text:
New and returning customers : securely link to mm.loccitane.com with your preferred social network and share one login for both!
A sensual blend of floral notes, the Fleur d'Or & Acacia Eau de Toilette allures with its enveloping and bright profile. This fragrance is the harmonious accord of mimosa absolute from Grasse and Mediterranean acacia. Soft and generous, the scent of these two ingredients swell to reveal a bouquet of white and yellow flowers. The Fleur d'Or & Acacia Eau de Toilette is part of La Collection de Grasse, inspired by the city of Grasse in Provence. Located near the Mediterranean, it became known as the "perfume capital of the world," by combining the cultivation of local flora with the trade of precious Eastern ingredients.
Price for selected products
Spray on the pulse points : neck, chest, wrist, etc.
Share some information with other customers to make your review even more helpful to them.


text:
Useful functions and stunning design make Pyle a worthy investment. The brand offers a number of record player and cassette player combination products, including PTCDS21, which features a classical turntable design. Although traditional in appearance, the PTCDS21 packs various features including a cassette player as well as phono, radio, CD, and USB record players,, and even an iPod player. Its front-loading, single CD player can play CD, MP3, CD-R, and CD-RW formats, while its USB port allows playing of music from a USB drive or a compatible MP3 player. With the USB encoder, users can record old vinyl or other aux-in audio onto a flash drive. The turntable speeds of the device come at 33 1/3, 45, and 78 RPM. To complete the audio experience, PTCDS21 offers two built-in speakers and a remote control.
Users who want to choose from quality, stylish turntables must see the Crosley lineup. For a sleek and no-frills design, one can purchase the Crosley Memory Master or CR2413A, which not only plays old vinyl records but also records them with its one-touch recording feature. With the CR2413A, users can spin old vinyl records on the three-speed platter, play a cassette tape in its side-mounted cassette deck, listen to an AM or FM station, or play an iPod and MP3 player. Buyers who want a classic-looking Crosley can go for a Crosley Lancaster Entertainment Center or CR42C-PA,, which is basically the same as the Memory Master but with elegant lines and curves on its casing, open-face grillwork, and an airplane-style dial that give it old-time appeal.
Nothing beats a vintage record player--except a vintage-looking player that offers a 4-in-1 audio capacity, such as the Emerson NR305TT Heritage Series Stereo System. With its nostalgic design and useful features, users are in for a great audio experience. Sporting a high-gloss wood veneer cabinetry, this record player-cum-cassette player allows users to play old vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs, and even AM or FM stations. For ease of use, NR305TT offers a digital LED indicator for CD tracks and radio stations. And for great music, it features a three-inch wide-range speakers that project balanced bass.
Fisher record player and cassette player combination products were prominent in the 80s, with the system featuring a turntable that spins at various speeds and a belt drive that serves as a shock absorber and prevents noise and vibration from the motor reaching the platter. Both Fisher MC-713 and MC-750 feature a dual cassette deck, with the MC-750 model packing an equaliser for sound settings customisation. As a Vintage Fisher record player/cassette player may be in refurbished condition, buyers should check the sound quality and consider purchasing a new needle to produce the best sounds.
Jensen brings a full-packed and multi-functional home stereo system in the game. Its JTA-475, for instance, includes a three-speed turntable, cassette deck, AM/FM stereo receiver, and CD-R/RW disc player. It also offers 2W RMS x 2 power output and belt-driven turntable that plays records at 33, 45, and 78 RPM speeds. For easy visibility, the JTA-475 includes an LCD with blue backlight, and for simple connectivity it has RCA and headphone inputs. The bookshelf-type stereo system ccan run remotely with two AAA batteries. It also includes an owner's manual for easy operation and troubleshooting.
Its straightforward design and host of delightful features make Teac record player and cassette player combination products a worthy purchase. Teac LP-R550USB offers the three turntable speeds: 33 1/3, 45, and 78 RPM and allows recording from phono, tape, tuner, and AUX. And as a device supporting vintage music experience, it also offers a cassette player that lies close to the platter for easy access as well as a CD player that allows programmed playback. To complete the package, LP-R550USB has an AM/FM tuner, USB port, and stereo RCS inputs on the back panel for connection of an external audio source for playback or recording.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
only 1
At least I'm not the only one
i date only 1 cause it's my boyfriend
Oh well then fair enough
Yes, I would not go around and date other guy, it would not be cool
yeah I know it wouldn't ahaha. This question is more aimed at people who are single
When I was single, I have multiple date with always the same boy
right now a great big Zero
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.


text:
Report summaryThis is our latest 'in brief' report covering the European upstream sector, excluding the North Sea countries (UK, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark). We have highlighted the main stories of the past month and what to look for next month, adding our opinion and analysis to keep you informed.
What's included?
This report includes 2 file(s)
- Continental and Mediterranean Europe upstream month in brief: 02 April 2015 PDF - 283.88 KB 2 Pages, 0 Tables, 0 Figures
- Continental & Med. Europe Upstream Data Dashboard 02 April 2015.pdf PDF - 127.20 KB


text:
Buffalo Mountain Escape
The Escape Games- River Boat Escape is another point and click boat escape game developed by The Escape Games. The motivation of this game is to escape with boat by using your fantasy skills.Imagine, As per the part of your long boat trip. You are trapped on the river. Your boat navigator don't know, how to escape from the the river. So, use you smart skills to escape from this river. You can find out some hidden object and to solve some interesting puzzle. Then find the way to escape from the river. Are you ready to find the way to escape from this place?. All the best!!!. Have more fun!!!. Good Luck!!!. The motivation of this game is to escape with boat by using your fantasy skills. Have more fun. Good Luck.
Game loading!


