited to government controlling your speech, and that it doesnt matter anyway since the tournament was held in Spain. Finally, I really didnt want to weigh in on this at all (hence the late response) as I respect the people who have already weighed in on both sides of this issue. I understand both sides arguments and find them valid. My one criticism is they have turned this into a bigger issue than it is, or should have become. Whats at issue So, apparently Olivier Busquet and Daniel Colman wore a couple of t-shirts expressing their support for Palestinians, and a small group of people went nutso on Twitter about it, both for and against their decision to make such a public display. It wasnt just the people who were offended that turned this into a feed the beast moment, it was also the people cheerleading the shirts messages. So far its spawned countless columns (including this one) and seems to have taken on a life of its own, most notably among the columns was a back and forth between Nolan Dalla and Robbie Strazynski. Theres No Room for Politics in Poker Political Censorship Has No Place in Poker My Political Poker Debate with Nolan Dalla Plenty of others have weighed in as well, including Daniel Negreanu, but the following link is the most thoughtful response Ive seen so far, and the one I agree with the most: No Politics at the Poker Table, penned by Victoria Coren Mitchell. There are probably at least a dozen more opinions on this topic if you want to do more reading and know how to use Google. My problem with this debate My biggest gripe with this issue/non-issue is that the messages emblazoned on the shirts werent all that provocative. For me the simple messages displayed passed the common sense test of what is acceptable to wear on a shirt in public a test most high school and college kids would fail miserably. Weve all seen worse, a lot worse. Nobody is going to stop you on the street and start screaming and threatening you for wearing either of those shirts. Nobody is turning to their friend and saying can you believe the nerve of that guy wearing that in public! when you walk past. Yes, the shirts conveyed a contentious position, and hit upon a very sensitive topic, but it wasnt done in an inflammatory or negative way. In this case the message was simple, and whether you like it or not, its a stance supported by a large number of people (just like pro-life/pro-choice is widely supported on both sides). Its not some fringe idea like neo-Nazism or the Westboro Baptist Churchs hateful crap. The shirts did not say Save Gaza from the Evil Zionists, or End Apartheid in Palestine. To me this is where we go from a political stance to hateful / incendiary speech: Where you go from a show of support for a group to the demonization of the opposition. Now here is the real point I want to make, the EPT already has a rule covering offensive shirts, the blanket rule that they reserve the right to refuse service for
Instead of letting the EPT see if attire passes the smell test, what we have ended up with is overregulation in this area, basically imposing the poker version of a schools zero-tolerance policy where kids bringing a Lego light saber to school are suspended for brandishing a weapon. We should be able to differentiate between a political stance and hate speech without resorting to a blanket ban. You know how you can tell they werent overly controversial? There wasnt two minutes of hushed whispers throughout the assembled crowd when Busquet and Colman arrived. I bet the shirts probably got a second look or two, or an eyeroll, but the reaction wasnt Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn showing up to their own funeral. Furthermore, the shirts did not disrupt poker from being played at the final table. The tournament went on as slated, the players looked like they usually do and so on. If the EPT felt the shirts were causing a problem or were in fact hate speech they could have asked them to be removed, and considering the highly competent staff the EPT has, I trust that nobody was offended on site. It happens in sports all the time Ive also seen several statements of this would not be allowed in other sports, which is a bad analogy as poker players have to pay to play and are not employees, but more importantly it HAS happened in other sports. Sometimes the person gets fined other times they dont. Several pro athletes have refused to stand for the Star Spangled Banner (for a variety of different reasons), most notably Carlos Delgado and Mahmoud Abdul Raouf. The Miami Heat wrote pro Trayvon Martin messages on their sneakers. Tim Tebow often played wearing eye black with bible verses written on them. More to the issue at hand, there have been several high profile incidents with football players displaying pro-Palestine messages. The point is, there are often overt and covert political statements in sports and a fine to these multimillionaire players is akin to issuing a two-hand penalty at a poker table. The slippery slope Ive asked this question to many of the principles on the no political messages side on social media, but nobody seems to want to give me a straight answer, so here it is again: Where do we draw the line?
Hillary 2016?
Ron Paul shirts?
I Support the PPA?
A shirt with a pot leaf on it?
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
A Gadsden Flag?
Che Guevara shirts?
Is a Star of David expressing support of Israel?
Free Tibet?
Meat is murder?
The IRS are crooks? By asking PokerStars to disallow Free Palestine and Save Gaza you are also forcing them to remove all of the above. The case being made is even though the shirts werent hateful or inciting violence, politics has NO place at a poker table. The decision by PokerStars to ban provocative shirts is a perfectly sound one in my opinion, but a blanket policy (made in what appears to be knee jerk fashion) that extends to all political messages is a very slippery slope. Im sorry, but if Free Palestine is so offensive it is the reason behind the rule being needed, then every shirt listed above has to be barred to remain consistent. The better policy is to either impose a strict dress code (no logos or writing of any kind), or stick to the old way, and look at it on a case-by-case basis feel free to use my common sense test of would this shirt get me punched in the face? In my personal opinion, short of vulgarity or advocating violence there is no reason to disallow clothing unless you have a specific dress code in place, and PokerStars and every other tournament already had vulgarity and violence covered with their we have the right to refuse blanket rules. This new rule is simply unnecessary and far too broad. Basically, it offers PokerStars and their staff no wiggle room if someone complains about a shirt so long as it can be seen as being even slightly political. The old way, where TDs and staff had discretion, and could use common sense, was better in my opinion. Although, now, because of the attention this has received, it would seem impossible for PokerStars to carry on with the status quo because certain people are likely to troll the televised tournaments to see what they can wear and get away with. It seems PokerStars was put between a rock and a hard place, and my hope is they will relax their new policy down the road. Photo Credit: PokerNews.com Previous Post Next Post pokerstars About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.
California Online Poker Coming in 2015 Or 2016 Ok, Maybe 2018
Lawmakers shelved Californias two online poker bills this year citing the need for patience, to make sure they get it right. This is an excellent sentiment, we should strive to get laws right, and one I would wholeheartedly agree with if California hadnt spent the past five-plus years trying to get it right. Patience is fine, but what California is doing is more along the lines of procrastinating. So when will a bill legalizing online poker pass the California legislature? According to industry experts and analysts it could be next year, or it could be as far away as 2018. In a recent conference call, Caesars Entertainment CEO Mitch Garber touched on California (prompted by a question from Adam Krejcik of Eilers Research) saying, Weve already started our lobbying effort for 2015 quite heavily, adding that they want a bill passed in California and they expect in 2015 that its going to become a reality. But Garbers optimism is not shared by some others, who feel the numerous interests are further apart than Garber believes them to be. One such naysayer is the poker media outlet iGamingPlayer.com, which published an article citing 2018 as a more likely target date due to the recent and impending departure of several key online poker advocates from the legislature. Most notably among iGamingPlayers concerns is the indictment of former online poker champion Assemblymen Roderick Wright, and the upcoming retirement of Senator Lou Correa, the author of the failed Senate Bill 1366 this year. The article makes several solid points, but as some pointed out on Twitter, the 2018 date seems somewhat arbitrary. Californias size is working against it The fact of the matter is that Californias politics are a bit more cumbersome than other states and the states size makes even the most mundane policy changes difficult and for what its worth, online poker is far from mundane. California is the size of most countries, and has a similar population to Poland (38 million). In fact, California has more residents than the country of Canada, which boasts a total population of just 34 million. Furthermore, Californias economy is the 8th largest in the world, and accounts for a massive 13% of the U.S. GDP. Basically, we are not dealing with a typical state legislature, we are dealing with a legislative body that is more along the lines of parliament and one that has to consider many conflicting points of view and interests. San Diegos interests are about as closely aligned to San Franciscos as Bostons are to Baltimores, which means Californias 40 Senators and 80 Assembly members have conflicting goals, and the one size fits all approach that often works in other states simply falls flat in California. Californias gaming interests are divergent In addition to its size working against it, California also has a rich history of gaming with different blocs all trying to maintain their hold on their piece of the pie. The power players want to keep the power and the second and third tier entities want to increase their power. The state has five layers of gaming interests:
Large tribal casinos
Card rooms
Small tribal casinos and non-gaming tribes
Race tracks
Lottery The issues that must be resolved will require the appeasement of each of these groups sans the state lottery, and perhaps race tracks. The large tribal casinos are the only entities allowed to offer comprehensive gambling in the state and they want to keep it that way. Large tribes are not going to sign off on an online poker bill that is more beneficial to the groups beneath them than to themselves. Card rooms are just that, casinos that are able to offer a variety of different card games, mainly poker. The larger card-rooms see online poker as a way to increase their revenue, brands, and player pools, while the smaller card rooms are fearful that high licensing costs and strict restrictions may shut them out completely. Smaller and out of the way tribes (where a mega-casino simply would not work) can also offer comprehensive gambling if they desire, or, if they limit their number of machines, or if they do not offer gaming whatsoever they are able to draw from a fund setup by the state and contributed to by the larger gaming tribes. The smaller tribes want any online poker bill to include a new or amended revenue sharing deal to make sure they continue to benefit from the larger or better-placed tribes gaming windfalls. Race tracks feel they are being left out of the mix, as the bills introduced in 2014 would not allow them to even apply for a license, even if they could somehow come up with the money to do so. Unlike smaller tribes that could receive revenue sharing or smaller card rooms that may be able to finagle a bill that would allow skins to be created, if the race tracks are left out of the bill they are out. All things considered, its really not surprising that California is currently batting 0-6 on passing an online poker bill since 2009. Photo credit: Shutterstock Previous Post Next Post About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.
Barry Greenstein Pens Opinion Responding to Bad Actor Clauses
