text:
The following are all based on tape viewing. I haven't reached the point of background checks, stat gathering, analysis of size and speed metrics, all that jazz. I'm just going off what I saw of these players on tape.
1. DE Bjoern Werner, Florida State
Comment: Underrated, probably because of German heritage and newness to the sport, which gives him a reputation for being "raw". I don't care what his back story is, watch him play football and he's a man amongst boys. He combines the kind of consistent gap control ability I saw out of Ryan Kerrigan with J.J. Watt type ball skills (tipped balls, even an interception) and the ability to explode off the line, get under a tackle's pads, and bend the arc. He had the only sack underrated Oklahoma tackle Donald Stephenson allowed in all of 2011. Long arms, great frame, powerful, fast, you name it, he has it. Fluid hands for neutralizing the hands of offensive tackles. There's definitely some rawness there but he's only a sophomore and from what I have seen the sky is the limit. He'll need to develop a little more endurance.
2. DE/OLB James Gayle, Virginia Tech
Comment: I never, ever, ever make this comparison. I can't even recall the last time I made it. However, this guy's style, not necessarily skill level, reminds me of Jason Taylor. I don't know his exact measurements, nor what his athletic measurements will end up, nor even his stats. This is all based on tape. He has great take-off ability, good counters, a deadly inside move, the ability to bend the arc, speed, and perhaps most importantly the ability to achieve all of this, including his take-off, either from an up or down position. Another guy with long arms that really avail him in pass rush.
3a. OLB/DE Barkevious Mingo, LSU
Comment: By the time all is said and done, he may be the guy that rises to the top of the Draft at this position, but that doesn't mean he'll be the best in the NFL. I still rank the other two above him just because they strike me as better than him right now. His power and strength just really are not going to impress you at all, unlike some of the other guys on this list. However, what is going to get you consistently, is the fact that he moves like he's controlled by a joystick. There are some pretty good players on that defensive line and his movement skills put them to shame. He consistently gets off the snap quickest. He's not weak, he's actually pretty feisty and physical, and does a good job keeping his feet churning through contact. You don't see him losing a lot of strength matches. But you don't see him pushing through as much as you'd like when it comes to strength. Still, the potential is massive.
3b. OLB Jarvis Jones, Georgia
Comment: There's a part of me that actually wants to rate Jarvis above Barkevious Mingo because he's more fluid in his combination of hand and feet movements, a little more violent with his hands and quicker to get into dangerous counters which leave blockers grasping at air. However, there's something to be said for the dirty 'p' word, potential. Jones is a lot smaller than Mingo and so Mingo's ceiling is probably higher. That doesn't keep Jarvis from ending up a damn good player, though. He's also not quite as quick off the ball as Mingo and one reason I wouldn't have him above Gayle is because I think Gayle is a more dangerous pass rusher from an up position, gets off the ball and into his speed rush better.
5. DE/OLB Alex Okafor, Texas
Comment: Okafor is clearly the better pass rusher on his defense compared with Jackson Jeffcoat. It is not even close. He does not rate as high as the guys above him because I don't think he moves quite as quickly off the ball as the guys above. However, he does consistently show the ability to bend the arc and get underneath the blocker to come back to the quarterback, and he's also more polished than some of these guys and has a full array of moves. I like him.
6. DE William Gholston, Michigan State
Comment: I have seen suggestions that Gholston is overrated. I would like to see another year before I come to that conclusion because what I see of him is an extremely well built, brutishly strong player with explosive qualities. When he gets to the ball, he swallows it and he's a mean S.O.B. He is not a guy that consistently bends the outside, which is why I don't have him higher right now, but he can get to the quarterback through an array of moves and he's always a pain in the butt for whoever tries to block him.
7. DE/OLB Cory Lemonier, Auburn
Comment: Lemonier is built like a Ferrari. Great length and frame, really good take-off from the snap, hands connect well and shed, strong player that can get off blocks and make plays. The reason he's not rated better is he consistently paddle steps around the edge and can't really bend and get under a blocker to execute a proper edge rush. It could be something that develops.
8. DE Sam Montgomery, LSU
Comment: There are times you're watching Sam Montgomery and he is showing you the things that Barkevious Mingo is missing, and then there are times you're watching Barkevious Mingo and seeing the things Sam Montgomery is missing. He doesn't rate higher because he's consistently slow off the snap before he gets into his rush. He explodes in bursts, but he takes a while to gather himself before he explodes into his second and third bursts. He does not have great balance and I didn't see him consistently bend the arc. There are elite qualities to his game, the dangerous 'p' word, however he's in MUCH more danger of ending up "just a guy" than a Barkevious Mingo, who will always possess that god-given Cam Wake type joystick movement and explosiveness.
9. DE/OLB Brandon Jenkins, Florida State
Comment: Jenkins has pretty good take-off ability and his 2nd and 3rd steps don't let him down, so he has the ability to pass rush around the edge. He is not consistently strong and flexible bending the arc when challenged heavily, however. His natural athleticism helps him make hustle plays, but then you don't really see him hustling so it's kind of one step forward, one step back. His speed might be overrated. Hand use is definitely very inconsistent. Shows timely play recognition and gives good strong effort when blocked for the run game. He just doesn't hustle to the ball as well as you'd hope when the play goes by and he's not blocked any more. Good spin move.
10. DE/DT Margus Hunt, Southern Methodist
Comment: Margus is an incredible athlete with ridiculous size, speed, strength and explosiveness elements. The problem is, what do you do with him? He's blocked more kicks than I've ever even heard of but on the field you're wondering if he's sort of a poor man's Jared Odrick. He's not nearly flexible enough in my opinion to pass rush from the edge of the formation when you need pass rush. You will have to reduce him inside to rush the passer over a guard. That leaves you putting him at end on first and second down primarily as a run stopper, where he's not all that instinctive or impactful. It's like trying to put together a puzzle with a missing piece.
11. DE Jackson Jeffcoat, Texas
Comment: I'm given the impression from some of my fellow draftniks that I'm supposed to actually like Jackson Jeffcoat, but I'm really not sure why. I don't know his stats but I am sure he has collected some sacks off the good work that Alex Okafor and some others on the Texas defensive line (including our own Kheeston Randall) did for him. He reminds me a little bit of a cross between this year's Boise State defensive end Tyrone Crawford, and the old Arizona pass rusher Ricky Elmore. Actually scratch the Crawford comparison, he mainly reminds me of Elmore, which isn't a good thing. He has some athletic ability and some take-off from the line, but he doesn't put together the full package and was in my opinion conisistenty shown up by his teammate Okafor.