text:
Mr. McCAIN. What, we are about 6 weeks after the last election, now discussing the START treaty, and I will have an amendment I will be proposing in a moment that I think is important. Meanwhile, two other issues, both of which are very controversial, cloture has been filed on and the clock is running.
There are also threats that we may have, again, other votes on things such as relief for the New York 9/11 people, the firefighters issue, and a couple others. Online gambling has been mentioned in the media as one of the majority leader's proposals.
Again, here we are. People spoke clearly on November 2. It was, in the words of the President of the United States, a ``shellacking.''
What are we doing on December 17? We are in one session of the Senate, the executive session. Meanwhile, the legislative session will go on. Who knows what issue the majority leader will bring--another issue before the Senate, maybe get a couple more privileged messages from the other side, file it, run the clock, 30 hours, and then force the Members of this body, of which there will be five additional Members beginning January 5--and at the same time my friend from Massachusetts and the President of the United States and proponents of the treaty are saying: Put partisanship aside, put your concerns aside, trust us because this is very important for the Nation.
What possible good does it do when the majority leader continues to bring up issues and force us to have votes on them, which is clearly in keeping with the majority on the other side's political agenda? It is kind of a remarkable situation.
I have been around this body for quite some years. I have not seen a degree and intensity of partisanship that I see today in the Senate. All of us want to do what is right for the country. That is why this START treaty deserves serious consideration. It deserves serious consideration by itself. But this body operates in an environment of cooperation and comity. That very much is not in existence today.
We will then, tomorrow, I take it--on Saturday we will go off the executive calendar, onto the legislative calendar, force votes on these two very controversial issues, and then maybe, if it moves him so, the majority leader will bring up another issue as he has in the past to force votes, most of which of those votes he knows very clearly will not succeed but will give him and the other side some kind of political advantage.
That was not the message of the last election.
So I think a number of us are growing weary of this on this side of the aisle. We are just growing weary. And we believe the people of this country spoke--in the words of the President of the United States: a shellacking--and we ought to perhaps keep the government in operation, go home, and, in less than 2 weeks or a little over 2 weeks, let the newly elected Members of Congress on both sides of the Capitol address many of these issues.
Now, I do not know if we will get through all the amendments and all of the debate that a solemn treaty deserves before the Senate. I really hope we can. I would also remind my friend from Massachusetts that my colleague from Arizona, certainly the most respected person on this issue on this side of the aisle, has offered a date certain of January 25, with a final vote on February 3, to the other side. That, obviously, has not been acceptable to them. By the way, that would be with the input of the newly elected Senators, not of those who are leaving.
So I look forward to continuing this debate and discussion. And who knows what other issue the majority leader may bring before the Senate--maybe a privileged message again, which would only then require one cloture vote, and we will then be forced to take another politically impactful vote.
So I tell my colleagues that we are getting tired of it. We grow weary. And it is not that we want to ``be home for Christmas.'' I spent six Christmases in a row away from home. But what it is about is responding to the American people.
Yesterday, the American people, in a resounding victory for those who voted November 2, rejected the Omnibus appropriations bill. I believe some of the issues before the Senate deserve the participation of the newly elected Members of the Senate and House.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Dr. Barrasso. It has been a great privilege for me, since he has been a Member of the Senate, to be with him side by side in a number of battles.
I am particularly proud of the work Senator Barrasso continues to do on the issue of ObamaCare. If anyone wants to really be brought up to date, I would commend his Web site, Second Opinion, that Dr. Barrasso has, and he continues to be incredibly knowledgeable and effective not only here in this body but with the American people.
As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Barrasso has taken on this issue as well, and I am pleased to be joined with him.
I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I know there are a number of Senators who want to speak. I will try to get those lined up and time agreements so that we do not take an inordinate amount of time on this issue, and I think we can do that, say, within the next hour or so.
But this is an important amendment. This is really one of two major issues that concern many Members of this body and many Americans. One is the modernization of our nuclear inventory, which I think continues to be a subject of discussion, agreements, some disagreements, but is important, and my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, of course, has been following that issue since the 1980s. I know of no one who has been more heavily involved in that side of the issue. The other is, of course, this whole issue of defensive weapons--how the provisions of the treaty affect the entire ability of the United States, unconstrained by this treaty, to move forward where it deems necessary to put defensive missile systems to protect the security of this country.
I would like to remind you how vital this is. We are living in a world where the North Koreans have nuclear weapons and missiles. The Iranians have missiles and the ability to deliver nuclear weapons. The Pakistanis have nuclear weapons. Other countries throughout the world are developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. So our concern is not so much what the Russians will do in the form of offensive nuclear weaponry-- and I will be glad to discuss Russian media reports about the Russians building a new missile and moving ICBMs to the borders of Europe and all that--but the main problem here is, can the United States, under the treaty, have the ability to put into place defensive missiles which will protect the security of the United States of America?
We all know that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them is one of the major challenges of the 21st century. So I think it is vital--it is vital--that we make it perfectly clear that there is nothing in this treaty that constrains our ability to pursue that aspect of America's defense. So it is deeply disturbing to so many of us when the preamble of the New START treaty says:
Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that ``current''--
I am going to emphasize the word ``current''--
strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties. .....
The operative word there, my friends, is ``current.''
I have been around long enough to have lived through the history of missile defense. It is not that old of an idea. In the middle of the last century, the idea that we could develop and deploy strategic defensive weapons sounded like science fiction and wishful thinking. For the most part, it was.
A few decades later, it was with this view of missile defense's fantasy that opponents of the idea mocked President Ronald Reagan, who was more committed than any American President before him to the prospect of developing viable missile defense systems--what President Reagan called his Strategic Defense Initiative, which became known to all of us as SDI.
This idea scared the Soviet leaders to death because they realized how serious he was about it and because the idea represented a threat to the very balance of terror that threatened all of mankind during the Cold War. Arms control theorists saw this terror stabilizing--mutual assured destruction as stabilizing--and believed that missile defenses could therefore be destabilizing.
As a result, the key pillar of Cold War arms control was the established interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons. This linkage was codified in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, among other treaties and agreements. It established that effective missile defenses, if developed, could threaten the strategic offensive capabilities of the United States and the Soviet Union. For that reason, it limited the development and deployment of such defensive weapons.
President Reagan believed that viable missile defense systems--in particular, his Strategic Defense Initiative--held out the opportunity to eliminate the threat of nuclear holocaust and thereby render nuclear weapons irrelevant. President Reagan was one of the leading proponents of a world without nuclear weapons, and he believed that it was missile defense, not just arms control agreements, that would make that world possible.
My friends, if I may take you on a trip down memory lane, the debate on that subject was spirited, it was passionate, and it was a fundamental debate that took place in this country during the 1980s.
That is why, at the Reykjavik Summit of 1986, when Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev cited the ABM Treaty as legal grounds for imposing what President Reagan believed was a critical limitation on the strategic defense initiative, the President broke off the negotiation and walked out--one of the most remarkable acts in recent history. You can imagine the initial response of the media and others to President Reagan walking out of arms control talks.
With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the evil empire, the United States and Russia were no longer mortal enemies with the means to threaten one another's existence. But the proposal of missile defense, this was an opportunity to break once and for all the long-accepted linkage, the interrelationship between strategic offensive and defensive weapons.
In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal dated December 7, 2010, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explains why breaking this linkage between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defense was so important in the post-Cold War, post-September 11 world. I quote:
When U.S. President Bush and Russian President Putin signed the Moscow Treaty in 2002, they addressed the nuclear threat by reducing offensive weapons as their predecessors had. But the Moscow Treaty was different. It came in the wake of America's 2001 withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. And for the first time, the United States and Russia reduced their offensive nuclear weapons with no agreement in place that constrained missile defenses.
Breaking the link between offensive force reductions and limits on defense marked a key moment in the establishment of a new nuclear agenda no longer focused on the Cold War face-off between the Warsaw Pact and NATO. The real threat was that the world's most dangerous weapons could end up in the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes--or of terrorists who would launch attacks more devastating than 9/11. And since those very rogue states also pursued ballistic missiles, defenses would (alongside offensive weapons) be integral to the security of the United States and our allies.
This brief background helps explain a key concern I have with the New START treaty as it relates to missile defense: that because of one clause agreed to by the parties in the treaty preamble, the Russian Government could use the treaty in its present form as a tool of political pressure to limit U.S. decisions about our missile defense systems.
I have followed this issue of missile defense pretty closely while the treaty was being negotiated. As I have said before, I am concerned by the series of events that led to the treaty's handling of missile defense. First, the Senate was told that this treaty would in no way reference the development and deployment of U.S. missile defense systems.
Here is what Under Secretary of State Ellen Tauscher said on March 29, 2010, and I quote:
The treaty does nothing to constrain missile defense. This treaty is about strategic weapons. There is no limit on what the United States can do with its missile defense systems.
But then, for some reason, after being told this treaty was not about missile defense, the Senate was then told there would be a reference to missile defense after all, but that it would only be in the preamble of the treaty which, of course, is not legally binding. That was worrisome enough, but then we saw the treaty and not only was there a reference to missile defense in the preamble, but there was also a limitation to our missile defense deployments in the body of the treaty itself in article V. This may not be a meaningful limitation, but it is a limitation nonetheless and a legally binding one at that. This sets a very troubling precedent.
What I want to focus on this afternoon is the reference to missile defense that appears in the preamble, because that language carries a lot of historical significance and strategic weight, and it has been the root of mine and other Senators' concerns about how the Russian Federation could use this treaty as a de facto veto against U.S. missile defense systems. This is what the eighth clause of the preamble says, and I quote from the preamble:
Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic arms nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.
There are many problems with this statement, and more that stem from it. First, it reestablishes--after what I told my colleagues about what happened during the Reagan administration because we worked very hard over the past--I mean over the Bush administration, and I say reestablishes because we worked very hard over the past decade to decouple these two concepts, our offensive nuclear weapons and our missile defenses. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was always terrified of the prospects of U.S. missile defense. Ever since President Reagan proposed the strategic defense initiative, the Russians have sought to limit development and deployment of our strategic arms because they knew they could never compete. They sought to bind our actions on missile defense through legal obligations in treaties, and when that didn't work, through political commitments or agreements that could be cited to confer future obligations, and thus transformed into as a political threat. In short, the Russians have always understood that U.S. missile defenses would be superior to any defensive system the Russian Federation, and the Soviet Union before it, could ever deploy, so they have been relentless in trying to block it.
It is for this reason and because the Bush administration worked so hard to break the linkage between strategic offensive and defensive weapons that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice concluded her recent op-ed which I cited earlier with the following counsel to this body:
[T]he Senate must make absolutely clear that in ratifying this treaty, the United States is not reestablishing the Cold War link between offensive forces and missile defenses. New START's preamble is worrying in this regard, as it recognizes the 'interrelationship' of the two.
The reestablishment of the interrelationship is one problem with this clause in the preamble, but there are others. A second problem comes in the next line which states:
that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic arms are reduced.
This is only enhancing and strengthening the linkage between our offensive nuclear weapons and our missile defenses. Because this treaty will modestly reduce our strategic nuclear arms, and if the President is serious about his vision of a nuclear-free world--and I believe he is serious--then the importance of this agreed-upon interrelationship will only deepen in the years ahead. This takes an already problematic idea and makes it even more potentially damaging.
The third problem, and the one which potentially has the most direct consequences, comes in the next line which states:
that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.
This clause lays the groundwork for the political threat the Russian Federation wants to hold over the United States with regard to its missile defense deployments. By saying that current missile defenses do not undermine the treaty's viability and effectiveness, this agreed-upon language in the preamble establishes that future missile defense deployments could undermine the treaty, thereby establishing a political argument that the Russian Federation will surely use at a future date and try to keep us from building up our missile defenses. In short, we have handed the Russian Government the political pressure they have sought for so long to bind our future decisions and actions on strategic defensive arms.
Imagine a world a few years from now when, God forbid, an Iran or North Korea or some other rogue state has deployed longer range ballistic missiles and a deployable nuclear capability much earlier than we assessed they could. Imagine we are faced with a situation where unforeseen events compel us for the sake of our national security and that of our allies to qualitatively and quantitatively build up our missile defenses to improve our current systems, or develop and deploy new systems, to counter a new and far greater threat than we expected. And then imagine that the Russian Government tells us that if we consider taking these actions that we deem to be in our national security interests, then such an action to improve our missile defenses would undermine the treaty's effectiveness and viability. This is an unacceptable constraint on U.S. decisionmaking.
As if to drive home the large potential problems that stem from this clause in the preamble, the Russian Government issued a unilateral statement at the time the treaty was signed. I realize this statement is not legally binding either, but it certainly adds to the political commitment that the Russian Federation believes the United States has made on limiting our missile defenses. This is a remarkable statement, and it deserves to be read in full, and I quote:
The treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed at Prague on April 8, 2010, may be effective and viable only in conditions where there is no qualitative or quantitative buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America. Consequently, the extraordinary events referred to in article XIV of the Treaty also include a buildup in the missile defense system capabilities of the United States of America such that it would give rise to a threat to the strategic nuclear force potential of the Russian Federation.
That is a very clear statement made by the Russian Government about the linkage between defensive missile systems and offensive arms. This is the Russian interpretation of what our two governments have agreed to in the preamble. They explicitly draw the connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms. They explicitly state that the United States is limited in its development and deployment of missile defense systems. They explicitly refer to the language in the preamble about the ``effectiveness and viability'' of the treaty in order to claim that any buildup or improvement in U.S. missile defense systems would undermine the treaty. Then they go one step further. They draw a logical connection between what was agreed to in this clause of the preamble to article XIV of the treaty, which establishes the rights of the parties to withdraw from the treaty and the conditions under which they may do so. In short, the Russian Government has effectively turned a nonbinding political agreement into the pretext of what it believes is a legal obligation under the treaty itself.
You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to what Russian leaders themselves have said. Here is Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov speaking on March 28, 2010:
[T]he treaty and all obligations it contains are valid only within the context of the levels which are now present in the sphere of strategic defensive weapons.
Here is Foreign Minister Lavrov again on April 6, 2010:
Russia will have the right to exit the accord if the U.S.'s buildup of its missile defense strategic potential in numbers and quality begins to considerably affect the efficiency of Russian strategic nuclear forces ..... Linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.
I would remind my colleagues these are the statements of the Russian Foreign Minister. And here is everybody's favorite President, Dmitry Medvedev, speaking to the Russian Parliament on November 30--November 30, 2010.
Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of the arms race. We will have to make a decision to deploy new strike systems.
Finally, here is my favorite, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, speaking on ``Larry King Live'' on December 1, 2010:
I want you and all the American people to know this. At least those spectators who will follow our program here. It's not us who are moving forward our missiles to your territory. It's you who are planning to mount missiles at the vicinity of our borders, of our territory.
We've been told that you'll do it in order to secure against the, let's say, Iranian threat. But such a threat as of now does not exist. Now if the rudders and counter missiles will be deployed in the year 2012 along our borders, or 2015, they will work against our nuclear potential there, our nuclear arsenal. And certainly, that worries us. And we are obliged to take some actions in response.
Unfortunately, at the time the treaty was signed, after agreeing to this problematic clause in the preamble, the U.S. negotiators did not use the opportunity to make a unilateral statement of their own to decisively and unequivocally discredit the Russian Government's claims. Instead, this is the statement the U.S. Government issued in response to the statement I read, the signing statement:
The United States of America takes note of the Statement on Missile Defense by the Russian Federation. The United States missile defense systems are not intended to affect the strategic balance with Russia. The United States missile defense systems would be employed to defend the United States against limited missile launches, and to defend its deployed force, allies and partners against regional threats. The United States intends to continue improving and deploying its missile defense systems in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key regions.
My friends, I understand diplomacy, and I understand statements that are equivocal. That certainly stands out as one of those.
We could have stated that the development and deployment of U.S. missile
defenses are in no way limited by the treaty, its preamble or anything the Russian Government says about them. We could have stated that the United States does not recognize decisions about its missile defense systems as a legitimate and valid reason for the Russian Federation to withdraw from the treaty, as is its right under article XIV. We could have stated affirmatively that the United States will continue to make both qualitative and quantitative improvements to our missile defense systems, regardless of whether the Russian Federation threatens to or actually chooses to withdraw from the new START treaty. We could have said all that and more. Instead, we simply took note of what the Russians had to say and then spoke passively about our intentions, without addressing the heart of the matter.
What does all this mean? What it means is that the Senate needs to fix the problem presented by this clause in the treaty's preamble. One way to do that--the easiest way--is to simply strike the eighth clause from the preamble text. That is what this proposed amendment would do. It will remove any recognition of an interrelationship between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defense, and it would undercut the logical and political foundation of the Russian unilateral statements, as well as the clearly and repeatedly stated Russian position that this treaty imposes a legally binding limitation on U.S. missile defenses.
I see I am joined on the floor by my friend and cosponsor of this amendment, the Senator from Wyoming. Again, I take this opportunity to thank him for taking the lead in offering this amendment within the Committee on Foreign Relations during the markup of the resolution of ratification. I have had the opportunity to travel overseas with the Senator from Wyoming, to Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and many other places. I appreciate his consistent leadership on matters of national security.
I ask unanimous consent that, since it is our amendment, he be recognized next.
Mr. McCAIN. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. KYL. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. McCAIN. The amendment, as you know, strikes the language in the preamble. There are some who allege that a letter from the President--a strong letter from the President--would suffice to address this issue. I wonder what the view is of the Senator from Arizona as to how binding and how impactful that would be as opposed to the existing language which exists in the preamble?
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the question because it sets up a perfect reason why this amendment is necessary. The Russians interpret the preamble as the basis for their legal argument that they can withdraw from the treaty if we do what Secretary Gates has said we are going to do. What would a letter from the President potentially say? Either it is going to say we intend to go forward and develop and deploy the missile defenses--which would be seen by the Russians as contrary to their national interests, their supreme national interests, thus further laying a foundation for them to withdraw from the treaty--or the President would confirm the briefing at Lisbon and confirm the U.S. signing statement and say that we don't intend to deploy those, we only intend to deal with limited or regional threats, so the Russians have nothing to worry about. The Senate would be on record in an understanding accompanying the treaty that confirmed all of this. The Senate would at least be on record. But that doesn't commit the President.
I think the only answer to avoid the confusion and to avoid any future President having pressure from the Russians that they are going to withdraw is to just remove the language. That is the beauty by the author of the amendment--it pulls the thorn so the sting no longer can exist.
Mr. McCAIN. While the Senator still has the floor, one additional question for my colleague. As we all know, there is nothing more important, probably, that comes before this body than the ratification of treaties. Our Founding Fathers reserved it for the Senate alone.
This treaty is obviously of significant importance--not just the treaty itself but the impact it has around the world. There is certainly something to the allegations that are made, the comments that are made that this could affect U.S.-Russian relations. I think the Senator from South Carolina and you and I--every Member of this body is very aware of the absolute importance of this treaty and for us to make the decision strictly based on the merits or demerits of this treaty.
The reason I ask my colleague this question is that allegations continue to swirl that there is going to be a vote for or against because of another piece of legislation or for other reasons, for other political reasons. I reject that allegation. I wonder if my colleague from Arizona does as well. I know every Member of this body is making a judgment on this treaty on its merits and their view of its merits or demerits and its importance to the future security of this Nation. And I hope, my colleague from Arizona, that I cleared that up, and I hope my colleague from Arizona will too.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I could not agree more with my colleague from Arizona. There have been rumors swirling around here for 3 weeks--for example, when the tax legislation was being negotiated--that somehow or other there was some deal in the works to trade the extension of the existing tax rates for support of the START treaty. There was never any kind of a deal like that going on. No, this treaty stands or falls on its own merits.
The other thing I would say, however, is that I have made the point for a long time that one of the impediments to ratifying this treaty or to debating it and considering it in a meaningful way was the intersection of all of the other business that was being put before the Senate, much of it very partisan, and that it was very difficult. My colleague from Arizona was right in the middle of a sentence a while ago when he was interrupted by another colleague to say that we have some intervening business we have to do. That is the problem. If we are going to debate and consider the treaty and be able to do it in the thoughtful and focused way it really deserves, then we should not have all these other items come popping in and out of the Senate. We are on the treaty for 2 days and then going to be off of it for 2 days, back on it again for another day, and meanwhile now we are voting on this and that and the other thing. That is what I was contending would preclude us from ever really getting to the point where we had time to do the treaty and to do it right. I think my predictions were very correct.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in deference to Senator Lugar, I will be very brief. Also, Senator Sessions is here who would like to speak, as well as Senator Barrasso again, so I will be very brief. I believe the Senator from Illinois is also here.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask my colleague--we are at a quarter to 5 now. I wanted to get a sense, because colleagues are asking me, on our side at least, where we stand. Would it be possible to get a time agreement on this?
Mr. McCAIN. I regret we can't at this time. This is one of the seminal aspects of whether the United States is going to ratify this treaty. To have a time agreement, after all of the fooling around we have been doing on the DREAM Act, on New York City, on all of these other issues that have taken up our time, we will not have a time agreement from this side until all Members on this side have had an opportunity to express their views on this issue.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may, I was simply asking a question. Before I yield the floor, let me just say I am not trying to reduce the level of debate. I am just trying to get a sense of how much time we might need. I wish for no Senator to be cut off. It seems to me we ought to have a sense of how many Senators want to speak, of how long they need, and the normal procedure in the Senate is to try to establish that so we can pin down where we are heading.
All I am trying to figure out--let me ask the Senator two questions. No. 1, I would ask the Senator, does he think that sometime in the near term he could have a sense of how many Senators are going to speak and we could try to pin that down. I would ask them that, Mr. President, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, was the floor yielded before the Senator spoke?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the understanding of the Chair that the Senator from Massachusetts has the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair. Under any circumstances, I wanted to clarify that. I am glad to answer any question my friend from Massachusetts has. I cannot tell him at this time.
What the Senator from Massachusetts has done is sparked a strong response from this side. So this is not a situation where we come down and everybody just gives a statement. I had not planned on talking again, until I heard the comment of the Senator from Massachusetts. I am sure the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, and the Senator from Wyoming feel the same way. I will try to get a list of speakers. I certainly cannot tell the Senator from Massachusetts when we will be done. Obviously, in the spirit of debate, I have to challenge the assertions of the Senator from Massachusetts because that is what I think this ratification process should be all about. I am sure my colleague understands that.
I want to emphasize that I am not trying to drag this out. I want to make sure, because this is one of the most important parts of this debate--I don't want it to be short-circuited. I promise the Senator from Massachusetts that I am not trying to drag this out.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I completely understand and accept the Senator's desire to have this robust debate, and I welcome it. I agree that some of these issues are contentious and there are different points of view. This is exactly what we ought to be debating. I am in favor of that.
Mr. McCAIN. I will try to get a limit on the number of speakers.
Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that. I am trying to help colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are trying to figure out where we are headed.
Secondly, I understand the powerful feelings on the other side about this particular issue. I thought we had addressed it. We certainly tried to. In fact, we took an amendment--where is Senator Risch's amendment? Was it Senator DeMint's?
We accepted an amendment to the resolution of ratification from, I think, Senator DeMint. I have it right here--no. Here it is. It is on missile defense. This was very important because Senator Risch--as he came to the floor today--had talked about this entire way in which we deal with it. No, that's not it. This is a declaration--if I can say to my colleague from Arizona, Senator Risch--DeMint proposed this amendment, and we accepted it.
It says:
It is the sense of the Senate: A paramount obligation of the United States Government is to provide for the defense of the American people, deployed members of the U.S. Armed Forces, and United States allies against nuclear attacks to the best of its ability. Policies based on mutual assured destruction, or intentional vulnerability, can be contrary to the safety and security of both countries. The United States and the Russian Federation share a common interest in moving cooperatively as soon as possible away from a strategic relationship based on mutually assured destruction. In a world where biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them, are proliferating, strategic stability can be enhanced by strategic defensive measures. Accordingly, the United States is and will remain free to reduce their vulnerability to attack by constructing a layered missile defense system capable of countering missiles of all ranges. The United States will welcome steps by the Russian Federation also to adopt a fundamental strategic posture.
That is very powerful language, in my judgment. I am very prepared, if Senator McCain will work with me, to try to find a way that doesn't kill the treaty but that puts in the language that embraces the thoughts that we are trying to convey with respect to our rights.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief. I know Senator Lugar is waiting, as are two or three of my colleagues. I appreciate what the Senator from Massachusetts just said because it is the best argument for this amendment I have seen.
It says the preamble is nothing, meaningless, doesn't have any effect. If that is the case, then let's get rid of it. Fine, let's throw it away. In fact, he called it a throwaway. Isn't that true, I ask the Senator from Wyoming?
Mr. BARRASSO. Yes, Mr. President. That is exactly what I see here. The senior Senator from Massachusetts said--and this is a transcript from a few minutes ago. He said that the idea that we are going to try to take out of here is nonbinding, nonlegal, completely a throwaway statement.
Mr. McCAIN. Then what could be the problem? Let's get rid of it.
The second point, of course, the Senator from Massachusetts gave various quotes from Russian leaders about the whole aspect of missile defense. Yet, again, on December 1, 16 days ago, Vladimir Putin, speaking on ``Larry King Live''--I am not making this up--said this:
I want you and all the American people to know this. .....It's you who are planning to mount missiles at the vicinity of our borders, of our territory. We've been told that you'll do it in order to secure against the, let's say, Iranian threat. But such a threat as of now does not exist. Now if the rudders--
Whatever that means--
and the counter missiles will be deployed in the year 2012 along our borders, or 2015, they will work against our nuclear potential there, our nuclear arsenal. And certainly that worries us. And we are obliged to take some actions in response.
That was 16 days ago from the Prime Minister and, we know, the most powerful man in Russia. ``We are obliged to take some actions in response.''
Of course, one day earlier, President Medvedev said:
Either we reach an agreement on missile defense and create a full-fledged cooperation mechanism, or if we can't come to a constructive agreement, we will see another escalation of the arms race. We will have to make a decision to deploy new strike systems.
That was 17 days ago. Who are we to believe? What are we to believe? Well, we can clarify it. Take that out of the preamble, and we can clarify that. There are other statements--one by the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov--and on and on. I don't think there is any doubt.
Also, there are recent press reports saying that ``Russia develops new indestructable ICBM to replace Satan.'' That is on 16 December. There is another news report that says that ``Russia has moved Russian missiles; fuels U.S. worries.'' That is the Wall Street Journal.
U.S. believes Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies as recently as this spring, adding to questions in Congress about Russian compliance with longstanding pledges ahead of a possible vote on a new arms control treaty.
One of the reasons this is very important, I argue, is that, back in 1991, the Russians agreed they would not move any of their tactical nuclear weapons. That was a commitment they made.
So, again, I am befuddled by the reluctance of the Senator from Massachusetts to just simply remove this preamble.
Finally, I will mention the difference between this administration and START I on this same issue. In fact, if you look at the statement the United States made, it is interesting. It says:
The United States intends to continue improving and deploying its missile defense systems in order to defend itself against limited attack--
That word ``limited'' is interesting--
and as part of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in the key regions.
Now, contrast that with what the United States said at the time of the ratification of START I. The United States said:
While the United States cannot circumscribe the Soviet withdrawal from the START Treaty, if the Soviet Union believes its supreme interests are jeopardized, the full exercise by the United States of its legal rights under the ABM treaty, as we have discussed with the Soviet Union in the past, would not constitute a basis for such withdrawal. The United States will be signing the START Treaty and submitting it to the United States Senate for advice and consent with this view. In addition, the provisions for withdrawal from the START Treaty based on supreme national interests clearly envision that such withdrawal can only be justified by extraordinary events that have jeopardized the parties' supreme interests. The Soviet statements on a future hypothetical that a U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty could create such conditions are without legal or military foundation.
I ask my colleagues to look at the differences between the two comments. Finally, I emphasize, again, there is clearly room for some disagreement as to what the Russian intentions are. Should it not be clarified? Should we not have it clear and ask the Russians? Couldn't we ask them tonight and say: What are your intentions regarding missile defense systems? There is contradiction.
On ``Larry King Live,'' your Prime Minister made a strong statement about it, so has the Foreign Minister and others. We have constant communications with the Russians. We can clarify some of this if we just ask the Russians for a statement of clarification.
I hope the Senator from Massachusetts might do that. That also would not change the fact that, given the contradictions in the Russian statements, we should get rid of that meaningless, throwaway provision that this amendment requires.
I thank my colleagues and yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. GRAHAM. To my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, are you aware of an effort to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy, that would allow no Republican amendment, that could be as early as tomorrow or this weekend?
Mr. McCAIN. I would say, Madam President, that not only on the don't ask, don't tell has the tree been filled but also on the DREAM Act. I have obviously been heavily involved in immigration issues for some years, including things that have happened including the murder of a Border Patrol agent just in the last couple days in Arizona, obviously by someone from the drug cartels. So, yes, there will be, again, a vote with no amendments allowed, again, on either one of those pieces of legislation.
Source: http://thomas.loc.gov