One of pokers best ambassadors, Poker Hall of Famer and Team PokerStars Pro Barry Greenstein, penned an opinion piece regarding the various bad actor clauses that are appearing in many states potential online poker legislation. Those bad actor clauses would prohibit companies who offered online gaming to U. S. citizens following the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gaming Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of 2006 from being, at the most, able to operate in the United States and, at the minimum, force them into a waiting period up to five years. Last week Greenstein took to his personal blog to discuss the usage of these clauses, which are prominent in any potential California regulation of the industry. Everybody knows this provision [the clauses] is specifically written into these laws to exclude PokerStars, he writes. Greenstein details his discussions with PokerStars legal staff and upper management that took place since the passage of the UIGEA. He ensures that the players monies were always safe (proven by the quick repayment of U. S. players following Black Friday). In one case in particular, Greenstein notes that PokerStars withdrew from the state of Washington following passage of their anti-online poker legislation. He also recounts the actions of the company regarding payment processors who werent legitimately operating. When it comes to the potential usage of the bad actor clause, Greenstein notes two main reasons why this clause shouldnt be allowed. Citing the settlement between the U. S. Department of Justice and PokerStars regarding the Black Friday indictments, Greenstein states: Greenstein demonstrates that the settlement, as well as the resulting clarification by the DoJ in December 2011 of the Wire Act of 1961 (what had been the law of the land regarding the legality of online poker in the U. S.), should be opening the gates for PokerStars return to U. S. soil. Instead, the settlement and the ongoing indictment of PokerStars founder Isai Scheinberg and payment processor Paul Tate is being used as a roadblock by competitors and politicians to retroactively punish PokerStars, something that isnt allowed in the U. S. under what is called a bill of attainder (legislative punishment rather than judicial punishment). Greenstein concludes: While Greensteins opinion is well thought out (if there is one person in the poker world that you would like to have an intelligent discussion with, it would be Barry), there are some flaws in his arguments. PokerStars did operate in the U. S. post-UIGEA, violating the law of the land at that point. Regardless of the civil charges against the company by the DoJ, or the change in the DoJs reading of the Wire Act, those in charge at the time did knowingly decide to flaunt the laws. Then there are Scheinberg and Tate (who, along with Absolute Pokers Scott Tom, are the only three from the 11 criminally indicted in 2011 that have yet to be apprehended by U. S. authorities), the two men who were in charge following the UIGEA passage. Although PokerStars owner, the Rational Group, decided to sell the company to Amaya Gaming this summer, that doesnt change the fact that Scheinberg and Tate knowingly continued to violate what was law at the time. A change in ownership doesnt discount what the company has previously done. While it may not be right, there has to be someone that pays the piper for the past transgressions of PokerStars and its management, and that could very well be Amaya Gaming and online poker players in general. Through the bad actor clauses, many states are looking to enact that punishment on PokerStars. The constitutionality of such moves will be the big question, and something that might tie up any online poker legislation for the foreseeable future. Previous Post Next Post amaya|pokerstars About Earl Burton Earl has written about poker, its participants, its politics and its growth over the past 10 years and is one of the most highly respected poker journalists in the game today.
8 Articles That Refute Newsweeks Online Poker Smear Campaign
Not since the Lederer Files has the poker community been as fired up as they were following the publishing of a Newsweek feature story on online gambling that paints the industry in a very negative light. The article, How Washington Opened the Floodgates to Online Poker, Dealing Parents a Bad Hand by Leah McGrath Goodman included one of the most tacky and fanciful pictures youll ever see, a sullen fair-haired boy of about 9 holding a tablet with a royal flush covering the entire screen. Fear-mongering at its finest. The message was clear: Online poker is going to destroy families and turn little Timmy into a problem gambler; a claim the highly provocative article couldnt even deliver on, as it never mentions pre-teens, and loosely uses the terms kids to describe college age and 18-25 year-olds. The picture it would seem served only one purpose. More problems than just the picture The picture and headline were enough to have most peoples Fraud Alert sirens going off and by the time you got a few paragraphs in you were probably on Defcon 4. This was going to be an article youd need to read more than once, and one of those instances where youre so worked up youll want to wait a few minutes before you hit the send button. Riddled with inaccuracies and misleading statements, the article would have made for a great opinion-editorial, but a feature story, or investigative journalism it is not. Here are eight separate articles that refute Newsweeks article in the order they appeared. Steve Ruddock, Bluff Magazine:
Newsweek Paints Online Gambling as Threat to American Family Chris Grove, OnlinePokerReport.com:
11 Serious Problems With Newsweeks Weird Tirade Against Regulated Online Gambling Haley Hintze, Flushdraw.com:
Bad Journalism: The Newsweek Online Gambling Propaganda Parry Aftab, Founder and Director, WiredSafety in Letter to the Editor sent to Newsweek:
Letter to the Editors a response to the criticism Leah McGrath Goodman received is included after Aftabs statement Donnie Peters, PokerNews.com:
An Open Letter To Newsweek: There Are Questions To Be Answered John Mehaffey, USPoker.com:
Newsweek Needs to Correct Glaring Errors in Online Poker Story Eric Raskin, All In Magazine:
How Newsweek failed readers by running a slanted opinion article in the guise of a reported feature Dan Cypra, PocketFives.com:
Newsweek on Ripping Online Poker: No Bias For or Against Online Gambling Where are her supporters? Comments are overwhelmingly negative How bad was the article? Consider the comment section under the original, which at present boasts an impressive 159 responses. Of those 159 comments I havent seen a single one that agree with the article, or feels the article isnt a one-sided attack piece. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Nada. While I may have missed a positive comment or two as I perused them, but even giving her the benefit of the doubt that there are a few, the fact that the article is being viewed overwhelmingly negatively is actually a good thing, as few people are being fooled by it. If McGrath Goodman had done a fine job investigating the story and creating a truthful story arc of what occurred, wouldnt many have rushed to her defense? Twitter is just as bad Although she did seem to have one defender, Leah McGrath Goodmans Twitter feed lit up like a Christmas tree following the article making the social media rounds. At first it looked like she may have some fight in her as she was responding to most of the sensible comments, but like many who have drawn the ire of the Twitter-savvy poker world, she was quick to shut it down for a while, and avoid the comments. To her credit, she did come back to the fight later on (after posting a response to the criticism underneath the Letter to the Editor by Parry Aftab cited above) and responded to some more tweets. Making lemonade I know this story will be widely read (its Newsweek after all) and my hope is that this articles bias is so apparent that it actually helps online poker legislation. I personally feel that pro-regulation advocates have the stronger argument and dont need to resort to fear-mongering tactics to gain supporters. When looked at side-by-side the clear choice is FOR regulation. In a poll several months back, Farleigh Dickinson University asked people if they were in favor of legalizing online gambling, and the response was overwhelmingly no, but a second question could help explain that answer, as only 15% knew a lot about the issue and 44% knew nothing at all. Perhaps Newsweeks column will help raise the awareness of this issue. Previous Post Next Post About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.
California Prepping for 2015 Online Poker Push
The news that online poker expansion is officially off the table for 2014 came as a crushing blow to advocates of expanded online gambling in California, dashing the hopes of many people who felt 2014 was the year. Still, if weve learned one thing from California, its that they will give it a try once again in 2015. Rumors have already started to fly that another online poker bill will be introduced at the start of the next legislative session this December by Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. In true Sisyphus fashion, the state will pick up their rock from the bottom of the hill and once again try to roll it up the mountain in 2015 even after failed attempts in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. A new online poker bill before the end of the year wasnt the only good news on the online poker front either, as amid all of the sullenness surrounding the death of the 2014 bills, the second annual iGaming Legislative Symposium has already been scheduled for February 2015. The Symposium is an important forum for Californias varied interests to be heard and make their cases. So, while Californias online poker dreams have been dashed for 2014, the fight is certainly not over, and the state is looking to capitalize on the momentum gained in 2014, with California seeing advancement on several contentious issues, including near consensuses on licensing costs and number of sites per operator. However, several major wedge issues still remain to be resolved:
The fate of PokerStars and Bad Actor / Tainted Asset clauses
The inclusion / exclusion of race tracks and in what capacity they might be involved
A potential new revenue sharing deal with smaller tribes
Licensing requirements, particularly towards small card rooms and small tribes Hopefully the proposed Jones-Sawyer bill expected in December touches on all of these issues, and if not, perhaps the iGaming Legislative Symposium or more hearings in the legislature will provide the public platform needed to bring about a compromise. The original Jones-Sawyer bill The best way to get a feel for what the Jones-Sawyer bill of 2015 might look like is to look back at Jones-Sawyer bill (version 1.0) from 2014. Known as AB 2291, Jones-Sawyers Assembly bill was an extremely tribe-friendly piece of legislation that essentially sought to keep all of the gaming income in California land-based and online firmly in the hands of the major tribes and a few major card rooms. The bill was meant to offer an alternative to the reincarnated Senate bill introduced by Senator Lou Correa, as well as to replace the proposed online poker legislation of disgraced Assemblyman Roderick Wright, who was the former online poker darling of the California Assembly. Senator Lou Correas bill seemed more sophisticated and nuanced than the Jones-Sawyer bill (which shouldnt be surprising considering Correas bill has been kicking around for a couple years) and while the two bills were quite similar they did have some differences. AB 2291 would have done the following:
Authorize intrastate online poker and disallow interstate compacts
Create 10-year, non-transferable licenses, with an upfront $5 million fee
Preemptively ban the state from adopting or opting into a federal online gambling bill AB 2291 also featured exclusive licensing, requiring licensees to be federally recognized tribes as well as card-rooms, and requiring them to have five years experience in brick & mortar poker. As noted above, this bill favored Californias power players. The major differences between the bills was that AB 2291 allowed for unlimited domain names and was not specific about its Bad Actor clause, whereas SB 1366 called for a permanent ban on sites that operated in the US post December 31, 2006. The Jones-Sawyer bill also contained far more vagaries, especially when it came to its Bad Actor language. The bill did contain Bad Actor language but left the preclusion period blank, which seemed to indicate a willingness to modify that part of the bill based on the overall consensus. Overall, the Jones-Sawyer bill of 2014 seemed like a placeholder, designed to counter SB 1366s more contentious aspects. Jones-Sawyer 2.0 Whether the planned Jones-Sawyer online poker bill of 2015 will be more specific, or if the Assemblyman will simply reintroduce a more or less unchanged version of his 2014 bill is unknown at this time, but some changes will likely be made due to the changing climate. The bill will likely include the newly agreed upon licensing details, and will almost certainly still explicitly exclude race tracks. What if any Bad Actor language will be included is a complete unknown at this point as well, but considering the tribes that backed the original Jones-Sawyer bill (most notably the Agua Caliente and Pechanga tribes) are part of the coalition of 13 tribes that called for barring PokerStars. What is known is that any Bad Actor clauses included in the bill will have to be very specific, as this is the major issue at hand in California, and this has advanced a great deal since Jones-Sawyer 2014 was first introduced. The final aspect the bill will potentially have to address is a new revenue sharing deal between the tribes. Its my belief that this will not be addressed in the first drafts of Californias 2015 bills. iGaming Legislative Symposium Along with the proposed Jones-Sawyer bill, Californians in favor of online poker expansion can also pencil in February 26, 2015 as an important date on their calendars, as Pechanga.net and the Spectrum Gaming Group will host the second annual iGaming Legislative Symposium. Considering the number of issues that still need to be worked out in California these types of forums, along with the hearings in the legislature are extremely necessary. Here is the complete press release detailing the February Symposium. SACRAMENTO, CA (Marketwired) 08/07/14 Pechanga.net and Spectrum Gaming Group will host the second annual iGaming Legislative Symposium February 26, 2015, at the Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel. Attendees will include state legislators, gaming regulators, tribal and commercial gaming operators, and Internet gaming experts from around the world. Building on the momentum of the inaugural 2014 conference, the symposium will continue to examine the critical issues regarding the legalization of online gaming in California as well as other states. While there have been many obstacles on the path to legalized iPoker in California, proponents are making progress, said Victor Rocha, editor-in-chief of Pechanga.net, the leading gaming-industry news aggregator since 1998. These are complex issues and the iGaming Symposium will explore in detail all aspects of the issues. The iGaming Legislative Symposium brings together the most important thought leaders in Internet gambling, tribal governance, and California politics. Anyone who may have a stake in the outcome of Internet gambling legislation in California will want to attend this conference, added Michael Pollock, managing director of Spectrum Gaming Group, the globally recognized research and consulting firm. To learn more about this event, visit www.igamingsymposium.com. Please email [email protected] to be added to the mailing list for updates or to inquire about sponsorship opportunities. Previous Post Next Post About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.