12. DE Michael Buchanan, Illinois
Comment: I am also given the impression that I am supposed to like Whitney Mercilus' linemate, Michael Buchanan. Maybe it's the scheme because I did not like Mercilus and I sure do not like Buchanan. He has some movement ability and he is built nicely, however I found that he doesn't really earn anything he does. He's just too easily blocked. Not enough speed, not enough explosion, not enough physicality, not enough flexibility. The reality is I probably would not even have him ranked in the top 12 by draft day, however I am given the impression he is supposed to be a top prospect, and so I felt I should address him.


text:
Back to school sales are in full force and while it's certainly a good time to stock up on new shoes and pencil bags, it's also time to score end-of-season clearance items. If you're not quite ready to say goodbye to summer, treat yourself to a fun bargain and enjoy your final days of sunshine and freedom.
Kiddie outdoor oasis: It will be a while before winter weather sends us all inside. Still, water toys, slides, sandboxes, and anything else that encourages outdoor play will likely go on sale this month. Save up to 30% on trampolines and swing sets at Kmart.
Summer-scented anything: Retailers are ready to roll out pumpkin spice candles and apple body wash, so scents that conjure up summer memories are headed to clearance. Bath & Body Works already has candles like Summertime S'Mores and Seaside Escape marked down 50%.
Cool down essentials: Now that the hot weather will be winding down soon, it's a great time to shop for an AC unit or ceiling fan. Ceiling fans are in the sale section and ship free from Lamps Plus.
Swimwear swag: Swim gear markdowns started last month, but now those suits really must go. Use code SWIM and save 30% off swimwear at Aeropostale or shop the sale section at Dress Barn and get 50% off.
SPF beauty loot: You should protect your skin year-round, so now's a great time to stock up. Look for low prices on your basic sunscreen as well as moisturizers, face powders, and lip balm with SPF. Shop for sale cosmetics at Ulta and save additional dollars with a coupon code.
Final tip: It's peak season for tomatoes, so look for great prices and variety on the year's tastiest tomatoes. If you are a home gardener, canning supplies will go on sale this month, so get ready to deal with your end-of-season crop.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I experimented with two dishes tonight for Christmas. The first (a cranberry tofu with a cranberry and orange chutney) was a disaster, but the second was pretty much what I wanted. Not the prettiest looking dish, but the flavour was amazing. The creamy sauce is made even more creamy with the butternut squash, complemented by the sage. The potatoes are soft but not mushy and the chestnuts add some texture and flavour.
- 1/4 cup margarine
- 2 cloves garlic, minced
- 1 tbsp rubbed sage
- 1/4 tsp pepper
- 1.5 lbs butternut squash, peeled
- 12 roasted chestnuts, chopped
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Grease a 2.8 litre (3 quart) Corningware dish


text:
A source system tracks student attendance for a school district by reporting absence events. Attendance on any particular day can be determined by examining three datasets: school calendar, student enrollment, and absence.
On any given school day, the number of enrolled students in attendance is usually much larger than the number that are absent, so this approach reduces the number of records stored to track attendance significantly.
I am trying to determine the proper way to represent daily attendance in a dimensional model. The most obvious way is to create a factless table with a grain per school day per student, and an attendance dimension that has values for both attendance and absence reasons. This is quite straightforward to work with OLAP, but the downside is the size of the fact table.
For example, for 30,000 students and 188 school days means that there are approximately 0.5 million records per year (if this doesn't seem large enough to be an issue, then consider an example in which attendance must be reported on per period rather than per day). Contrast this to a fact table that records only absences and the number is considerably smaller. However, if I do this, then I am not sure how to build cubes that aggregate daily attendance facts.
The specific OLAP technology being used is SQL Server Analysis Services 2008 R2. Any thoughts?


text:
I introduced Senate Bill 367, the Veterans Opportunity Bill, as a result of a conversation I had with a grandmother whose grandson had just returned from Iraq. After speaking with the grandmother on Memorial Day, I was compelled to begin the process of drafting legislation that would assist our military veterans with educational opportunities and a pathway to enter the work force.
The legislation contains several provisions including: Awarding veterans academic credit for skills or training they acquired while serving in the military; training at least one faculty member at each two-year or four-year college or university as a liaison and contact for student veterans; and the establishment of a program that creates collaborative relationships between student veterans and alumni to help link veterans with prospective employers.
Because 2012 was an election year in the Legislature, the legislation laid dormant for most of the fall. When the Legislature reconvened after the Thanksgiving holiday, I sent a letter to Senate leadership respectfully requesting that the legislation receive a first hearing before the end of the year. This would give us an opportunity to begin a productive dialogue about the merits of the bill and engage all interested parties. Unfortunately, the lame duck session has ended and this important piece of legislation never even received a first hearing. What is even more troubling than this bill being passed over was that, aside from a few road naming bills, no significant legislation supporting our veterans was passed during the last two months. I am very disappointed by the lack of attention our veterans received at the end of this General Assembly.
During the first meeting of the Governor's Executive Workforce Board, where I serve as a member, leaders from all over the state shared ideas on how veterans could be integrated into Ohio's work force. Representatives from major employers described their positive experiences with veterans they had hired because of their discipline, work ethic and team oriented approach.
Gov. John Kasich signaled that he is interested in seeing bi-partisan legislation recognizing the skills of our student veterans and helping them transition into the workplace.
My legislation does exactly what the work force board is aiming to do.
Although this bill has been put aside for this year, I am committed to re-introducing it in the upcoming General Assembly and making our veterans one of my top legislative priorities during the next four years.
We have an obligation to support those who have sacrificed for us. The Veterans Opportunity Bill would give Ohio veterans recognition for the training and skills they already have, and it would re-emphasize Ohio's commitment to having veteran-friendly institutions of higher education.
I look forward to continuing to champion this worthy legislation in the upcoming year.
(Gentile, a Democrat from Steubenville, represents Ohio's 30th Senate District.)


text:
Write a review and share your opinion about this product with others.
Just fill out the form below and click the "submit review" button.
Thank you for your effort. We appreciate it.
We'd Like to Thank You
to receive special offers & coupons! (optional)
Customer Reviews
For English Leather
by Dana
I used to buy English Lather, the small roll-on one. Loved the smell of it but Walgreens and HEB quit selling it for some reason here in San Antonio. does anyone know where I can find it?
Written by David Garcia on June 17, 2014
I began wearing English Leather only 5 years after it came on the market. Yes, I am that old. I still wear it all the time. The women in my life have always loved it as I do. It is a clean, subtle, masculine aroma and leaves the women around you with a lasting and wonderful memory of your presence.
Written by Anonymous on February 04, 2014
I have been wearing English Leather (almost exclusively) for over 55 years. My wife loves it - still. The women I worked with always had comments about the nice aroma. I still like it better than anything else I've ever tried. It is a masculine scent that can be worn anytime. My only regret is that the Shower Splash is no longer available.