text:
There seems to be a problem accessing your Membership Area
This is easily corrected on our end. Please put in a Helpdesk Ticket and let us know that
you received the "The Membership Access Error" when trying to view the Product Dashboard,
and we'll get it fixed right away!
We appreciate your membership and are sorry for this temporary inconvenience.
Thank you!


text:
'The conclusion? If you want to boo the home team because it's playing poorly, that is certainly your right after buying a ticket. It's part of experiencing the event. It may not have the positive effect on the team or athlete you are aiming your ire at that you think it does, but it does do this: it probably makes YOU feel better.'
Note: While we are busy tweaking the front page design to make it more appealing and functional (especially for our mobile readers), you may notice odd layout errors. Please hit "control-F5" to refresh the page and load the latest files. Thank you!


text:
Fugro has been awarded a contract for three years, plus a one-year extension option, by Murphy Sabah Oil Co., Ltd. for the provision of rig and subsea positioning services.
The award will further strengthen a decade-long working relationship in support of Murphy's deepwater drilling and development programmes offshore Sabah and Sarawak, Malaysia. Support services include the use of highly specialised subsea survey systems for accurate metrology measurements, along with the provision of accurate offshore surface and subsea positioning and navigation systems for Murphy's drilling units and vessels, working in water depths of up to 2,000 metres.
The contract award supports Fugro's commitment to the continued development of Malaysian resources and further investment into Fugro's activities in Malaysia.
Murphy Sabah Oil Co.
Please be civil. Job and promotion will not be added into the comment page.
Your name*
Leave this field blank
Your e-mail*
Your website
Leave this field blank
Your comment*
(Use Markdown for formatting.)
This question helps prevent spam:
What color is the sky on a clear day?*
Remember me
your browser.
Mobile news
Our news
your website
Do you have any
tips to us
About us | Contact | Privacy | Terms |
Editor: Michael Rogers
Copyright 1973-2016. Scandinavian Oil-Gas Online. ISSN 1500-709X.
Tel: +47 22 44 72 70, Fax: +47 22 44 72 87


text:
Stay Tuned is more than just a music show, its your music community right here on ABC3!
Its YOU, the Stay Tuned audience, that decide who rocks and the music news that you see. Want to know how your favourite muso gets inspired, what it takes to become a backup dancer for the biggest pop stars in the world or how to put a band together? Our hosts Nicole Singh and Joel Philips will hit the road and dig up the answer.
You are about to leave the ABC3 Website and may be visiting an online space not specifically designed for young people.
The ABC is not responsible for content on external sites.
Do you wish to proceed?


text:
Organic Brown Rice Flour, Filtered Water, Organic Tapioca Flour, Potato Starch, Fresh Yeast, Organic Flax Seeds, Chia Seeds, Organic Sesame Seeds, Organic Sunflower Seeds, Sea Salt, Vegetable Gum (Xanthan, Cellulose).
Storing and keeping tips: This is a natural product. For best results, refrigerate after purchase, or freeze for longer periods of keeping.
Always refer to the actual package for the most accurate information


text:
Tango posters in the London tube take the piss out of summer. With thanks to the anonymous person who submitted it, next time we'd love some dates and credit (as much as you know). Posting this anyway since it's hilarious.
'Read more' to see mo'!
credits: none given - if you have them please comment.