Industry Reacts as California Online Poker Bills Shelved
The news that California will have to wait at least another year for online poker took a lot of the wind out of the sails of the iGaming world, but the failure of the legislature to pass a bill shouldnt overshadow the significant progress that was made in the state. Yes, a lot still needs to be ironed out for online poker to pass in 2015, but we are closer than ever in California, something that was noticeable in many of the comments made following the announcement that the legislature would not be acting on online poker before going to recess at the end of the month. Senator Lou Correa State Senator Lou Correa, the sponsor of SB 1366 was the first person to signal that the legislature would not be acting on online poker this session, when he told the LA Times on Wednesday that, Internet poker is an important public policy. We need to make sure its done right, and stated that there simply wasnt enough time to get a compromise bill done. Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer On Friday, PokerNews.coms Matthew Kredell heard from a representative speaking on behalf of Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, who sponsored AB 2291. The representative told PokerNews.com that the Jones-Sawyer bill to legalize online poker in California will not have enough time to pass this legislative session, but added that a new bill will be the first one introduced by the assemblyman for the next session in December. The PokerStars coalition On Friday PokerStars and their California iPoker partners released a three-part statement where they made it clear that they will be advocating for a bill as soon as possible, and that their alliance is still intact and strong. Coalition of 13 tribes Much like the PokerStars alliance, the coalition of 13 tribes that lined up in opposition to PokerStars also released a statement this past week. The coalition struck a similar tone to PokerStars and company (no bill is better than a rushed bad bill) although that singular wedge issue is apparently still keeping the two coalitions apart. Twitter reactions Previous Post Next Post morongo|pokerstars About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.
California iGaming Week in Review: RIP California Online Poker Bills
Summer in California is a time to enjoy beaches, palm trees, and sunshine. Evidently, thats exactly what the parties involved with online poker discussions in the state are doing instead of finding agreeable terms to pass legislation. Online poker players will have to wait until December to see any more movement in California, and it will likely be well into 2015 before the possibility of legislation passage comes into view again. Confirmation came through late this week that both online poker bills in the Sunshine State are shelved. Dead. Put to bed without dinner. Rest in peace, California bills. Goodbye, SB 1366. We Hardly Knew Ye. As August began, legislators prepared to return from their summer recess to face desks covered with more than 1,000 pending bills. With their two-year legislative session coming to an end on August 31, priorities had to be set and work done. When the Los Angeles Times reported about the August 4 return of the lawmakers, Internet poker was near the top of the list of topics, along with regulating medical marijuana and addressing gun laws. Poker players once again hopped on the roller coaster of hope that California would join Nevada, Delaware, and New Jersey in the burgeoning US online poker market. They saw the possibilities of such a large state entering the fray, possibly with PokerStars on board, and had visions of nut flushes and full houses dancing in their heads. That was Monday. By the end of the Day on Wednesday, some of those hopes were dashed. California State Senator Lou Correa, a longtime supporter of online poker in his state, told the LA Times that his bill was dead for 2014. And since Correas term limits kick in to disallow him from returning to the legislature next year, his online poker efforts are now done. Period. SB 1366 was strong because Correa was the Chairman of the Senate Governmental Organization Committee and had quite a bit of support. However, he told the LA Times on Wednesday that there was not enough time in the session to refine his bill for a vote. The tribes, horse tracks, and card rooms had been unable to agree on terms for the language of the bill, so it was filed away. Correa noted, Internet poker is an important public policy. We need to make sure its done right. There was still one more bill pending, that of State Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer. Could it, would it possibly be able to survive? And Goodbye, AB 2291. You Had So Much Potential. Jones-Sawyers bill was AB 2291. The morning after the shelving of Correas online poker effort, PokerNews confirmed that his piece of legislation was also laid to rest. Unlike Correa, however, Jones-Sawyer will be returning to the legislature. He vowed that a new online poker bill will be the first one introduced for the next session this December. He said that progress has been made since AB 2291 was introduced, and the primary points of contention were the bad actor clause and the participation of horse race tracks in online poker. The Jones-Sawyer representative was confident that the debate will result in some sort of compromise and that the efforts of Sheldon Adelson to stop online gambling in the United States had nothing to do with the stalling of the efforts. Tribes Remain Confident in Future A group of 13 tribes released a statement upon the notification of dead online poker bills in California for 2014. The coalition that includes San Manuel, Pechanga, Agua Caliente, Barona, and Pala noted: Most of the tribes in California have been mentally and technologically preparing for the coming of Internet poker. Their active participation with legislators acknowledges the inevitability of the industrys launch in California. However, most of the tribes remain steadfast in their opposition to PokerStars being allowed to enter the market. Will they change their minds if (and likely when) New Jersey awards PokerStars a license to operate on the East Coast? Could their opinions be changed if Amaya launches a public campaign to gain popularity in the US? There are now many more months to see if any of these possibilities come to pass and if the California online poker entities can come to some agreement on the details of the potential December bill. Dare We Get Hopes Up Again? Yes. All parties involved in online poker legislation decided that they have something to gain by legalizing and legislating online poker for Californians. It will happen. Whether or not a bill will go all the way to passage and become a law in 2015 is another story. It seems likely, but many thought 2014 was the year to follow in the footsteps of New Jersey, Nevada, and Delaware. Many will need to see it next year to believe it. Meanwhile, the projections for California online poker are becoming clearer, especially when Chris Grove breaks it down in such a detailed manner as he did at the end of July. By combining and analyzing estimates of revenue from California online poker by professionals like Morgan Stanley as well as realistic looks at the Nevada and New Jersey models in place, Grove came up with a number of nearly $200 million in the first full year of regulated online poker and double that amount when the market matures. The numbers are simply too big to ignore, for potential operators and vendors as well as legislators who are under constant pressure to find revenue-generating paths for California. It will happen. Just dont hold your breath because it clearly wont be easy or fast. Previous Post Next Post amaya|pokerstars About Jennifer Newell Jennifer has been writing about poker for nearly a decade, including extensive work as a freelancer, where Jennifer has worked for numerous gaming-related websites, magazines, and blogs with a focus on players, news, and interesting stories. Follow Jennifer on Google+ and Twitter.
California Is Running Out of Time to Pass Online Poker
Earlier this year the California Senate and Assembly introduced bills that would allow the state to expand their gaming options, adding online poker to the mix that already includes card rooms, tribal casinos and race tracks. The attempt is nothing new, as this marks the fifth year in a row that California has flirted with expanding into iGaming, and even though the state is closer than ever before, its starting to look like we can get ready for Californias sixth try next year, as the legislature is running out of time to get something done before the session comes to an end. The online poker bills introduced by Senator Lou Correa and Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer are fairly similar but not identical, as they were crafted by two different factions. Additionally, the bills have run into numerous roadblocks since they were introduced, most notably the ongoing fight over who should be allowed to apply for a license should California legalize and regulate online poker, the so-called Bad Actor clause. Bad Actor opponents On one side of the aisle is the coalition that includes Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Commerce Casino, the Bicycle Casino, and the Hawaiian Gardens Casino who are calling for lawmakers to strip out any language that would preemptively bar certain companies from applying for an online poker license namely those that accepted wagers from the US after December 31, 2006. This opposition is not surprising considering all four of these entities have signed an agreement that will see them partner with PokerStars should online poker come to California, and PokerStars falls under the definition of a Bad Actor used in the bills. The PokerStars coalition stance is that the regulators, not lawmakers, should decide which companies are suitable and which are not, just as New Jersey regulators have done. Basically, let the regulators do the job they are paid to do; regulate. Bad Actor proponents On the other side is basically everyone else, or at the very least 13 other tribes. To oppose PokerStars a group of 13 tribes have teamed up, not only voicing their opposition in letters and at public hearings, but going so far as to hold meetings to hash out any disagreements between themselves in order to focus all of their scorn on the PokerStars issue. This coalition of tribes has even drafted their own online poker bill which they were hoping would be introduced by a friendly Senator / Assemblyperson. So far nobody has stepped up to the plate and introduced the bill. The proposed bill contains comprehensive Bad Actor / Tainted Assets language that would preclude a company like PokerStars from even applying for a license in California. This groups stance is that companies that violated UIGEA should not be allowed to participate in the new regulated markets; they should not be rewarded for continuing to operate in the US during that time period. You can read more about this disagreement here: PokerStars Past Under Siege What the Bad Actor debate has done The debate over PokerStars may not have killed the bill directly, but the ongoing fight, and the inability by the two sides to come to some type of an agreement has stalled online poker talks in the state, and at this point stalling talks is pretty much the same as killing the bill. The legislature has already passed one deadline (all bills were supposed to have been passed by their House of Origin by May 30, 2014) although as I pointed out in an article at OnlinePokerReport.com several weeks ago, there are several potential loopholes to get around this deadline, including the almost farcical Gut and Amend solution that allows a lawmaker to essentially erase a current bill that has passed its house of origin and replace it with an entirely new bill. The only restriction being that the bill would have to be passed by both houses. However, there is another more steadfast deadline looming, as the legislative calendar states: Aug. 31 Last day for each house to pass bills (Art. IV. Sec. 10(c), J.R. 61(b)(17)). Final Recess begins upon adjournment (J.R. 51(b)(3)). Essentially, anything that is not passed by August 31 is officially dead. No workarounds, no loopholes, no nothing. If the California legislature does not pass an online poker bill (Senate and Assembly) by August 31 the legislative session comes to an end and any pending bills are wiped from the books. If California doesnt make some headway on online poker in the very near future we can kiss 2014 goodbye. Previous Post Next Post bike|commerce|hawaiian gardens|morongo|pokerstars About Steve Ruddock Steve Ruddock is a longtime member of the online gambling industry. He covers the regulated US online casino and poker industries for variety of publications, including OnlinePokerReport.com, PlayNJ.com, USPoker.com, and USA Today.