Written by Anonymous on February 04, 2014
I've worn English Leather since I was a young boy and I thought that it had been knocked to the curb with all of the newer, youth-oriented scents that are flooding the market. It's a classic, clean and masculine scent that exudes confidence and experience. Seeing it in the plastic travel bottle is a real bonus for me,,,I've always preferred my English Leather out of the plastic bottle. Buy it, especially if you're the type of guy that means business.
Written by PJM on September 01, 2013
The English Leather line is fantastic, I regret the passing of English Leather Lime, but I still enjoy the others. The English leather talc is great for an over all aura, not intense, but there. I am disappointed that I can only get the small, 1 0z travel size, but I'll take what I can get.
Written by Dj'sdad on July 29, 2013


text:
I'm shopping online for some new tires, and see that some models are sorted by folding and wire beads? What exactly does this mean, and do I need a special rim to support them?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Folding versus wire refers to the material within the bead or 'edge' of each side of the tire. Foldable bead tires use kevlar in most cases (I think) and tires with each type are entirely compatible with the rim size that the tire is designed for (in the absence of a manufacturing defect). Folding bead tires have a few advantages (in my opinion):
For these advantages, you will probably pay more for a foldable bead tire when a tire model includes both options. Also, wire bead's also appear more often as the OEM tires on lower end bikes.
Sheldon Brown can show you how to fold a wire bead tire.
Grab the tire at 10 & 2 O'Clock and overlap your hands until you have an uneven-size figure eight. Then just grasp the large loop of the figure eight, twist and push it towards the middle of the eight until you have three loops. Just tie it up with a strap and toss it into a bag.


text:
Seasense Heavy Duty Winch Strap
Looking for high-strength winch strap that can handle constant wear and tear caused during loading and launching of your boat? Featuring heavy-duty polyester webbing, the Seasense Winch Strap offers the perfect solution.
- Polyester webbing
- Breaking strength: 8000 lbs
- Heavy-duty hook
Polyester is used to make this winch strap, which offers high UV resistance and does not stretch. Top this with the forged zinc-plated hook and we have a winch strap that can secure loads up to 2400 lbs. It comes with a spring-loaded closure for secure attachment. This accessory makes handling heavy-duty cargo hold safe and easy.
Features of Seasense Heavy Duty Winch Strap
- Breaking strength: 8000 lbs
- Working load: 2400 lbs
- Sewn-Loop end
- High-strength polyester webbing
- Fits Seasense 2500 brake winch
- Zinc-plated snap hook with spring-loaded closure
Manf. Part # 50018110
- Size: 2-1/2" wide x 24' long
What is the "working load?" I have a 3400lb boat.?
The working load refers to the maximum load that a machine or other structure is designed to bear during normal operation. The working load for this part is 2400lbs.
This product ships in 1 business day.
Add to Cart and enter your Postal Code to determine the shipping charges and estimated delivery date.
Most products and orders leave our warehouse in 1 business day. However, select items may take more processing time. Alaska and Hawaii orders please add 1 additional warehouse processing day.
Standard Shipping Policies


text:
Inspired by What is this idiom?, but that question doesn't actually ask for where the expression originated. I Googled around, but couldn't find any reliable source. Surely the expression originates in a major or cult movie or literary work of some kind or another?
Sign up
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
Looks like it might originate from a 1970 novel by Chuck Stone called King Strut:
Edit: Sorry. I spoke too soon. Here's a citation from five years earlier from The Green Berets by Robin Moore (1965):
It appears ass kicking itself dates back to the early '40s and the phrase having as much chance as a one-legged man in a mule/butt/ass-kicking contest. The similar expression kick in the pants dates to the late 1800s.
Edit 4/15/11:
I just antedated the 1965 reference by 11 years. This is from John Oliver Killens' 1954 novel Youngblood:
This is a military term, specifically Navy, and the exact unit is the Navy military police, or Shore Patrol.
Origin was based on shore-leave: it is the job of the SP to patrol and manage crimes and other behavioral problems of Naval personnel, preferably before they happen-- but to deal with them effectively when they do happen.
After a fight, the SP will sequester the "ringleaders" and confiscate their ID cards long enough to make official note of who they are.
protected by Will Hunting Nov 11 '12 at 5:09
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
Does someone know anything about Rav Yaakov Moshe Hillel shlita hamekubal stating that tzitzios should be worn outside the clothes? I read it once but without any sources on a web forum. It would be quite surprising as one of the argument to tuck them is based on kabbalah and the Arizal.
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:
Sign up
Sign up
Here's how it works:
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
In his book Geburat HaAri (pg. 137) he brings the AriZal and explains that according to him they should be exposed because in Shaar HaKawanot (7c) the Ari says that there is a Miswa to behold the Sisiot (see Debarim 15:39).
He expounds on this immensely in his Sefer Wayashov HaYam (vol. 1 Siman 3).
It may be interesting to note, I once saw in his a yeshiva a Scanning of hand written note from Rav Yitchak Keduri Ztz"l agreeing with this ruling and the argument that Rav Hillel puts forth in vayashov Hayam, also a photo of the Baba sali with very long sitzit that where hanging below his gown. Rav Hillel (because of a seeming contradiction in the kitvei haArizal) believes this practice is an authentic Kabalistic one,


text:
Agreed. I have a few ideas in this direction as well (random thoughts that might as well be transcribed somewhere):
- some kind of configure --enable-large-system (whatever) option is a Good Thing
- it would be good if the configure option simply set [MCA parameter?] defaults wherever possible (vs. #if-selecting code). I think one of the biggest lessons learned from Open MPI is that everyone's setup is different -- having the ability to mix and match various run-time options, while not widely used, is absolutely critical in some scenarios. So it might be good if --enable-large-system sets a bunch of default parameters that some sysadmins may still want/need to override.
- decision to run the modex: I haven't seen all of Ralph's work in this area, but I wonder if it's similar to the MPI handle parameter checks: it could be a multi-value MCA parameter, such as: "never", "always", "when-ompi-determines-its-necessary", etc., where the last value can use multiple criteria to know if it's necessary to do a modex (e.g., job size, when spawn occurs, whether the "pml" [or other critical] MCA param[s] were specified, ...etc.).
On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:26 AM, Ralph H Castain wrote:
Just to complete this thread...
Brian raised a very good point, so we identified it on the weekly telecon as
a subject that really should be discussed at next week's technical meeting.
I think we can find a reasonable answer, but there are several ways it can
be done. So rather than doing our usual piecemeal approach to the solution,
it makes sense to begin talking about a more holistic design for
accommodating both needs.
Thanks Brian for pointing out the bigger picture.
On 6/24/08 8:22 AM, "Brian W. Barrett" <firstname.lastname@example.com> wrote:
yeah, that could be a problem, but it's such a minority case and we've got
to draw the line somewhere.
Of course, it seems like this is a never ending battle between two
opposing forces... The desire to do the "right thing" all the time at
small and medium scale and the desire to scale out to the "big thing".