text:
I met a guy on tinder and I think I want to ask him out.
We exchanged numbers and talked about everything but never had any sexual conversation with him. We texted eachother only for about a day or two before we decided to meet up. Had dinner with him, went to a bar after, one thing lead to another.
Basically had sex with him the first night we met.
He went away for a week on a short trip out in the countryside and when he came back, we met again. Had lunch and ended up having sex after.
He's a very busy guy. Now he's out of the country for work and we haven't talked to eachother in weeks.
I know how infamous tinder is for hookups but I think he's a really nice guy. Never bothered him too often so I wouldn't look needy.
I'm always the first one to initiate contact so I know I'm more interested in him than he is in me. But he always responds positively to my texts. He hasn't blocked me on whatsapp and we're still matched on tinder.
I don't him I left him any bad inpression of me.
If I ask him out, do you think he would consider giving me a shot?
Would you consider dating a girl you hooked up with on tinder?
I met a guy on tinder and I think I want to ask him out.
Have an opinion?
What Guys Said 1
The way I see it is like this. I'd say a lot of men secure sex by securing a relationship, and women secure a relationship via the mans need to secure sex.
In this hookup culture, men (and some women) are now able to secure sex without securing a relationship because so many are casual about it.
Given this, it is likely you will find he sees no reason to date you but I could be wrong.00|00|0
What Girls Said 2
maybe or maybe not... its all up to him00|00|0
Him traveling a lot doesn't bother me but what does is that you haven't talked to eachother in weeks.
If he hasn't reached out to you in weeks, and you ALWAYS initiate contact.. he's not interested.
He hasn't blocked you, he responds to you positively, because,, why not? You are a cool hookup. Why would he treat you wrong when he could keep you as a safe back up.
Honestly it looks like your guy doesn't want more than hookup relationship. If you ask him out he's going to be either 'cool let's see how it goes' Or 'No I don't want a relationship now'
If he says first, he likes you so it's all good.
If he says second, you know what he thinks of you. You know you're wasting your time on a wrong guy.
Just give a shot. There's nothing really for you to lose. If he doesn't see you more than a hookup it's his loss not yours. You deserve better.00|00|0
Thanks for your honest opinion. I appreciate it.
Like I said, I already know I'm more interested in him than he is in me. I think I like this guy so I don't mind initiating contact. He has never talked about sex in our conversations. We text about random things for hours so I'd say he's a pretty decent guy.
Really, I'm not desperate. I just want to know if it's worth the shot.
Learn more
Select as Most Helpful Opinion?
You cannot undo this action. The opinion owner is going to be notified and earn 7 XPER points.


text: Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE: WFC) is supporting the Mexican relief effort in response to Hurricanes Ingrid and Manuel with a grant of $50,000 to the American Red Cross. This grant will support the Mexican Red Cross response to the recent hurricanes and floods, which will allow for the relief and recovery in the affected regions of Mexico. "The storms that hit Mexico have caused significant destruction and also, tragically, loss of life," said Tim Hanlon, head of Strategic Philanthropy and Partnerships for Wells Fargo. "Our contribution will help the areas affected by the storms get the aid they so desperately need." "The impact of these storms has been widespread, damaging 23 of Mexico's 32 states," said Ariel Marin, Wells Fargo's chief operating officer for Latin America. "Our thoughts are with the individuals and families affected by the recent flooding. We hope this donation will assist with the relief efforts in Mexico, as communities continue to assess the damage and begin to heal and rebuild." Wells Fargo is also temporarily waiving all remittance transfer fees for ExpressSend® transfers from an eligible checking or savings account for customers sending money using the ExpressSend service to friends and family in Mexico impacted by the floods. Customers can send funds to their family or friends in Mexico at a number of remittance network members, including Bancomer, Banorte, Banco Santander, Bansefi, Scotiabank, Grupo FAMSA, Soriana and Telecomm Telégrafos. The fee waiver is effective September 27, through October 5, 2013. "We're working closely with our remittance network members in Mexico to help our customers and team members support their families and friends as they begin the recovery process," said Daniel Ayala, head of Wells Fargo's Global Remittance Services Group. Customers can send money by calling the Wells Fargo Phone Bank at 1-800-556-0605, going online at wellsfargo.com, or by visiting a Wells Fargo banking store. The first remittance for any service agreement must be completed in person at a store. Wells Fargo has the capability to serve customers in English and Spanish.


text:
Getting 'Archive database format is unvalid' error after upgrade to Notes 6
This Article Covers
Download: IT certifications that stand out
Are you looking to advance your career? Expand your knowledge? Boost your credibility? Our editors put together this complimentary 19-page guide on everything you need to know about obtaining an IT certification—with special attention given to cloud and desktop certifications.
By submitting your personal information, you agree that TechTarget and its partners may contact you regarding relevant content, products and special offers.
You also agree that your personal information may be transferred and processed in the United States, and that you have read and agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy.
- Upgrade the Notes R5 client to Notes 6.
- Replace the design of the mail file from the Mail6.ntf template.
- Replace the design of the archive file from the Mail6.ntf template.
NOTES ERROR: Archive Database format is invalid.NOTE:
- The ODS of the mail file and the archive are 43 format.
- I am able to access the archive file through the archive link from the mail file. But not able to archive.
- If we create a new archive file from the archive settings of the mail file, we are able to archive.
If you are installing any point release above 6.0, (i.e., 6.0.1 or 2), you should be able to fix this problem by recreating and saving the archive settings for the mail database.
Dig Deeper on Lotus Notes Domino Archiving
Related Q&A from Debbie Lynd
Deleting the same mail from multiple mailboxes
Legal disclaimer insertion issue
Methodology to move users to a different domain server
Have a question for an expert?
Please add a title for your question
Get answers from a TechTarget expert on whatever's puzzling you.
Meet all of our Domino experts
View all Domino questions and answers


text:
Love this hotel! Service was impeccable! Everyone was corteous, friendly and very professional! The room was big, clean and the bed was so luxurious! The rates were reasonable compared to other hotels around Beverly Hills. I will definitely come back!
- Official Description (provided by the hotel):
- Upscale boutique hotel located on world-famous Rodeo Drive, one block north of Wilshire Boulevard. A stunning $15 million renovation of the property was recently completed by designer Vicente Wolf. The new Beverly Hills hotel combines classic warmth with minimal chic and the relaxed spirit of Southern California with the elegance of Beverly Hills. The only hotel on Rodeo Drive, the Luxe offers unique easy access to world-class shopping, dining and entertainment. ... more less
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Booking.com, Travelocity, Hotels.com, Expedia, Orbitz, TravelUp, Hotwire, TripOnline SA, Priceline, Ctrip TA, Cheap Tickets, Cancelon, HotelsforEveryone, HotelQuickly, getaroom.com and Evoline ltd so you can book your Luxe Rodeo Drive Hotel reservations with confidence. We help millions of travelers each month to find the perfect hotel for both vacation and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.
- Also Known As:
- Luxe Hotel Beverly Hills