text:
User:Johny Ryder
Data expert, tech lover, privacy protector. I started using computers and the internet early 1994. And I can not imagine how I would ever be able to communicate with my friends and family without these products.
It is great to be able to share through the internet. But (semi) public sharing has its downsides too. I like to read about and work on keeping the protection of private information something individuals can control themselves.
But sometimes it is good that there are forensic tools available. Just as long these tools are used properly. I hope people are aware of the possibilities to protect their privacy, and protectors of the public domain are aware of the forensic tools available, and use them properly.
I hereby license all my contributions to this wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license.


text:
To have any real sense of getting somewhere, it's helpful to know where you're starting from and where you want to go. Goal setting is a dynamic tool for getting things done, and helps you clarify what is important in your life, what your priorities are. And it aids self-esteem. By setting goals you are resisting the mentality that says you are a victim in life. Instead, you affirm your choice for self-responsibility: "I am responsible for my life and health" and "I am a worthwhile person."
Goals are like maps-they keep you on course. More than that, goals are like magnets-they tend to attract things that help get them accomplished. It's almost magical at times, the way this works. When you put down in words what you want to achieve, you immediately start to see or remember the resources that are all around you.
Many people make lists of the things they have to do that day or that week. When they cross some items off, they have a feeling of accomplishment. Even if they only get through half the list, they still feel good knowing that they've moved forward.
There is power in setting goals, so tap into that power now.
Small Changes-An Exercise in Setting Goals
People often overwhelm themselves by tackling a goal that they think they "should" achieve. They set their sights too high and then quit completely when they don't make the grade. It helps to make a distinction between the goals you think you want and the goals to which you will really commit.
1. Read back over the letters and lists you generated in Discover What You Already Know. Star any items that you really want to change or work on in some way. Add any new ones that occur to you. Call this selection of starred items and additions your "Want List."
If you didn't do the exercises offered in that section, draw up a Want List now, noting aspects of your life that you know are affecting your overall health. For example: the people, behaviors, circumstances, and environments that encourage or discourage your wellness.
2. Now look over your Want List and put a double star next to any items that you are ready to change or work on in some way right now. Write down those items in complete sentences that express your willingness to act. For example:
I am ready and willing to commit to making a change
in my habit of driving over the speed limit.
I am ready and willing to...
3. Prioritize your commitment statements.
4. Starting with your top priority item, brainstorm for a moment or two about any preliminary steps you will need to take before you can start working directly on your goal. For example, will you need to purchase some special equipment, shop at a different food store, start reading a book on nutrition, get some instruction in weight-bearing exercise, or have a consultation with your doctor? Write these steps down.
Now set up a schedule for accomplishing these preliminaries. Assigning specific dates, times, places, or methods to these items will maximize the likelihood of your follow-through.
5. Next, make a Resource List of the people, places, and things that are available to help you in fulfilling your commitment. For example:
My children, I can ask them to remind me of my commitment when they see I am breaking it.