It seems like in the quest to kill off the modex, we've run into these
pretty often.
The modex doesn't hurt us at small scale (indeed, we're probably ok with
the routed communication pattern up to 512 nodes or so if we don't do
anything stupid, maybe further). Is it time to admit defeat in this
argument and have a configure option that turns off the modex (at the cost
of some of these correctness checks) for the large machines, but keeps
things simple for the common case? I'm sure there are other things where
this will come up, so perhaps a --enable-large-scale? Maybe it's a dumb
idea, but it seems like we've made a lot of compromises lately around
this, where no one ends up really happy with the solution :/.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, George Bosilca wrote:
Brian hinted a possible bug in one of his replies. How does this work in the_______________________________________________
case of dynamic processes? We can envision several scenarios, but lets take a
simple: 2 jobs that get connected with connect/accept. One might publish the
PML name (simply because the -mca argument was on) and one might not?
On Jun 24, 2008, at 8:28 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
Also sounds good to me.
Note that the most difficult part of the forward-looking plan is that we
usually can't tell the difference between "something failed to initialize"
and "you don't have support for feature X".
I like the general philosophy of: running out of the box always works just
fine, but if you/the sysadmin is smart, you can get performance
On Jun 23, 2008, at 4:18 PM, Shipman, Galen M. wrote:
I concur
- galen
On Jun 23, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Brian W. Barrett wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ralph H Castain wrote:
Okay, so let's explore an alternative that preserves the support you are_______________________________________________
seeking for the "ignorant user", but doesn't penalize everyone else.
What we
could do is simply set things up so that:
1. if -mca plm xyz is provided, then no modex data is added
2. if it is not provided, then only rank=0 inserts the data. All other
simply check their own selection against the one given by rank=0
Now, if a knowledgeable user or sys admin specifies what to use for
system, we won't penalize their startup time. A user who doesn't know
to do gets to run, albeit less scalably on startup.
Looking forward from there, we can look to a day where failing to
something that exists on the system could be detected in some other
letting the local proc abort since it would know that other procs that
detected similar capabilities may well have selected that PML. For now,
though, this would solve the problem.
Make sense?
On 6/23/08 1:31 PM, "Brian W. Barrett" <firstname.lastname@example.com> wrote:
The problem is that we default to OB1, but that's not the right choice
some platforms (like Pathscale / PSM), where there's a huge performance
hit for using OB1. So we run into a situation where user installs Open
MPI, starts running, gets horrible performance, bad mouths Open MPI,
now we're in that game again. Yeah, the sys admin should know what to
but it doesn't always work that way.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ralph H Castain wrote:
My fault - I should be more precise in my language. ;-/_______________________________________________
#1 is not adequate, IMHO, as it forces us to -always- do a modex. It
to me that a simpler solution to what you describe is for the user to
specify -mca pml ob1, or -mca pml cm. If the latter, then you could
with the failed-to-initialize problem cleanly by having the proc
Again, sometimes I think we attempt to automate too many things. This
like a pretty clear case where you know what you want - the sys admin,
nobody else, can certainly set that mca param in the default param
Otherwise, it seems to me that you are relying on the modex to detect
your proc failed to init the correct subsystem. I hate to force a
modex just
for that - if so, then perhaps this could again be a settable option
avoid requiring non-scalable behavior for those of us who want
On 6/23/08 1:21 PM, "Brian W. Barrett" <firstname.lastname@example.com> wrote:
The selection code was added because frequently high speed
fail to initialize properly due to random stuff happening (yes,
that's a
horrible statement, but true). We ran into a situation with some
flaky machines where most of the processes would chose CM, but a
would fail to initialize the MTL and therefore chose OB1. This lead
to a
hang situation, which is the worst of the worst.
I think #1 is adequate, although it doesn't handle spawn particularly
well. And spawn is generally used in environments where such network
mismatches are most likely to occur.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Ralph H Castain wrote:
Since my goal is to eliminate the modex completely for managed_______________________________________________
installations, could you give me a brief understanding of this
eventual PML
selection logic? It would help to hear an example of how and why
procs could get different answers - and why we would want to allow
them to
do so.
On 6/23/08 11:59 AM, "Aurélien Bouteiller" <firstname.lastname@example.com>
The first approach sounds fair enough to me. We should avoid 2 and
as the pml selection mechanism used to be
more complex before we reduced it to accommodate a major design bug
the BTL selection process. When using the complete PML selection,
would be initialized several times, leading to a variety of bugs.
Eventually the PML selection should return to its old self, when
BTL bug gets fixed.
Le 23 juin 08 ŕ 12:36, Ralph H Castain a écrit :
Yo all
I've been doing further research into the modex and came across
something I
don't fully understand. It seems we have each process insert into
the modex
the name of the PML module that it selected. Once the modex has
that info, it then loops across all procs in the job to check
selection, and aborts if any proc picked a different PML module.
All well and good...assuming that procs actually -can- choose
different PML
modules and hence create an "abort" scenario. However, if I look
inside the
PML's at their selection logic, I find that a proc can ONLY pick a
other than ob1 if:
1. the user specifies the module to use via -mca pml xyz or by
using a
module specific mca param to adjust its priority. In this case,
since the
mca param is propagated, ALL procs have no choice but to pick that
module, so that can't cause us to abort (we will have already
returned an
error and aborted if the specified module can't run).
2. the pml/cm module detects that an MTL module was selected, and
that it is
other than "psm". In this case, the CM module will be selected
because its
default priority is higher than that of OB1.
In looking deeper into the MTL selection logic, it appears to me
that you
either have the required capability or you don't. I can see that
environments (e.g., rsh across unmanaged collections of machines),
it might
be possible for someone to launch across a set of machines where
some do and
some don't have the required support. However, in all other cases,
this will
be homogeneous across the system.
Given this analysis (and someone more familiar with the PML should
feel free
to confirm or correct it), it seems to me that this could be
streamlined via
one or more means:
1. at the most, we could have rank=0 add the PML module name to
and other procs simply check it against their own and return an
error if
they differ. This accomplishes the identical functionality to what
we have
today, but with much less info in the modex.
2. we could eliminate this info from the modex altogether by
requiring the
user to specify the PML module if they want something other than
OB1. In this case, there can be no confusion over what each proc
to use.
The CM module will attempt to init the MTL - if it cannot do so,
then the
job will return the correct error and tell the user that CM/MTL
support is
3. we could again eliminate the info by not inserting it into the
modex if
(a) the default PML module is selected, or (b) the user specified
the PML
module to be used. In the first case, each proc can simply check
see if
they picked the default - if not, then we can insert the info to
the difference. Thus, in the "standard" case, no info will be
In the second case, we will already get an error if the specified
PML module
could not be used. Hence, the modex check provides no additional
info or
I understand the motivation to support automation. However, in
the automation actually doesn't seem to buy us very much, and it
coming "free". So perhaps some change in how this is done would be
in order?