text:
The First Domino
Sam walked down to Daniel's office to see how the latest translation was going. A week ago they had found a strange device on PX84-367 that had been covered in a language that they hadn't come across before. Sam was dying to play with the new technology, but General O'Neill wouldn't let them touch it until they had a better idea of what it was for.
Daniel's door was open, as it always was. Peeking inside she was surprised to see him with his head down on the desk, his face buried in his crossed arms. A gentle snore made Sam smile. She tapped on the door and Daniel jerked awake. He instantly started searching for his glasses.
Sam cleared her throat to get his attention. When he looked at her she tapped the top of her head to inform him that he was actually wearing what he was seeking. Daniel reached up and sheepishly retrieved them.
"Good morning." Daniel chimed groggily.
"Afternoon." Sam corrected.
"Daniel, it's two o'clock in the afternoon."
Daniel looked down at his watch and tapped the glass. Since it was digital the tapping did nothing to dissuade the device that Sam was correct about the time.
"I take it the translation's not going well?"
"What gives you that idea?" Daniel smiled ruefully.
"Did you sleep here last night?"
"Technically I didn't sleep anywhere last night."
"You should go home."
"I'd just have to turn around and come back, I'm due here at 3." Daniel chuckled.
"Call in sick, I won't tell." Sam looked around the room, pretending to see if anyone was listening. "I'll even help you sneak out."
Daniel smiled and just shook his head. Although after looking at the heaps of digital photos and reference books on his desk he started to consider Sam's offer. Sam walked over and picked up one of the photos even though she knew she had no hope of understanding it.
Another tap at the door got their attention. It was the base's delivery man with a medium sized package. He looked briefly for a place to set it down in the cluttered sea of Daniel's office.
"I'll take it." Daniel took the box and placed it on top of the photos. After signing for it he looked at the address. "That's odd."
"Odd?" Sam asked.
"It's from the New York Museum of Art."
Before Sam could remember Daniel's connection to the Museum he found a letter opener and slit open the tape that held the box shut. The contents were hidden in a seething mass of white packing peanuts. Resting on top of the sea of styrofoam was a neatly folded letter. Daniel retrieved the letter and opened it.
"Dear, Dr. Jackson." Daniel read out loud. "During a recent cleaning of our storage facility here at the Museum we came across the enclosed item which we believe belongs to you. Since we felt that it may have sentimental value we thought it important that it be returned to you. Please know that the Museum deeply regrets the tragic accident that took the lives of Drs. Melburn and Claire Jackson... Sincerely, Dr. Garis Director of the New York Museum of Art."
Daniel put the letter down and just stared at the box of packing foam. Sam shifted her weight uncomfortably. She had seen the horrendous accident that had killed Daniel's parents, or rather an extremely realistic simulation of it.
"Would you like me to leave?" Sam asked quietly.
"No, it's okay."
Daniel reached into the box as if he expected to find a venomous snake lying in wait at the bottom. He pulled out an old worn pack that looked like it was from a military surplus store. There was a tarnished brass name plate on the top flap that read 'D. Jackson'. Much to Sam's relief Daniel smiled brightly.
"It's my old travel pack." Daniel said in disbelief.
"It looks like it's seen some miles."
"I had this since before I can remember, I must have dragged it around the world three times at least. My parents and I traveled so much that we never had a home, I think my mother felt that I needed something constant in my life. I must have left it at the Museum in the chaos after the accident."
"I'm surprised they kept it all these years. How long has it been?"
"Almost thirty years." Daniel answered. "It is a museum, they keep everything. Curators are hopeless pack rats."
Sam looked around the shelves that lined Daniel's office that were over flowing with artifacts and various ancient nick knacks. He saw her silent commentary and smiled. Putting the pack down on the table he unbuckled the strap and opened it.
"What is it?" Sam asked.
"Well at one point," Daniel pulled out a small battered carton "it was a juice box."
"It's probably wine by now." Sam chuckled. "Or vinegar."
Daniel wrinkled his nose in exaggerated disgust. He looked back in the pack and retrieved a well worn book with a torn cover. He flipped through a few pages of the book and handed it to Sam. She opened the book and furrowed her brow. Daniel reached out and turned the book around so that she was holding it right side up, but it didn't seem to help.
"It's a word search game." Daniel offered.
"Right, of course, in...ummm..."
"You were a strange child Daniel Jackson."
Daniel laughed. He pulled out a blue shirt and placed it on the table. Sam picked it up and held it out, trying to imagine Daniel when he was young enough to fit into it. When she put it down she found Daniel staring into the pack. The colour had completely drained from his face.
"Daniel?" Sam asked concerned.
"How could I have ever forgotten?" Daniel whispered.
Daniel reached into the pack once more. Sam gasped as he pulled out a tarnished Goa'uld hand device. For a moment the pair just stared at the antique alien weapon.
"Daniel, where did you get that?"
"I found it in Giza...when I was nine."
Chapter Two
Danny looked around to make sure no one was watching before slipping away from the group of adults that were working on the front room of the Ancient Egyptian temple. It would be a long time before anyone called him Dr. Jackson. As far as Danny was concerned 'Dr. Jackson' was his father.
The front room of the temple had been interesting, but he had quickly found a desire to search the winding tunnels on his own. His mother always said that he had far too much of his father's blood in his veins, which she claimed caused his reckless curiosity.
Ignoring the slight feelings of guilt for sneaking away Danny walk through the ornate hallways, flashlight in hand. He stopped at a block of hieroglyphics etched into the wall and slowly read them. It was a story of a treasure thief and his gruesome fate at the hands of the Gods.
Danny moved on until he came to a dead end. When he turned around he noticed a large crack in the wall that was well hidden in the shadows of a pillar. He shone the flashlight into the crevice and saw that it opened up into a tunnel. The opening would have been too small for a man to get through, but Danny was just a boy and his slight frame fit through easily.
The tunnel had odd markings on the walls, he had no way of knowing that one day he'd be able to recognize the symbols as Gate addresses. The tunnel eventually opened into a small room. There was the remnants of what once might have been a grand bed on the far wall. However that wasn't what got Danny's attention. Near the bed was a small stone table with elaborate carvings.
Resting on the table, under a thick layer of dust, was something completely foreign. Afraid to touch it at first Danny simply knelt in front of the table. The artifact looked sort of like a bracelet, only it had golden caps for each finger and a large circular stone in the center. When he first approached it he could have sworn that the stone flashed a deep orange glow.
His mother's voice echoed through the halls. Not wanting to leave the jewelry behind Danny dared to reach out and take it, feeling a bit like the thief in the story. Once he had it he froze for a moment, half expecting the whole place to collapse. When it didn't he got to his feet and hurried back to his mother in the front room with his new treasure.
"Where have you been?" Claire admonished. "Look at you, you're filthy."
"Sorry." Danny muttered.
"Well, I suppose I'm no cleaner." Danny's mother smiled. "Come on, it's getting late, we need to get back to camp. Put your toy away."
"It's not a toy." Danny replied.
Danny's father walked over to join his family. Melburn reached down and casually took the Gou'ald hand device from his son. He turned it over in his hands a few time, inspecting it.
"Where did you get this?" Melburn asked.
"I found it."
"Found it?"
"Which means you weren't watching him." Claire accused as she took the hand device away from her husband and stuffed it in Danny's pack.
"I was watching him." Melburn lied.
"The same way you were 'watching' that time he was stolen by Gypsies?" Claire asked with a raised eye brow.
"He wasn't stolen, he wandered off with them." Melburn replied nonchalantly. "Besides, I got him back."
"You bought him back." Claire said in mock anger.
"Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to." Melburn shrugged with a look of innocents. "It could have been worse...I got a good price."
"Melburn Daniel Jackson..."
"Uh-oh, Danny, the full name." Melburn whispered to his son. "You know what that means."
"You're in trouble." Danny offered with a smile.
"That's right." Melburn chuckled. "But that's okay, I have a secret weapon against your mother's wrath."
"Changing the subject?"
"Okay, maybe not so secret. You're far too observant, Danny." Melburn laughed and tousled his son's sandy brown hair. "Alright everyone, let's go, we've got a plane to catch."
"A plane?" Claire asked in surprise.
"I didn't tell you?" Melburn asked innocently.
"Tell me what?"
"We got a letter yesterday asking us to direct the set up of the newest exhibit of the artifacts we found on the Saqqara dig last month."
"That's wonderful!" Claire exclaimed in excitement.
"Where are we going?" Danny asked eagerly.
"One of your favourite places," Melburn replied brightly "The New York Museum of Art."
Chapter Three
Back in the present Daniel put the hand device down. He pulled off his glasses and rubbed at his temples. Knowing that nothing was probably the best thing to do, Sam did just that.
"Two days later they were killed." Daniel finished his story. "They...well, you already know, the Gamekeeper showed you."
Sam nodded, unsure of what to say.
"Until seeing this I really didn't remember much about my life before their death. I never really tired, I didn't really want to remember. Everything turned to chaos afterward. I must have ended up in twenty different foster homes before I was old enough to go out on my own."
"You were never adopted?" Sam asked surprised.
"No. I was..." Daniel paused "difficult, to say the least. To start with I refused to even speak English for nearly three years. Every time they moved me to multi-lingual home I'd just learn a new one."
"No wonder you speak so many now."
"I knew six languages when my parents died, I was up to twenty when I started college. Which is actually how I paid for it, working as a translator."
"So not much has changed then." Sam said with a slight smile. "You're still making a living as a translator."
"I don't recall getting shot at as much when I did this in college."
Sam was pleased to see that Daniel managed to smile. However his light mood didn't last long. He picked the hand device up again and stared at it.
"I wish my father hadn't dismissed this." He said softly. "Everything could have been different. If he'd seen the Gate symbols in the tunnel he would have canceled the trip to New York.
Before today I never really knew why I came to believe in my own theory of aliens using the Pyramids. This was the first domino that started the chain reaction that lead me there, and then eventually here. I guess part of me knew that I had found an alien object in Giza long ago. But my theory of aliens in Egypt could have easily been my father's if he'd taken the time to ask me to show him where I found this."
"Do you think anyone would have believed him?" Sam asked.
"Even if the world didn't believe him, Katherine probably would have contacted him to open the Stargate. He would have been able to do it."
"We might not have been ready then." Sam pointed out. "If the Stargate had been opened back in the 70's the Gou'ald would have had a much better chance of defeating us. We would have lost the element of surprise that you and General O'Neill had against Ra."
"Are you trying to tell me that everything happens for a reason?" Daniel sighed.
"No, I'm telling you that your parents didn't die in vain." Sam replied gently. "You wouldn't be the person you are today if they had lived, and I know they'd be proud of the man you've become."
Daniel smiled sadly and looked back down at the hand device. Getting up he went over to the wall and took down a picture of the Giza Pyramids. In its place he hung the Gou'ald weapon. Walking back over to Sam he pulled her into a grateful embrace.
"Thank you, Sam."
"For what?"
"Being a true friend."
"Any time."


text:
We are told that talent is what matters, it is one of the first things anyone says of a person who has done well. It is very rarely what a person who has done well says of themselves, or of how they did it.
We love talent, the idea of talent. It lets us off the hook, lets us accept a life of mediocrity that is mercifully free of blame. If everything good comes from talent, you're not wasting your life, you just didn't have the talent to begin with, and nobody can blame you for that, right?
Except talent is, at best, an irrelevance. Jimi Henrix didn't reinvent music because he was talented, but because he raised a skill to the level of art. Bruce Lee didn't revolutionise martial arts because he was talented, but because he did the same, as did Mozart, as did Einstein.
Skill takes time, but given time, anyone can master anything. And in that mastery, anyone can live a life that is itself a work of art, the purest and cleanest expression of that clear note that rings through all humanity, but lies in most subsumed by excuses.
It is an easy thing to avoid this truth, because so very many worship at the altar of talent, and receive the blessing of blamelessness for a mediocre life.
And only if you overturn that altar can you open up the door that it obscures - and enter in to a life where skill is hard earned, but artistry is possible, in any field of endeavour.