text:
From inside the book
84 pages matching result in this book
Where's the rest of this book?
Results 1-3 of 84
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Models for Understanding Masculinity
Personality Theory and Male Development
Socially Based Theoretical Perspectives on Males and Gender
13 other sections not shown
Common terms and phrases
adult aggression alexithymia American American Psychiatric Association androgyny anger antifemininity aspects associated become behave behavior believe biological boys child conflict context counseling deal defined demands described disorders dominance economic effects emotional emotionally ence experience expression factors father feelings feminine Freud gender identity gender role strain gender-typed girls heterosexual homophobia homosexual human hypermasculine ideologies important individual inexpressiveness interactions interpersonal involves Kilmartin Kimmel lesbian levels lives Lynch & Kilmartin mainstream U.S. males and females mascu masculine gender role men's movement men's rights Men's Studies mental health mythopoetic negative norms parents partners patriarchy person perspective physical Pleck positive pressure problems Promise Keepers psychological rape rapist relationships result risk same-sex sex differences Sex Roles sexism sexual harassment sexual orientation social society Sociobiologists stereotypes superego tend testosterone theorists theory tion traditional masculinity victims violence vulnerable Washington Post women York


text:
Or Login using BecomeGorgeous
Please fill the form below and follow the further instructions.
You are about to receive a email from us please make sure to check your spam or junk folder and add our email [email protected] to your contact list.
Thank you!
With the days of her 'Mean Girls' cinematographic début long gone, experienced actress Amanda Seyfried is preparing to star yet again in two new movies in 2012, films that are set to attract a generous amount of attention. Preparing to star in the upcoming biopic 'Lovelace' as Linda Lovelace and Colette in 'Les Miserables', Amanda seems to still have time for her personal life. The 26 year old actress took time to chat with Glamor US for the publication's March 2012 issue, and posed for a spread in the magazine looking divine. With perfect b... Read More