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
devel mailing list
Jeff Squyres
Cisco Systems
devel mailing list


text:
How does it work?
Choose a tasty dish1 Choose your location and your meal!
Paying online is easy and secure2 Pay with Creditcard, PayPal, Bitcoin or cash
Why Takeaway.com?
- Order takeaway, pizza, Indian & kebab. No service charge!
- Pay at the door or online with PayPal or creditcard
- Price guarantee for all our menus
- Order food and follow it with Food Tracker ®
- Order take away from 5000+ recommended restaurants


text:
Other products you may like:
Allspice "Jamacian Pepper"
If the option you want is out of stock, please enter your email address below to be notified when it is available.
Allspice also known as "Jamacian Pepper" tastes like a combination of cinnamon, nutmeg, cloves and...
Allspice, also know as "Jamaican Pepper", tastes much like a blend of cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves. Chefs often include whole allspice along with cloves and black peppercorns in their stocks. Ground allspice is routinely used in baking and desserts. Available both as Whole or Ground. Whole about 40g ground about 50g. Imported.
If you have an account with us, please log in to submit a review.View a Listing of All Product Reviews
There are no reviews for this product.


text:
5 Petty Feuds That Shaped the Modern World
Everyone's been caught in the midst of a petty feud, where two people with trivial differences screw things up for everyone around them. These mostly occur in middle school and really shitty divorces, but some petty feuds have shaped the modern world. Just because they're titans of business and leaders of nations, that doesn't mean grown men are above letting some name-calling influence their decisions. For instance ...
#5. A Misheard Sentence Shapes the Shoe Market
Adolf and Rudolf Dassler were German brothers who shared a passion for shoemaking, and eventually they shared ownership of the Dassler Brothers Shoe Factory. Like most German citizens at the time, they were card-carrying members of the Nazi Party, but they sort of sucked at it. For instance, during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, they outfitted Jesse Owens with the shoes he would wear while proving that Hitler was wrong about the inferiority of black athletes.
Also unlike Hitler, the brothers' shoe-selling prowess survived World War II, and today they sell more athletic shoes and apparel than anyone other than Nike and Reebok. If you're reading this in a Western society, you've almost definitely worn their shoes or clothing. You just knew them as Puma or Adidas. While the brothers continued making shoes, they did it as separate companies.
Via Stuartslondon.com
Adolf, creator of Adidas. Full-on Nazi.
One night during an Allied bombing raid, Rudolf was sitting in his bomb shelter with his family when Adolf and his wife joined them. Maybe it was the bombs being dropped above, or perhaps a premonition of how hard his name was about to go out of fashion, but Adolf was pissed about this particular bombing raid, and greeted his brother's family with a remark about what a bunch of bastards the Allies were. Specifically, he said, "Here are the bloody bastards again."
The apparently insecure Rudolf thought Adolf was referring to him and his family. Instead of clarifying and bro-hugging it out, what followed was the sort of inexplicably persistent misunderstanding that only happens in sitcoms, bad comedies and apparently German families. Thanks to that one sentence, their relationship grew rockier over the course of the war. When American soldiers accused Rudolf of being a member of the Waffen SS (the war-crimesiest sector of the Nazi military), he assumed that his brother had put them up to it. By the time the war was over, the brothers hated each other so much that they decided they couldn't work together. And so they divided their shoe manufacturing business, with Adolf Dassler naming his company Adidas, after a wisely shortened version of his first and last name (Adolfdas probably wouldn't have sold quite as well). Rudolf chose to name his after a jungle cat, and the two companies have been trying to put each other out of business ever since.
Via Stuartslondon.com
Rudolf, creator of Puma. We really can't stress enough how Nazi these guys were.
They've run smear campaigns about each other, and like the worst divorcing parents ever, forced the citizens of their town to pick sides. Employees from the two companies wouldn't marry each other. Pubs have loyalties to one shoe company or the other. Herzogenaurach was eventually given the convoluted nickname "the town of bent necks" because the citizens wouldn't talk to another person until they checked their shoes to make sure they were wearing the same brand. And it's still like that to this day.
But at least they're Germans, so we know they won't take things too far.
#4. The Gulf War Was a Petty Feud
After the second Iraq War, after two generations' worth of President Bush had spent billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives trying to take out the same maniacal Iraqi dictator, American soldiers finally captured the sonofabitch, and subjected him to interrogation. They wanted to know where the weapons were hidden, why he'd been such a pain in everyone's ass for the past decade and a half, and they probably teased him a little bit for writing all those shitty romance novels.
True to his reputation, Saddam went out of his way to be defiant and uncooperative in the face of FBI and CIA interrogation. An FBI intelligence officer named George Piro was finally able to start getting some answers from him by appealing to his vanity, assuring him that he was a high-ranking official who reported directly to President Bush, and presumably that President Bush would be conducting the interrogation himself, but he had a thing he couldn't get out of.
"And fourth place in the semi-national burping contest: George W. Bush!"
Once Saddam started talking, he revealed that he hadn't been expecting America to follow through with their threats of a ground invasion. This wasn't altogether surprising, since even American generals thought the ground invasion was a bad idea. What was more surprising was what Saddam had to say about his reasons for invading Kuwait, the baffling decision that started the whole damn conflict years earlier.
At the time, Iraq was in some serious debt to their tiny neighbor Kuwait, which had loaned them a whopping $80 billion for the Iran-Iraq War. At this point, America didn't have a dog in this fight. They'd given Iraq $40 million in aid to fight Iran. They were of the opinion that as long as nobody was getting too strong and invasion-y in the region, everyone would act like a couple of little Fonzies and be cool. When Saddam stationed 100,000 Iraqi soldiers along the Kuwait border, things started looking decidedly un-Fonzie-like, but then on July 25, 1990, Kuwait finally agreed to an oil settlement that would have solved the crisis. Everyone with an economic interest in the region had given both sides of the conflict a resounding "Bitch be cool!" and it had worked.
Saddam went back to his day job, revolutionizing the world of sweaters.
That is, until the emir of Kuwait said he wanted to make every woman in Iraq into a $10 prostitute. That's right, according to what Saddam told Piro under interrogation, the entire Gulf War was a result of that one insult. Saddam took this comment personally, and in revenge for it, invaded Kuwait. America and a coalition of over 20 nations and millions of forces invaded Iraq, and Saddam retaliated by attempting to invade Saudi Arabia, too.
Iraq's armed forces were annihilated in the conflict, but Saddam stayed in power, and remained defiant about the permanent presence of U.S. forces in the area, which would lead directly to his country being invaded a second time by U.S. forces, and being captured and put to death. All because one guy insulted the women of Iraq. In the end, Saddam really was a hopeless romantic.