text:
Renew Your Membership Today!
Membership information
Donate to SESSC!
SESSC Wish List!
206.722.0317 x 100
206.722.0317 x 101
206.722.0317 x 109
206.722.0317 x 105
206.722.0317 x 103
Fundraising and Finance - This committee plans fundraising events, plans the strategic fundraising plan, works with the community to develop partnerships, solicits funds, makes financial decisions and manages all the accounts.
Building committee - This committee manages the building and Thrift Shop as well as organizes all facility upgrades as needed.
Property Committee – This committee manages the maintenance of the building and the Thrift Store, and organizes all facility upgrades as needed.
Nominating committee - This committee nominates new members for the board
Center Information
Staff & Board
Our Sponsors & Partners
Program Overview
What's Cooking?
Exercise Classes
Health & Wellness
Art & Education
Games & Clubs
Trips, Tours & Travel
Community Resources
Need a Ride?
4655 South Holly Street
Seattle, WA 98118
8:30 a.m. - 4 p.m.
Driving Directions
Phone:(206) 722-0317
Fax: (206) 722-2768
Cheap Chickadee Thrift Store
Rent Our Center
Terms Of Use
| Login
| Privacy Statement
Copywright 2013 Senior Services


text:
Clinical genetic testing can confirm the presence of a mutation in the NF1 gene. Prenatal testing for the NF1 mutation is also possible using amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling procedures. Genetic testing for the NF2 mutation is sometimes available, but is accurate only in about 65 percent of those individuals tested. Prenatal or genetic testing for schwannomotosis currently does not exist.
Category Archives: NF Awareness Month
NF Fact of the Day May 23rd
There is no currently accepted medical treatment or drug for schwannomatosis, but surgical management is often effective. Pain usually subsides when tumors are removed completely, although it may recur should new tumors form. When surgery isn't possible, ongoing monitoring and management of pain in a multidisciplinary pain clinic is advisable.
NF Fact of the Day May 22nd
Anyone with schwannomatosis experiences some degree of pain, but the intensity varies. A small number of people have such mild pain that they are never diagnosed with the disorder. Most people have significant pain, which can be managed with medications or surgery. In some extreme cases, pain will be so severe and disabling it will keep people from working or leaving the house.
NF Fact of the Day May 21st
NF Fact of the Day May 20th
The distinguishing feature of schwannomatosis is the development of multiple schwannomas everywhere in the body except on the vestibular nerve. The dominant symptom is pain, which develops as a schwannoma enlarges, compresses nerves, or presses on adjacent tissue. Some people experience additional neurological symptoms, such as numbness, tingling, or weakness in the fingers and toes. Individuals with schwannomatosis do not have neurofibromas.
NF Fact of the Day May 19th
Schwannomatosis is a rare form of neurofibromatosis that is genetically and clinically distinct from NF1 and NF2. Inherited forms of the disorder account for only 15 percent of all cases. Researchers have identified a mutation of the SMARCB1/INI1 gene that is associated with the familial form of the disease but don't fully understand what causes the intense pain that characterizes this disorder.
NF Fact of the Day May 18th
NF2 is best managed at a specialty clinic with an initial screening and annual follow-up evaluations (more frequent if the disease is severe). Improved diagnostic technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), can reveal tumors of the vestibular nerve as small as a few millimeters in diameter. Vestibular schwannomas grow slowly, but they can grow large enough to engulf one of the eighth cranial nerves and cause brain stem compression and damage to surrounding cranial nerves. Surgical options depend on tumor size and the extent of hearing loss. There is no general agreement among doctors about when surgery should be performed or which surgical option is best. Individuals considering surgery should carefully weigh the risks and benefits of all options to determine which treatment is right for them. Surgery to remove the entire tumor while it's still small might help preserve hearing. If hearing is lost during this surgery, but the auditory nerve is maintained, the surgical placement of a cochlear implant (a device placed in the inner ear, or cochlea, that processes electronic signals from sound waves to the auditory nerve) may be an option to improve hearing. As tumors grow larger, it becomes harder to surgically preserve hearing and the auditory nerve. The development of the penetrating auditory brain stem implant (a device that stimulates the hearing portions of the brain) can restore some hearing in individuals who have completely lost hearing and do not have an auditory nerve present. Surgery for other tumors associated with NF2 is aimed at controlling or relieving symptoms. Surgery also can correct cataracts and retinal abnormalities.
NF Fact of the Day May 17th
Because NF2 is so rare, few studies have been done to look at the natural progression of the disorder. The course of NF2 varies greatly among individuals, although inherited NF2 appears to run a similar course among affected family members. Generally, vestibular schwannomas grow slowly, and balance and hearing deteriorate over a period of years. A recent study suggests that an earlier age of onset and the presence of meningiomas are associated with greater mortality risk.
NF Fact of the Day May 16th
Signs of NF2 may be present in childhood but are so subtle that they can be overlooked, especially in children who don't have a family history of the disorder. Typically, symptoms of NF2 are noticed between 18 and 22 years of age. The most frequent first symptom is hearing loss or ringing in the ears (tinnitus). Less often, the first visit to a doctor will be because of disturbances in balance, visual impairment (such as vision loss from cataracts), weakness in an arm or leg, seizures, or skin tumors.
NF Fact of the Day May 15th
To diagnose NF2, a doctor looks for the following:
- bilateral vestibular schwannomas; or
- a family history of NF2 (parent, sibling, or child) plus a unilateral vestibular schwannoma before age 30; or
- any two of the following:
- glioma
- meningioma
- schwannoma
- juvenile posterior subcapsular/lenticular opacity (cataract) or juvenile cortical cataract


text:
Each month, Rated People connects over 50,000 homeowners with quality tradesmen - simply enter your job details in the form above to get started.
We'll match your job to the relevant tradesmen in your area - those interested will pay to see your contact details and call you to quote.
As each tradesman expresses interest in quoting on your job, we'll send you their profile and ratings to help you choose the right one for you.
After the work is complete, return to the site and rate your tradesman based on their quality of work, reliability and value for money.
Tree Surgeon
Added 10/08/2016
on the other side of our garden fence are council trees causing lack of growth in our garden...
Managing your job is easier with the Rated People Homes App, download it today.


text: 2. As of noon trading, Health Care REIT ( HCN) is down $0.86 (-1.2%) to $73.18 on average volume Thus far, 1.0 million shares of Health Care REIT exchanged hands as compared to its average daily volume of 2.1 million shares. The stock has ranged in price between $72.95-$74.77 after having opened the day at $74.62 as compared to the previous trading day's close of $74.04. Health Care REIT, Inc. is an independent equity real estate investment trust. The firm engages in acquiring, planning, developing, managing, repositioning and monetizing of real estate assets. It primarily invests in the real estate markets of the United States. Health Care REIT has a market cap of $19.4 billion and is part of the financial sector. The company has a P/E ratio of 101.4, above the S&P 500 P/E ratio of 17.7. Shares are up 20.8% year to date as of the close of trading on Friday. TheStreet Ratings rates Health Care REIT as a buy. The company's strengths can be seen in multiple areas, such as its robust revenue growth, good cash flow from operations, compelling growth in net income and solid stock price performance. We feel these strengths outweigh the fact that the company has had somewhat disappointing return on equity. Get the full Health Care REIT Ratings Report now. Exclusive Offer: Jim Cramer's 'go-to' small/mid-cap guru Bryan Ashenberg only buys stocks he thinks could return 50-100%. See his top picks for 14-days FREE.


text:
Frontline National Tacoma, WA, United States
Aug 13, 2017Full time
Frontline National is currently seeking several Medical Laboratory Technicians for Full-Time opportunities near Tacoma, WA. Please call our office or contact one of our Recruiters at 513-528-7823 to learn more about this great opportunity! Frontline National, LLC, founded in 2004, is a nationally-renowned staffing firm dedicated to identifying and placing superior candidates who possess the qualification, energy, and talent to match the high standards of client's expectations. Frontline National is an SBA certified 8(a), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) firm, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Frontline National is dedicated to providing superior customer service to our clients and candidates. We have a proven track record and marketplace expertise to successfully recruit and place professionals on a National scale. Benefits: Paid Healthcare (Medical, Dental, Vision, Short Term Disability and Life Insurance) Competitive Pay Rates 401k Ask about different shifts available! Job Duties: Determine specimen integrity, run or perform testing, prepare samples/paper work for shipping Required to work in shipping, hematology, chemistry, microbiology or transfusion Perform quality control procedures Minimum Qualifications: Education: Completion of the following: Minimum (1) one year of education in medical laboratory science Approved college based laboratory technician certification program Or An official U.S. military medical laboratory procedures training course of at least 50 weeks duration and passed the certification test Experience: Candidates must have the following experience: Minimum of a (6) six-month rotation through all sections of a medical laboratory as part of training required to gain certification Security: National Background and Credit Investigation Must be authorized to work in the U.S. License/Certification and Training: Current Basic Life Support (BLS/CPR) NCA, ASCP or AMT certification as MLT required Schedule: Monday-Sunday 24/7 365 days a year 1st shift 7:00AM-3:30PM, 2nd shift 3:00PM-11:30PM, 3rd shift 11:00PM-7:30AM


text:
"rude doctor"
Posted by Anonymous
Not happy with one of the doctors, been seen a few times by them and have always makes me feel uncomfortable. The doctor seems very careless .I come in and had a few questions about my daughter which was only two and straight after the doctor interrupted me being rude had this attitude of not being interested at what i had to ask and instead of listening to my problems the doctor was going on about how i only have 10 minutes and i know that, and the doctor just made me feel uncomfortable and arguing in front of my daughter which is not very professional.
Anyway i asked to see another doctor and what a difference.
Do you have a similar story to tell? Tell your story & make a difference ››


text:
Family fishing day at Fort Worth's Flyfest
via City of Fort Worth:
As a part of an annual trout stocking, Tarrant Regional Water District is partnering with Fort Worth's urban angling community to present the second annual TRWD Flyfest on March 11. The festival will be a family-friendly day of fly fishing, food, wine and craft beer in and along the rippling waters of the Clear Fork of the Trinity River.
Whether you are an experienced angler or have never touched a fly rod, this fun day will have something for the whole family.
The festival will run from 10 a.m.-5 p.m. near the intersection of Bryant Irvin Road and River Park Drive. Parking is at the River Park Trailhead, 3100 Bryant Irvin Blvd. Festival admission is free.
Fly tying lessons will be available throughout the day and will cover an array of types of flies, from beginner-friendly patterns to advanced. Fly fishing experts will host numerous demonstrations, including beginning casting, a women's casting class and how to cast big flies.
During the Big Trout Contest, anglers will compete to catch the biggest trout or the most fish in the time allotted to win the TRWD Flyfest Grand Prize.