text:
I have often wondered to myself what I might have said to my younger, theist self, if I had that opportunity now, and whether anything I could have said would have made any difference to me then. The idea for me was, knowing so well how I thought, could I have, with my current understanding, have altered my views? The most honest answer I have given myself is "not really." I honestly do not think there is anything I could go back and say to prior self that would have made any impact at the time I was a staunch believer.
When caller Kris came on the phone and began to testify, I was stunned how much she related that reminded me of myself back when. She initially called to say she wanted to share some of her experiences, and I asked her what her goal was—mainly to be clear that she wasn't expecting to be allowed to testify unchallenged. When she said she was hoping to show us why she believes what she believes, we let her proceed. I even stated just a short time later, before she began to clarify, "What you're saying is that to the best of your knowledge, what you're about to relay is your accurate account of the events as you remember them." And she confirmed. Sight unseen, with no knowledge of anything about Kris or what she was about to convey, I expressed our acceptance of her good faith effort to be honest in her statement.
She said she "came to faith" because she was at a point where she wasn't sure, and she was searching for "truth"—she was searching online by watching videos about "experiences that people had of god." Part of me wishes I would have inquired why this was an area of interest for Kris, as she stated that she had no religious upbringing. She then relayed she watched one testimony that convinced her to the point she actually believed. And that night she prayed. And here, I wish I would have asked Kris, if she had found the answer—and concluded a god exists, what was the point of further testing? Why pray to god to reveal itself, if you already have your answer?
She then says her prayer was answered a couple weeks later. Someone later at dinner joked she should have ordered through God Prime—so she wouldn't have to wait weeks for the answer. But the interesting thing about receiving a revelation from the god of the universe showing you itself, was that apparently it's not as impressive as you might think, because it took her some time to finally decide that the event actually was a demonstration of the god of the universe showing itself. Later, when she realized god had revealed itself, she was amazed—but somehow at the time it occurred, it wasn't all that impressive or evident. In fact, the event was that a nonreligious event happened to be scheduled in a church, as a venue, and a relative was going to attend, and invited her to come along. This mundane episode is what Kris took as the almighty creator of the universe revealing itself to her. In fact, we often hold the annual ACA Bat Cruise lecture at a local church because it's a convenient venue. Is this an annual revelation from the creator of the universe to the atheist Bat Cruise/Lecture attendees, that we're all missing?
I asked if her prayer was specific. It was not. This is a Christian tactic. First you convince the person there is something valuable riding on the answer to the question "does god exist?" Then you tell them to go and ask for a sign or revelation—but nothing specific (not that even a specific answer would be confirmation—but at least it narrows the field a bit). Then you tell them they'll know it when they see it—and as Kris demonstrates, even if you don't know it when you see it, you can always go back and reinterpret past events to make them fit the bill. Kris even said, regarding god's revelation that "he can do it in whatever way he chooses." Literally, anything can be god revealing itself to you. She followed up with "you just know"—completely missing the point. But that first step is investment: If you can't get someone to feel invested in the answer to that question—then they won't care if there is or is not a god. I very much wish I'd have asked Kris what her investment was—as someone with no religious history. My own history was being raised in fundamentalism, so, like a later caller, fear of potential hell was a strong motivation. In fact, I prayed for approximately two years straight for evidence of god before my family's preacher invited me to a class about evidence for faith. If that class had not happened—is there much doubt that going down the path I was on—praying for years, every night—something would eventually have happened that could be interpreted as "a sign" from god—especially with a fear of hell, and being separated from my family for eternity, looming over my head? But with Kris—never being taught she had any dog in the fight—what difference did it make to her, one way or the other, if there is/is not a god?
The fact that Kris was motivated to find an answer showed some investment—she wasn't just mildly curious. She was "searching" for this answer—spending time watching others explain their experiences—why? I don't doubt Kris was not raised religiously, but I do have to say this smacks of religious influence. Someone convinced Kris the answer to this question had some bearing on her—enough that finding the answer was important. She had, at this point, accepted some level of buy-in to some religious doctrine, sufficient to convince her of this.
Additionally, she had bought-in to special pleading. Imagine you lost your watch and couldn't find it. You desperately want to know where it is—to know the truth of where you left it, so that you could find it again. Would you go into your bedroom and think hard to the cosmos, asking the location of the watch be revealed to you? If you wanted to know if the stories about Big Foot represented a real species of large ape in North America—would you mentally ask Big Foot to reveal itself to you in some nonspecific way? This is not how you discover the truth about the reality you live in. It's not how you learn about things outside your own mind. What else do we apply this sort of "searching" to? I suppose to some degree, things like remote viewing might qualify? But in the end, most folks realize this is not the way to discover truth. If a scientist published a conclusion with his evidence being "I asked the cosmos to reveal the truth to me, and I really feel this is right," it would be ludicrous. If an investigating law enforcement officer said he had made an arrest and identified the perpetrator of a crime by asking the cosmos to reveal it to him—again, I would seriously hope we would not consider that sound investigative technique.
An honest search for truth is not handled in this way—except if the thing you're searching for is god. And you only know this if someone with a religious background has convinced you to use this form of special pleading for god. Just trash everything you know about how truth is discovered—and use this technique that you'd consider ridiculous in any other context. I accepted this when I was younger, because of years of conditioning. It's a bit odd to me that someone who was not raised with this ideology would buy in so readily to it. Again, I'm not saying Kris was raised in a religious home—but it's clear that someone was exerting Christian religious influence on her—because these methods and ideas about god and how to find truth regarding god—are not learned from life experience, but from indoctrination.
When Kris went into the church she says she found a text for a prayer that explained how you could give your life to god. Again—if your question is "does god exist?," and you've answered it—what exactly are you doing here? She says she really didn't even know what "giving your life to god" entailed, but she decided to go with the prayer, anyway. Why? What makes you think, that if a god exists, there's a need to "give your life" over to that god? What convinced you a god wants your life devoted to it? Again, evidence someone was influencing her religiously. She doesn't explain this beyond watching some videos, but it seems clear to me that religious influence is affecting Kris' decisions and thinking here. These are not ideas you'd come to on your own, without someone telling you these things work in this way and these assumptions should be made.
In sum, Kris' assumptions don't make any sense if you're not already presupposing things about a god's nature and intentions. And what a coincidence that her assumptions happen to perfectly align with pre-existing Christian doctrine about god?
She went on to say she's experienced a lot of "amazing" things since. But "amazing" is relative, in the same way "I went to an event that was held in a church" is relative as a revelation of the existence of the creator of the universe. She additionally has experienced a unique form of joy. I will never stop explaining to people that emotions are self-informing and self-generated. There is a ton of current evidence showing that emotions are feedback generated by our own brains in response to our own interpretations of events—whether those interpretations are accurate or not. Confronted by something that cannot harm you, a person can still experience unwarranted fear. It's a response to their personal interpretation of the external reality. And it simply informs them they feel this way about that external reality. There is no evidence to date that emotional experience and feedback is the result of gods manipulating our brains or thoughts or feelings. Zero. Why this idea that emotional responses are convincing evidence of god persists, in light of today's understanding of human emotional responses, is baffling. There are people whose brains don't work normally who experience problems with emotional response, and we have clearly tied this to brain chemistry. You can even manually manipulate emotional response using chemicals or electrodes—further showing it's your brain, not god/s, that determines your emotional states. There should be no question about this. "Joy" is as much evidence of god as a headache or being hungry.
Eventually I asked Kris what she was referring to when she used the label "god." This was what my 10-year search culminated in. When I finally realized I had no meaningful definition of god, the phrase "I believe a god exists" was no more meaningful than "I believe ? exists." I wasn't expressing a belief, because I can't believe in something I have no definition for—that has no meaning even to me. What am I saying is true? If I don't know—then I'm not saying anything meaningful. I'm expressing nonsense. And so, I wondered what Kris' response would be to this question. She gave several very flailing attempts to explain. At one point when I asked her to explain what god is, she actually responded "I'm not sure I understand the question."
At this point, in response to me saying I'd wasted ten years of my life on this and was frustrated by the thought of her potentially wasting her own life, she replied, "I'm not wasting my life believing something I know is the truth." This is a segue, but I wanted to note that at the end of the call, she denied having said this, and Matt called her out for lying. What she said was inaccurate. But let me say that I know what Kris was experiencing here. When someone begins asking you questions you aren't prepared for in defense of your religious beliefs, you start saying anything to defend—no matter how far down the hole of absurdity you have to go. You flail and begin making nonsensical statements, and even contradicting yourself. It's actually quite possible that Kris didn't even know, at the time she said she wasn't claiming truth, that she cognitively realized how many times she'd actually referred to her beliefs in the call as true/truth. After the show, in talking to Chris Johnson about how much Kris reminded me of my past self, he asked something like "But would you have said 'God is love' and all that other ridiculous stuff?" My answer was "yes. Absolutely I would have been saying ridiculous things—and probably thinking I was making complete sense." The ability to self-contradict and not realize it is part and parcel of indoctrination, and how you defend these beliefs at any cost. It's completely common. Take a religious person off script—and no one knows, not even them, what you're going to get.
When Matt asked how she can know her views are true, he asked what if someone had a pair of lucky socks they "just know are lucky." And at that point, she reverted again into special pleading. She refused to compare her belief that it's true a god exists with someone else's belief it's true their team wins games like lokalavisen.dk when they wear their lucky socks. There is no reason to refuse to use both examples to determine the difference between your knowledge of the truth about X, and their knowledge of the truth about Y. Just explain how your knowledge is different. It's not hard. But it is if there is actually no difference. So, rather than address the structure of the justification for how she knows—she simply dismissed it based on the fact that her god is deserving of unique categorization that is not ever comparable to anything else: Special pleading.
She then reverted to the apologetic expression: "God is love." She even reached to say that it's a unique use of the term "love" to mean "something positive." But this helps not at all. Of course I believe things happen that we can interpret at positive. Of course I accept the existence of the emotion "love"—even as subjective as it is. But she began to say fire and park benches are synonymous with love. It was the point where her apologetics were beginning to unravel—in view of the audience. I don't mean to imply that she actually viewed her responses as going off the rails. But I think at this point other viewers were able to see things quickly disintegrating as far as her credibility as a reasonable person willing to honestly converse.
At this point, Matt referenced the call log to say she had woken up with "Matt's name in your spirit." And she explained that she felt the fact she remembered his last name was another revelation from god. And again, it's a testament to how literally anything can be communication from the almighty creator of the universe.
Going back through the call, I feel that I did give a good attempt to deconstruct her testimony based on the experience I've had since my own deconversion. I don't think there is much else I could have added. I'm not saying there weren't other paths to pursue. Potentially a discussion on Bible origins may have been useful? But outside of that I walked her through most of what impacted my views on belief in god.
Perhaps the worst part of that call, however, was her dismissal of my past experience and Matt's, when she used the tired and dishonest stereotype that anyone who really believes a god exists could never stop believing. This was offensive on many levels, but the worst for me was possibly that I started the call by telling her we would take her at her word in good faith—when it came to her explaining her own experiences. Many times I told her I believed she believed and was wholly dedicated—because I understood that experience myself. My past belief and devotion didn't diminish her own, in fact, it validated it. We only called her beliefs into question when she wasn't able to explain what she believed to be true, and when she outright contradicted her constant claim she had knowledge of the truth, by saying she'd never said that. Up to the point she began to stop making sense, and to contradict herself, we never attempted to invalidate her version of the events leading to her interpretations. We may have challenged the interpretations, but not her experiences. Her response to us, to say that we didn't believe what we claimed to believe—that we were sitting there lying—was an affront to every atheist deconvert, but most especially those who were most dedicated and spent the most time devoted to religious ideologies—some of whom, I wouldn't mind comparing to her own devotion to see how she stacks up.
The call frustrated me. And I'm glad, going back to see that I didn't seem as hostile as I feared I might have. I don't think my interaction with her altered her view in any way. But I'm hoping that some others who were watching may have gained something from it—which is most often how the show impacts people. Who knows?