"Seeing your mustache in this light brings me much joy ... in here."
#3. Two Generals Feud and Allow the Entire German Army to Escape
Via Ww2incolor.com
World War II was a classic Hollywood-style come-from-behind story. The Nazis rolled over Europe and into Russia without much problem. Knowing a winner when they saw one, Japan joined the Nazis by bombing Pearl Harbor and quickly conquered the West Pacific. But by 1943, the Allies had turned a corner. The Russians had won a brutal battle in Stalingrad, and the British and American forces had just kicked the Nazis out of Africa. Contrary to what Americans like to tell themselves, they weren't the cause of, or even much of a help in, turning things around up to that point. They'd been all thumbs and assholes in Africa to the point that the British, having been firsthand witnesses, didn't want them involved with the next stop on their journey of Nazi-ass whomp: Sicily. Also known as Italy's oversized toe wart.
Via Wikipedia
Or as they like to call themselves, "The James Bond poison boot mist of Europe."
Sicily had been the Nazis' chosen diving board for bombarding anything flying an Allied flag in the Mediterranean. The British had managed to convince Germany that they weren't planning to invade Sicily by stuffing a briefcase full of fake plans, handcuffing it to a dead body and dropping them off the coast of Spain, because the people who write shitty comic books were temporarily in charge of reality during World War II.
The Nazi forces in Sicily were plum for the plucking, but instead a pissing contest broke out between American general and overall badass George Patton and British General Bernard Montgomery. Each was in charge of commanding his own nation's troops in the operation and each absolutely hated the other. Montgomery saw World War II as a British war, and had seen the American troops shit up the works in Africa. Patton hated Montgomery as a general, and also hated the British in general.
You can't really tell from this angle, but each of them is trying to slyly stab the other in the hand.
Via Ww2db.com
The weight of their hate boners was enough to change the earth's rotation.
The plan was for British and American troops to invade from different points on the south of the island and meet up in the northern city of Messina, capturing thousands of Axis soldiers when they got there. Once both battalions had landed in Sicily, Montgomery kicked things off by taking away vital roads from the American troops at the last second and giving them to himself, causing all the American soldiers to go back to the beaches and reposition themselves.
Patton decided that this was his cue to make a charge for Messina and get there before Montgomery. In the midst of the most deadly conflict in human history, the two generals who were supposed to be cooperating would send each other messages riddled with racial slurs insulting one another's intelligence.
Via Emersonkent.com
"... oh, and say something about how dry their sausages are."
As the generals crept closer to Messina, they began making reckless decisions that cost hundreds of lives, all to be the first one standing in Messina, wagging his dick when the other arrived. When the British showed up in Messina, victory bagpipes in hand, the Americans were there. After making the fastest advance in military history up to that point, the Americans captured Messina easily. We say easily because there were no Axis soldiers there. Why? Because while the two generals had been stretching their respective penises out to the five on their respective rulers, the Germans and Italians had actually evacuated their troops the hell off of Sicily.
Everybody around the two generals saw that they had their heads up each other's asses. According to Patton's right hand man, "However rapidly we pushed into that city, we could not cut the enemy's escape route across to Italy." In total, around 100,000 soldiers, 10,000 vehicles and 17,000 tons of equipment made it from Sicily to fight again on mainland Italy. Still, Patton got the chance to waggle his dick at the British when they arrived second in Messina. Had he not, they would have wasted all that time they'd spent polishing the little army penis helmet they'd built for the occasion.
Via Alpha.thingsly.com
"Pardon me if I don't stand at attention. Last time I did that, an innocent woman who was just walking by got pregnant."


text:
Simply banning some types of guns won't prevent massacres
The search for a solution to prevent a repeat of the Dec. 14 tragedy in Sandy Hook may be an exercise in futility. No gun law or other legislation will prevent a similar tragedy unless we address ways to reduce the risk and make sure social deviants don't have access to weapons of mass killing.
Yes, gun laws need to be strengthened. I also support the Second Amendment, which guarantees that every American can possess and bear arms. However, no constitutional mandate prevents society from defining what the limitations are for bearing arms.
Read more of this story and more!
7-Day Subscribers have FREE access to everything on rep-am.com and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE to register and activate your access,.
Not a subscriber?
You can purchase a single-day subscription for only $0.75 to read this and access all of our content and our E-Edition.
CLICK HERE purchase a single day subscription.
Become an electronic subscriber to the Republican-American for only $8 a month. CLICK HERE.
Follow Us
al.cap wrote on Feb 3, 2013 7:41 AM:
while i agree with most of the writer's points, like always, when the conversation starts with bans, it's over at that point. "
conservative1 wrote on Feb 3, 2013 11:22 AM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 3, 2013 11:29 AM:
"gun ban" in the same sentence.
You can try to label yourself a Conservative, but your 2nd Amendment views are VERY Socialist.
Wanting government to protect you from yourself is Socialism 101. "
roy wrote on Feb 3, 2013 4:13 PM:
Mr. Lazarski "
FREEPRESS wrote on Feb 3, 2013 5:39 PM:
I was able to go out plinking for a day with my Daisy BB gun (holding perhaps a 100 rounds or more) and nobody batted an eyelash, even when done in the backyard of a home in the middle of the city.
In college in MA I was able to walk several blocks from my apartment to the campus, with my .22, semi-automatic rifle (which held 19 rounds in the tubular "magazine under the barrel) over my shoulder (no carrying case and no one called the police or SWAT) to target practice at the rifle range in the basement of the gym with free Army supplied ammunition and without any adult (over 21) supervision - just signed in the logbook. (Note it was a .223 caliber semi-automatic was used in Newtown.) The college required mandatory participation in Army ROTC the first 2 years, in which I was taught to use, field strip and clean an M-1 Garand semi-automatic, the solder's weapon of the day. I had to attend classes on battle tactics as well as the use of artillery, the types of shells, their range and how to calculate trajectory. All this capability, yet I never shot anyone let alone committed a mass murder.
In those days I could also go to the local dump in MA, shoot rats and get a thank you for doing so by the local police and the neighbors. In PA, for a token $10 fee, showing my drivers license and no background check, I could openly carry any handgun while hunting.
Yes, they were different times, access to guns (even military firearms) and ammo was easy, and amazingly THERE WERE NO MASS SHOOTINGS!
I can agree with you on many things you say especially "Simply banning some types of guns won't prevent massacres." Banning so called "assault" type weapons or high capacity magazines will do nothing to prevent gun violence, period! So why even consider doing it? Enforcing existing gun laws will make a difference - strengthening them or adding additional ones is NOT needed. "
FREEPRESS wrote on Feb 3, 2013 5:43 PM:
I was able to go out plinking for a day with my Daisy BB gun (holding perhaps a 100 rounds or more) and nobody batted an eyelash, even when done in the backyard of a home in the middle of the city.