text:
operating system - OS
The operating system (OS) is the most important program that runs on a computer. Every general-purpose computer must have an operating system to run other programs and applications. Computer operating systems perform basic tasks, such as recognizing input from the keyboard, sending output to the display screen, keeping track of files and directories on the storage drives, and controlling peripheral devices, such as printers.
For large systems, the operating system has even greater responsibilities and powers. It is like a traffic cop — it makes sure that different programs and users running at the same time do not interfere with each other. The operating system is also responsible for security, ensuring that unauthorized users do not access the system.
A Software Platform for Applications
Operating systems provide a software platform on top of which other programs, called application programs, can run. The application programs must be written to run on top of a particular operating system. Your choice of operating system, therefore, determines to a great extent the applications you can run. For PCs, the most popular operating systems are DOS, OS/2, and Windows, but others are available, such as Linux.
Image: Operating System Diagram
Classification of Operating systems
Interacting With the Operating System
As a user, you normally interact with the operating system through a set of commands. For example, the DOS operating system contains commands such as COPY and RENAME for copying files and changing the names of files, respectively. The commands are accepted and executed by a part of the operating system called the command processor or command line interpreter. Graphical user interfaces allow you to enter commands by pointing and clicking at objects that appear on the screen.
Popular Operating Systems
The three most popular types of operating systems for personal and business computing include Linux, Windows and Mac.
Linux Operating Systems
Linux is a freely distributed open source operating system that runs on a number of hardware platforms. The Linux kernel was developed mainly by Linus Torvalds and it is based on Unix.
Mac Operating Systems
Mac OS is the official name of the Apple Macintosh operating system. Mac OS features a graphical user interface (GUI) that utilizes windows, icons, and all applications that run on a Macintosh computer have a similar user interface.
Windows Operating Systems
Microsoft Windows is a family of operating systems for personal and business computers. Windows dominates the personal computer world, offering a graphical user interface (GUI), virtual memory management, multitasking, and support for many peripheral devices.
Recommended Reading: The History of Windows Operating Systems (Windows OS) from 1985 to present day.
Top Operating System (OS) Related Questions
- What is a server operating system?
- What is a mobile operating system?
- What does network operating system mean?
- What is Operating System Virtualization?
Stay up to date on the latest developments in Internet terminology with a free weekly newsletter from Webopedia. Join to subscribe now.
From A3 to LOL and ZZZ this guide lists 1,500 text message and online chat abbreviations to help you translate and understand today's texting... Read More »SEO Dictionary
From keyword analysis to backlinks and Google search engine algorithm updates, our search engine optimization glossary lists 85 SEO terms you need... Read More »Slideshow: History of Microsoft Operating Systems
Microsoft Windows is a family of operating systems for personal computers. In this article we look at the history of Microsoft operating... Read More »
Learn about each of the five generations of computers and major technology developments that have led to the computing devices that we use... Read More »Computer Architecture Study Guide
Computer architecture provides an introduction to system design basics for most computer science students. Read More »Network Fundamentals Study Guide
Networking fundamentals teaches the building blocks of modern network design. Learn different types of networks, concepts, architecture and... Read More »


text:
Okay, so girls and I went shopping yesterday, and I found that we all had very different lists. Here's mine, what's yours?
1. a short, black leather jacket.
2. a brown leather jacket, short as well
3. aviator shades
4. dark jeans, that show off your ass
5. three black dresses (casual, semi-formal, & uber-formal)
6. black floral dress
7. red heels
8. converse, of various colors
9. fishnet stockings
10. moccasins
guys, feel free to add what you like on girls. ;]
Most Helpful Girl
1. A really good, nicely fitting pair of skinny jeans.
2. A versatile pair of canvas shoes (I'm obsessed with Converse, Vans, and Keds)
3. White V-neck shirt
4. High waisted shirt
5. Pair of black tights
6. Ray Ban Wayfarers (or knockoffs in my case, wahh)
7. A cardigan! I wear them so much.
8. A dress that can be dressed up or dressed down.
9. A statement piece of jewelry that can add interest to an outfit.
10. Tank tops for layering.
Basically all I'd ever need, lol.44|00|1


text:
Fernando, a 2-year-old Poodle mix, may be a little guy but has a big brain. He already knows a few tricks and loves to play with toys and will cuddle with anyone. He does pretty well with other calm, polite dogs and might even do OK with cats. He is neutered and his adoption price is $175.
Meet Fernando today at the Arizona Animal Welfare League & SPCA, Building 6, 25 N. 40th St. in Phoenix, or visit https://aawl.org.


text:
LEGO® Mania Trail at the City Museum
Press Release: 25/03/2013
You can take part in the county-wide LEGO® Mania Trail at the City Museum, Winchester, this Spring. See an amazing LEGO® model and have a go at LEGO® activities.
The LEGO® Mania Trail runs from Thursday 28 March to Sunday 9 June. On display will be a life-sized LEGO® Roman banquet made from over 75,000 LEGO® elements, built by LEGO®-certified professional Duncan Titmarsh.
There will be lots of activities to try. Visitors can join in the hunt to find Roman Emperor LEGO® mini-figures hidden around the galleries and they can be creative at LEGO® play tables. There is also a chance to enter a LEGO® model competition and to build and customise your own LEGO mini-figure.
In addition Winchester Museums are offering two great LEGO® workshops at the Winchester Discovery Centre, a Masterclass and a free mosaic-making workshop where you can help make a life-sized LEGO® model of the Sparsholt Roman mosaic.
Commenting on the event, Robin Iles, Education Officer at Winchester City Council Museums, said
The LEGO® Mania Trail is taking place across Hampshire, with seven museums taking part, each with their own amazing LEGO® models. Visitors can pick up their Trail leaflet in the City Museum, and collect a stamp at each venue to enter a prize draw to win some LEGO®.
This is a great example of Winchester City Council Museums working closely in partnership with other museums in Hampshire. This has enabled funding to be secured from the Arts Council for an event which will open up the City Museum's wonderful displays for a whole new audience, and attract visitors from across the county to Winchester.
More information about these events, and other LEGO® Mania Trail events across Hampshire, can be found on the Lego Mania website www.hants.gov.uk/legomaniatrail.


text:
What is JotForm?
JotForm is a free online form builder which helps you create online forms without writing a single line of code. No sign-up required.
At JotForm, we want to make sure that you're getting the online form builder help that you need. Our friendly customer support team is available 24/7.
We believe that if one user has a question, there could be more users who may have the same question. This is why many of our support forum threads are public and available to be searched and viewed. If you'd like help immediately, feel free to search for a similar question, or submit your question or concern.
Possible to modify size settings for Button Radios widget?Asked by slider17 on October 15, 2014 at 09:38 AM
Is it possible to change the size of each button for this widget. I cant seem to do so using the provided settings.
Also can u create some space between each button?? Atm they are all joined together.
Also i noticed on mobile devices, this widget doesnt cascade down responsively like other widgets, by this i mean that it remains a straight line of buttons which requires the user to swipe to the right of their screen to see the other buttons.
JotForm Support
I see what you mean on the Button Radios Widget (http://widgets.jotform.com/widget/button_radios) in your jotform
But unfortunately, the Button Radio is limited in customization since it does NOT have a provision for custom CSS injection on its own iframe.
Perhaps you may want check Image Radio Buttons Widget instead. Since it has option for custom CSS injection, it has the flexibility of customization better than the Button Radio widget.
Hope this help. Inform us if you need further assistance.


text: General OnLine Lists Trivia Quotes Photos Transcript Marlene, again, still doesn't know when to be quiet as Skipper covers her mouth, again. Skipper and a flippers-over-mouth Marlene Skipper covering Marlene's mouth1 of 3Add photo RETURN TO General OnLine Lists Trivia Quotes Photos Transcript END OF ARTICLE Retrieved from "http://madagascar.wikia.com/wiki/Work_Order/Photos?oldid=90657" Ad blocker interference detected! Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected. Categories: Epi-Photos


text:
217 Clifton Avenue, San Carlos, California
$1,895,0004 Beds2 BathsActive
$1,895,0004 Beds2 BathsActive
217 Clifton Avenue, San Carlos, California 94070 - Set just above the flurry of San Carlos, this tranquil retreat provides privacy, serenity, and an escape from everyday life - all within walking distance to downtown. A spacious open floor plan with classic moldings, thoughtful details, and high end finishes makes this a great home for those who like to entertain. With all formal spaces and most bedrooms accessible without stairs, this is a great match for families, downsizers, and anybody in between. A separate family room and master suite downstairs have direct access to the mostly flat yard space with various seating areas and planting beds set within a professionally designed landscape. Top rated San Carlos schools, and easy access to multiple commute routes to Silicon Valley and San Francisco make this a perfect fit for any buyer.
Listing Courtesy of Golden Gate Sotheby's Internat