text: Since 2017, CW Mossor LLC is your best choice for repair, installation, and service in homes and buildings just like yours in the Winchester VA and the Surrounding Area. We take special pride in the craftsmen we train and employ--a fact you'll see in the reviews below. It's also noticeable immediately in the attitude and integrity our technicians bring to your job site. Our entire company works hard to make your experience with us hassle-free and enjoyable. You can also be assured that CW Mossor LLC stands behind the work we do as well as complies with all local codes. This is why, as you can see by the map and reviews below, we are rated so highly for Furnace and Air Conditioning Repair in Linden, VA. Call us today at (540) 868-0110!


text:
Boston Celtics Tickets
Boston Celtics Tickets Tickets Rated 0.00/5 based on 0 customer reviews 100 0
2013 Result: 41-40 (7th East seed), lost in Conference Quarterfinals to New York The Boston 'Big Three' era is over. A year after losing Ray Allen to Miami, the Celtics have finally called it quits on the Paul Pierce-Kevin Garnett-Allen trio after just one championship and two Finals appearances in six years. The players they received in the trade (Kris Humphries, Reggie Evans, Gerald Wallace, Tornike Shengelia, Keith Bogans, and Kris Joseph) aren't nearly as important as the three first-round draft picks they got, which gives them opportunities to find franchise-changing players to build around Rajon Rondo and Jeff Green. The Celtics also executed a rare exchange involving a coach, trading well-regarded Doc Rivers to the Clippers for a first-round pick in 2015. New coach Brad Stevens comes from a strong Butler basketball program. This is definitely a new age of basketball in Boston, and may not result in a playoff berth this year, this rebuild was bound to happen at some point and the good news is the Celtics cut off the Big Three while they still had value. Now with a young, fairly talented roster and four extra first-round draft picks coming up, it shouldn't take long for the Celtics to get back into the deep playoffs. The Boston Celtics are one of the most storied and successful franchises in the history of the NBA. Since forming in 1946, the Boston Celtics have won 17 championships, more than any other team in the NBA. From 1957 to 1969, the Celtics won 11 championships in 13 years, 8 of them in a row (1959-1966). The Celtics owe their years of success to a number of NBA greats including Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Larry Bird, and coaches Red Auerbach and Doc Rivers. This rebuilding season will feature a lot more youth and role players, and Rondo could finally be the face of the franchise. For more information on the Boston Celtics' 2013-14 NBA season, visit their website.
Results Filter


text:
KaliRaps - Goodbye [Label Submitted]
@KaliRaps 2nd release From "Hats Off" Set to drop on Aug 30th
Follow Kali On Twitter and contact email@example.com for bookings & Feature inquires
video directed by @GorillaFlix
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Illinois Gov. Quinn names new chief of staff
Gov. Pat Quinn picked his Department of Human Services head to be his new chief of staff.
Quinn named Michelle Saddler on Tuesday to replace Jerry Stermer, who resigned this weekend amid an ethics probe. Saddler has led the social service agency since October 2009.
Stermer resigned Sunday after a probe of his admission that he had "inadvertently" used his state e-mail account to send three messages, including campaign-related ones. He said executive inspector general James Wright later determined they were prohibited under state ethics rules.
Stermer said he quit to avoid being a distraction for Quinn, who is in a tough campaign against Republican state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington.


text:
I've done better on hillclimbs: Diablo as solid a 5th out of 6 as you can get, and a satisfying 2nd Ross' Epic. Small fields in each case, but the guys who beat me are guys who should be beating me. I rode well in each case.
But besides racing, my goal this year (as last year) was to crack 17 minutes up Old La Honda. My existing PR has been 17:03 from 2002. That was on a sub-16 lb Fuji Team, actually a Teschner hand-built bike for the Mercury team. The frame cracked on me last year, and I replaced it with another Fuji, this time a real Fuji, the SL/1 carbon frame, which I love. Weenied out it weighs in at a very nice 11.35 lb. So with that sort of advantage, I certainly should have been able to crack 17 minutes. But I wanted a bit more: I wanted to further beat my previous time by enough to offset the difference in bike weight.
It's rare -- very rare, in fact, I get to try for a "real time" up Old La Honda. Normally I've ridden hard Saturday and Sunday. I go into Tue still not fully recovered, then do some brutal interval or sprint session. On Wednesday, I'm hardly firing on all cylinders. Then if I do the climb, I'm carrying a pump and tool bag, probably with a full waterbottle. These are not the ways to get a PR. To really nail the climb you need to strip down all extra weight, come in with fresh legs, get an optimal warm up riding close to threshold but not over, and bring your best equipment. The last time I'd done this had been 2006, when I scored a tepid 17:43 at the Low-Key Hillclimb.
2006 Low-Key up OLH (Sheri Greenspan photo)
I am lighter now then I was then, and have been training smarter, so expected more. Indeed, my recent times have been close to this just on the Noon Ride, riding my steel Ritchey Breakaway with boat-anchor Powertap rear clincher wheel and a typically heavy front clincher wheel.
Yesterday I realized I had my chance. After a solid climbing workout last Wednesday, I'd had good preparation: a long massage + light ride on Thursday, no ride (travel) on Friday, a steady ride @ Diamond Valley on Saturday, a steady climb of Carson Pass on Sunday, then recovery on Monday. Freshness without staleness. Plus, the air temperature was essentially perfect: warm but not hot. The only downer was a 12 mph westerly wind. Old La Honda's eastern slope is well sheltered from westerly winds, but even an undetectable breeze can be worth 10 seconds.
So anyway, with my bike fully weenied (if I'd gotten a flat, it would have been a long walk back to the office...), I set off on the Noon Ride. They were doing the Tue Double Alpine route, which was perfect as it reduced the pace on Alpine to the Portola intersection. They continued on up Alpine, while I bailed on Portola for a moderate spin to Old La Honda Road.
During the spin, I selected on my strategy: put it in the 36/18 and keep that gear spinning. In lieu of a power meter, which I'd left at home in favor of the considerable mass savings of my Mt Washington rear wheel, I'd go old school: pace using gears and cadence. Old La Honda's grade varies considerably on a short-scale, but over longer length scales it's remarkably consistent. So a constant cadence in a constant gear means a relatively constant rate of altitude gain and a relatively constant power output.
The pace felt way too easy at the bottom. But I knew from experience with the Powertap that even what feels easy at the bottom can result in struggling in the final kilometers, and it was important to hold my power the full distance. Unlike when I pace with the power meter, however, I resisted the temptation to upshift when the grade reduced. I was married to that 18 cog. In the final kilometer, I'd reconsider.
As the climb progressed, it became harder to keep that gear spinning. But never too bad. When I hit the "3 mile" marker, with 500 meters to go, I knew it was time to ramp it up. Here I switched to alternating between the 17 and 18 cog, following the grade allowed, finally jamming it in the last 200 meters. I hit my watch, not really expecting that I'd achieved my goal.
But there it was: 16:49.44. I'd done it, at long last, and with time to spare.
So what about the weight? I'd had much lighter shoes in 2002 (custom 4-hole Rocket 7's versus my heavy Sidi Megas with Speedplay cleat adaptor plates, a total difference of close to 200 grams), but my helmet was around 70 grams heavier then. My bike was the big difference: around 4.5 lb lighter. So let's call the net difference around 4.1 lb. I weighed 124.4 lb yesterday morning, then add in 3.1 lb for clothing, shoes, and helmet. The net result is 4.1 lb would be around 2.9% of total mass. Given my calculations I've recently posted here, this would increase my time by around 1.8%, 18.05 seconds, bringing me up to 17:07.5, 4 seconds away from my 2002 time. Still, were I to add in the headwind, the two efforts are probably similar.
One potential advantage is tires. I'd have used some ultra-light Michelin clinchers in 2002 with ultra-light butyl tubes. This time: Veloflex Record tubulars, which have exceptionally low rolling resistance. And of course the state of the pavement varies. There's a lot of patching on the road today, but I think it's better than in 2002.
So I probably climbed better in 2002. But let's be real: I'm 7 years older, so that's not unexpected.
Maybe I'll have a chance to knock a bit more time off this time this year. Certainly my climbing power has been increasing over the past month. I'll definitely give it at least one more shot.
Some calculated numbers (with certain assumptions):
VAM: 1402 meters/hour (Contador was 1860 up Verbier)
wind resistance power: 33 watts
rolling resistance power: 16 watts
climbing power: 240 watts
Powertap power: 290 watts
drivetrain loss: 9 watts
SRM power: 299 watts = 5.31 W/kg (Contador was 6.7 W/kg up Verbier)
These numbers are good for me. My previous best power up Old La Honda on the Powertap was 289 watts, on a ride last April 8. But of course there's a lot of uncertainty in these calculations.