In college in MA I was able to walk several blocks from my apartment to the campus, with my .22, semi-automatic rifle (which held 19 rounds in the tubular "magazine under the barrel) over my shoulder (no carrying case and no one called the police or SWAT) to target practice at the rifle range in the basement of the gym with free Army supplied ammunition and without any adult (over 21) supervision - just signed in the logbook. (Note it was a .223 caliber semi-automatic was used in Newtown.) The college required mandatory participation in Army ROTC the first 2 years, in which I was taught to use, field strip and clean an M-1 Garand semi-automatic, the solder's weapon of the day. I had to attend classes on battle tactics as well as the use of artillery, the types of shells, their range and how to calculate trajectory. All this capability, yet I never shot anyone let alone committed a mass murder.
In those days I could also go to the local dump in MA, shoot rats and get a thank you for doing so by the local police and the neighbors. In PA, for a token $10 fee, showing my drivers license and no background check, I could openly carry any handgun while hunting.
Yes, they were different time, access to guns (even military firearms) and ammo was easy, and amazingly THERE WERE NO MASS SHOOTINGS!
I can agree with you on many things you say especially "Simply banning some types of guns won't prevent massacres." Banning so called "assault" type weapons or high capacity magazines will do nothing to prevent gun violence, period! So why even consider doing it? Enforcing existing gun laws will make a difference - strengthening them or adding additional ones is NOT needed. "
Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 4, 2013 12:27 AM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 4, 2013 9:45 AM:
Citizen, you need to read a history book. Do you forget why we booted those red coats off MY ISLAND??
Free.. those were the days lol I used to love shooting my father's fully auto Thompson. The same one he freed Europe from the Nazi's with. "
Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 4, 2013 6:51 PM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 4, 2013 8:13 PM:
What do you do for thrills? Knit scarfs? I'm American. We like guns, blowing stuff up, fast loud cars, motorcycles, nascar, space rockets, air shows, monster truck shows and speed boats. Sorry for all those that offend you and don't excite you.
Never heard of Alex Jones though I did look him up. I'm a Glenn Beck listener. God and guns. "
Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 4, 2013 9:42 PM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 5, 2013 5:12 AM:
c4, that's the problem with people like you. you lump people into groups, assign whatever stereotype you want, and then demonize them. that's a pretty good definition of a racist. since gun ownership isn't a race, you feel comfortable doing it. still narrow minded. and pretty naive. i read that england is #2 in the world in violent crime per capita. "
al.cap wrote on Feb 5, 2013 5:14 AM:
blue star wrote on Feb 5, 2013 9:30 AM:
"Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 4, 2013 12:27 AM:
" I must be really weird huh. "
Give that man a cigar. "
conservative1 wrote on Feb 5, 2013 10:06 AM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 12:02 PM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 5, 2013 12:22 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 12:51 PM:
manifesto wrote on Feb 5, 2013 2:52 PM:
@Kitty don't waste your time with this paranoid people ..there stuck in the old days, been brainwashed since birth
they're not open minded, stuck in the old days "
Below me wrote on Feb 5, 2013 5:47 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 7:34 PM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 5, 2013 8:21 PM:
further evidence of stupidity...aligning yourself with the mental giant, manifesto. "
NWO wrote on Feb 5, 2013 9:03 PM:
NWO wrote on Feb 5, 2013 9:14 PM:
http://home.nra.org/#/nraorg/custom/support_imagemap "
manifesto wrote on Feb 5, 2013 9:32 PM:
delgo wrote on Feb 5, 2013 9:38 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 10:08 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 10:11 PM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 5, 2013 10:13 PM:
hey dumbasse$, now they say they can kill American citizens in foreign lands using drone strikes. keep trusting them. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 10:17 PM:
Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 5, 2013 10:57 PM:
Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 5, 2013 11:08 PM:
Citizen 4 Fairness wrote on Feb 5, 2013 11:24 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 11:53 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 5, 2013 11:56 PM:
Below me wrote on Feb 6, 2013 3:45 AM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 6, 2013 5:12 AM:
manifesto says we're crazy if we don't trust the government. c4 says let future generations deal with it. kitty says we're paranoid. ask the ghosts of dachau, or the cambodian killing fields for their opinion. people unwilling to question government or stand up for liberty deserve their fate. "
al.cap wrote on Feb 6, 2013 5:16 AM:
manifesto wrote on Feb 6, 2013 8:21 AM:
Especially you, the only time the government know you exist, is a tax time,I never trust the government, but We don't live in the 40s no more,im more worry about planet x than the government coming to get me ..ha ha "
blue star wrote on Feb 6, 2013 8:49 AM:
ROY wrote on Feb 6, 2013 9:06 AM:
But these conditions are good because the few of us that feel this way.
We gun owners know what has happened in the past, and we know what WILL happen in the future.
All you anti-gun people are in for a rude awakening some day.
The world is evil, I will not give in to defenselessness.
So, gun owners, keep your semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines. And purchase a semi-auto pistol with a 15 round magazine. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 6, 2013 11:22 AM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 6, 2013 11:25 AM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 6, 2013 1:12 PM:
@manifesto(gotta find an abbreviation for that name)- first, i would not resist arrest. that is not what the second is about.
you should be wary of a leader that thinks it's legal to kill his own people, no matter who he is. you can be detained, without cause, without representation, indefinitely. put the two together, and who knows where that leads?
there's no saying that anything bad will ever happen. however, i don't want to open the door to the possibility. any government that doesn't trust the people with arms, doesn't deserve the peoples' trust. "
conservative1 wrote on Feb 6, 2013 2:23 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 6, 2013 8:37 PM:
GeorgeK wrote on Feb 6, 2013 11:24 PM:
Article 1 Section 8 Clause 7 of the United States Constitution provides Congress with the power to establish Post Offices and Post Roads, but doesn't dictate the manner in which they operate. (This is also why USPS is operated on a quasi-governmental basis.)
You just learned your very first thing about the Constitution. Silly lady.
There isn't going to be any Constitutionalist revolt over this because it's trimming the fat. USPS is a painful tumor in the budget and needs treatment, or excision.
For everyone else...
Getting back on topic, however, I don't care what is banned. Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the law. Somehow prohibiting a person who follows the law from owning a particular type of firearm, by making a law banning a particular type of firearm, will automatically command adherence to the law from both those who abide and deflect from the law? This is nuts. If this worked, people would obey speed limits, wouldn't drive drunk, wouldn't murder, wouldn't steal, wouldn't kidnap, would build everything to code, wouldn't sell drugs... and on... and on... and on...