text:
Our jam band is scheduled to play an outdoor party at an organic farm commune this weekend, and one of our guitar players got stage fright and backed out on us. He just sent us an email saying that he'd been stressing over this gig and that he couldn't do it, and that he wouldn't be at this week's jam/practice.
We'll do fine without him, but it was a bit of a surprise. He's had issues with performing in the past, but he's never backed out on a gig before. We don't even need him to lead any tunes, although he does a bunch of 'em; I can't quite figure out what hit him.
It'll be interesting to see if this experience causes him to question the direction he's goin' with his music.
I've never suffered from stage fright, so I have no idea what he's going through.


text:
Singer Lisa Marie Presley has axed an upcoming show in New York as the city continues its cleanup from Hurricane Sandy.
Elvis Presley's daughter was due to play the NYCB Theater at Westbury on November16, but she has decided to call off the gig in the wake of the post-tropical cyclone, which destroyed thousands of homes and left millions without
electricity when it hit the East Coast last week.
In a post on her Twitter.com page, she writes, "November 16 show in Westbury, NY is canceled due to conditions caused by Hurricane Sandy. Please help spread the word about this."
Presley isn't the only star to abandon a gig due to Sandy: Aretha Franklin announced on Wednesday that she was postponing her upcoming concerts in New Jersey and New York to give her fans more time to recover in the aftermath of the storm.


text:
We were told that the flower stinks even before we could see it. First, there was a waft of rotten fish smell, but as we neared the flower, we forgot all about the smell as we were awed by its gigantic beauty!
Click on the photos to enlarge...
|Rafflesia - in full bloom
The inlaid photo boasts that the flower was 83 cms large, and can be reached within 3 minutes walk. A 5-6 year old girl (probably the owner's kid), guided along the short trek. Well, it took us about 10 minutes walk, but it was well worth.
The guide, the youngest one I've ever come across, was pretty good in explaining about flower. Here are some of the interesting stuff we heard from the guide:
- Rafflesia is poisonous, thatz why the flower was fenced off!
- Rafflesia is a parasitic plant that just absorbs food and nutrients from its host
- The flower can grow more than 100 cms in diameter
- The life of the flower is about 1 week, and
- It starts stinking terribly when it dies!
|Rafflesia - Offsprings!
At least one bud will be around the full bloom, nature's way to preserve its species!
You might also like to read/see pics of my other Borneo experiences...
Poring - Canopy Walkway Bridge
Aerial Views - Borneo


text:
London: The Football Association have confirmed they are reviewing the footage of Eden Hazard`s red card during Chelsea`s goalless draw with Swansea in Wednesday`s Capital One Cup semi-final second leg at the Liberty Stadium.
Hazard was dismissed for appearing to kick a ball boy - 17-year-old Charlie Morgan, son of Swansea director Martin - who had fallen on the ball in the closing stages of the match.
The Belgian will serve a minimum three-match ban as a result of the straight red card for violent conduct, but his actions have attracted widespread condemnation and calls for harsher punishment.
South Wales Police confirmed that no criminal charges will be brought against Hazard, while it has emerged both parties made peace and apologised for their actions in the Chelsea dressing room after the match.
The incident has overshadowed Swansea`s historic passage to the final of the Capital One Cup, where they will face League Two side Bradford City as they aim to secure a first major trophy in the club`s history.


text:
Message Board
Pearl Bailey Message Board
Talk about the novels, new and used books that Bailey has written!
Author Bailey's Book Reviews
Talking to Myself
Famed performer and activist Pearl Bailey allows a free flow of thought as she is writing this book. The first page details her appointment as Ambassador of Love by former president Richard Nixon. She shares many personal thoughts about God, prayer, spiritualism and love. Some of the issues of the day include racism, political and celebrity power, human rights, war and media influences. There is even a section about her experience of the Los Angeles ...


text:
Paypal temporarily disabled
Haiku is a form of Japanese poetry, usually only three lines with a very strict number of syllables.
Other Results: 2 Challenges, 9 Beta Readers, 2 Series
All fan fiction represented in this archive are © their respective owners and/or authors. All original works are © their respective authors. No reproduction of the written works in this archive is permitted without prior consent of their respective authors. All Rights Reserved. Icons used on this site are from famfamfam.com. Protected by Spam Poison Bleach, Ichigo are © Studio Pierrot, TV Tokyo, Dentsu, and Tite Kubo.


text:
|Safe Haskell
addTrigger :: (IResource a, Typeable a) => (DBRef a -> Maybe a -> STM ()) -> IO ()Source
Add an user defined trigger to the list of triggers
Trriggers are called just before an object of the given type is created, modified or deleted.
The DBRef to the object and the new value is passed to the trigger.
The called trigger function has two parameters: the DBRef being accesed
(which still contains the old value), and the new value.
If the DBRef is being deleted, the second parameter is
if the DBRef contains Nothing, then the object is being created


text:
Use our tools to calculate monthly payments or figure out which cars you can afford.
Find the Best Price
Enter your zip code to get local pricing.
Already know what you are looking for? This is a good place to start. Go to Advanced Search »
Select cars that interest you and see a side-by-side comparison. Start a comparison now »
Buying a car should always be this easy. Get started now »


text:
New Zealand Tour Guides - hear their stories
Our tour guides have almost endless supplies of energy, and really do get a buzz from showing people the absolute best that New Zealand has to offer.
1 / 3
These are 3 of our New Zealand tour guides - ' Burto', ' Si' and " Hygi'
Listen to their stories as they talk abur their background and what being a tour guide means to them.
They are constantly travelling around New Zealand - from one end to the other. They know the best spots, and have great relationships with other tourism industry operators throught the country.
You can meet the rest of the crew here - any when you get to New Zealand, maybe you'll meet one in the flesh.


text:
These Full Color bracelets are made using a process that employs heat and pressure, just like diamonds! The bracelets come with the option to have a background in silver, gray, Navy blue, black, white, Army green, or camouflage, allowing you to choose the perfect background against which to frame your text and picture.
In addition, for those who want a closer fit for their wrist, there are two choices for size. These bracelets come in a large that is 6 3/4" long, and a small that is 6" long.


text:
"American Idol" boss Nigel Lythgoe has fired back at allegations of racism on the show following the threat of a lawsuit from former contestants.
Lawyer James H. Freeman has submitted a letter to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeking permission to sue producers behind the hit talent show on behalf of nine clients, all black men who have previously auditioned on the program.
In the document, which has been obtained by editors at TMZ.com, Freeman claims producers set out to humiliate the contestants by making them audition and then disqualifying them due to their criminal records.
He states the show violated California employment laws which ban bosses from asking potential employees about their arrest history, as the men were seeking employment by hoping to land a slot on the series.
Freeman claims this alleged tactic was racist and suggests the nine men's "personal and professional lives remain permanently and severely impaired by (the show's) continuing violations of our nation's laws."
However, Lythgoe, 'Idol's' longtime showrunner, insists the claims are unfounded, telling the website, "We treat everybody the same … no matter the race, religion or sex. I think we've always had a fantastic share of talent from contestants both black and white … I don't think I've ever seen racism at the show."
Freeman is allegedly planning to file a lawsuit if he receives the green light from officials at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.