Drunks kill people by carelessly using alcohol and then driving, or operating heavy machinery. So you make a law that prohibits it. Thereafter, if you are caught driving or operating machinery, while drunk, killing someone or not, you are charged with DUI. We didn't ban bars, nor did we ban parties or even cars. We tried prohibition but that failed miserably and ultimately led to corruption, bribery and a huge black market. Today, cars, bars, parties and alcohol all are legal. However, through enforcement of current DUI legislation, people are held responsible for their actions. Apply this concept to firearms. Banning anything is effectively the same as what the 18th Amendment accomplished through prohibition and will likely repeat the same results if our legislators follow through. Ultimately, we need to make people accountable for their actions with firearms. Lucky for all of you libs, we already have such legislation in place, like Assault with a Deadly Weapon or MURDER! Most of us are perfectly fine with this premise, except for you libs. Liberals want to impose their will on the masses so the world is a safer place for them. Well what if my view of a safer place and the means in which it is provided isn't the same as yours? Does yours trump mine just because your a lib? That is basically what it seems to boil down to.
Some of us want to allow teachers to be armed, if they wish. Others want someone armed to be present in school, like a guard or police officer. I am young, but I have learned so far, that in a situation where someone is shooting, the only thing that is going to make that shooting stop, is someone else with a gun. I don't care how many bans, magazine limits, taxes, regulations, 'gun-free zone' signs you place or put into effect. It still won't stop the shooting.
The cold truth is that we have seen a full-on ban before in this country's very history. It did everything but make the alcohol go away. I largely believe that a full-on ban of weapons or high-capacity magazines will follow suit. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 12:48 AM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 12:50 AM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 7, 2013 5:09 AM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 7, 2013 9:31 AM:
Shall we talk about the contract just awardedTracFone CEO F.J. Pollak? To supply FREE smartphones to the leeches of society. Funny that Pollak's wife has raised over $1million for each of Obama's campaigns. I'z gonnaz getts me an Obammafone! "
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 11:17 AM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 11:35 AM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 12:22 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 12:41 PM:
GeorgeK wrote on Feb 7, 2013 4:46 PM:
Pick and choose? How so? Just because you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the US Constitution or our Bill of Rights doesn't mean everyone else is an imbecile.
If you would like, we can take it down a few notches to something you can comprehend and understand a bit easier, better within the limits of your literary capability. I know the US Constitution was written a long time ago, and some of the words are a little difficult for you to comprehend. It doesn't have any of the libtard buzzwords like, 'progressive', 'fair', 'entitlement', 'deserve', 'social justice', 'opportunity', 'handout', 'ban', 'victim', 'redistribution', etc.
A couple of corrections to your inferior thought process...
" We can all thank w for the patriot act....... "
Yes, he signed the bill into law. 49 Democrats in the Senate handily got it through a vote with one defector, Russ Feingold. Prior to that, 145 Democrats along with 211 Republicans pushed HR 3162 through by Suspending the Rules and Passing it anyway (This is fundamentally equivalent to Emergency Certification in CT, which they are trying to do now with many of these anti-gun bills). The bottom line here, is the Democrats have as much skin in the game with the Patriot Act as dubya.
"in 2006 they passed a law requiring the usps to fund it's pension plan for the next 75 years......"
Imagine that. Congress telling a government agency to pay their bills. I don't blame the employees at USPS for holding their feet to the fire. They were promised something for their labor and USPS wanted to back out of it. Employees planned on that guaranteed promised income and their employer couldn't foot the bill. If this wasn't a quasi-governmental agency, the executives would be in prison! If you can't pay it, don't promise it in the first place. In April of 2012, a bipartisan bill was passed to reduce yearly pension payments to $2.5 billion per year for a period of only 40 years. You left that little tidbit out, that's OK though Kitty. I got you covered. The bottom line, you'll still get your copy of Time magazine on time.
"it is not tax dollars that pay for these phones......the cell companies do......they have a fee on our phone bills.....I don't mind paying it...."
Taxes. Fees. The FCC requires wireless providers to charge this fee to fund what is called the Lifeline program. FCC gets the authority to do this through the Telecommunications Act of 1996, so OK, it isn't an Obama-phone per say, it's a Clinton-phone! Ultimately, they can call it a 'fee' and not a 'tax' because of the fact that they mandate private entities like cellphone carriers to charge customers to fund this program. The government has coerced a middleman to do their bidding. Now if cellphone companies, of their own free-will and accord, wanted to ask customers to contribute a certain amount of money on top of their bill to help needy customers out, I am 100% OK with that. So ultimately, yes, technically your tax dollars don't pay for it, but you aren't going to get cellphone service without paying it. So tax or fee, does it really matter?
"I look at it as a donation ......the phones have no frills and very few minutes......they are for emergency use....."
Phones are not 'no frills', at least after the user has swapped out the SIM card from the phone he/she was provided into that fandangled new iPhone. Interesting fact here, I will let you come to your own conclusion. In 2011, the Lifeline program, managed by the FCC, paid out $1.6 Billion dollars to cover 12.5 Million users. A simple calculation (you do know how to use a calculator, right?) will net you an average payment of $106 per user. This is supposedly to cover that no-frills phone, right? Also, keep in mind, carriers are required by FCC regulation to basically prove their charges to the FCC in order to collect payment from the program. The Lifeline program stipulates that you get 250 minutes/month and to qualify you have to already be on the government dole, or be at or below 135% of the poverty rate in the country. If the government is paying the cash to the carrier, then the carrier is clearly proving the case to the government, that the user is taking a wee bit more than 250 minutes a month. Lastly, a donation is not a donation if I am required to pay it. I don't know what type of world you live in. If a guy approached me with a gun pointed in my direction demanding my wallet, and I gave it to him, would that be considered a donation?
So Kitty, as it is, your words are rather empty, and in need of some facts. I hope the above information has provided you a little something to digest and enlighten you further about how the non-unicorn farm part of the world works. If you can't understand what I wrote above, then I might recommend 'Green Eggs and Ham' by Dr. Seuss. It is a much easier read, and probably more akin to your reading level. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 5:36 PM:
75 years to fund a pension plan is unheard of......in the private or public sector....
And yes you do not look at the entire constitution with the same weight .....you are cherry picking what you like and the only thing you ever talk about is the 2nd and occasionally the 1st.......I understand the constitution very well
After your lengthy auditory......you disproved nothing I said.......... "
conservative1 wrote on Feb 7, 2013 5:51 PM:
Liberals are all the same. "we're not paying for it. It's paid off our cell bills". Actually this time it is paid by the government' with OUR money. Ya I see these people yapping and texting away on their free iPhones all the time. Makes me sick. Any chance they can get a job and pay for their own cell phones?? NAH
To side with you, I think the Patriot Act was pretty unpatriotic. I was no Bush fan, though I do believe he loves America (unlike our present traitor in command).
FYI Police Chiefs serve at the will of the Mayor/Selectman. They say what they are told to say. To say kids would be safer without a police officer in school says we don't need ANY police dept. Or for that matter any Police Chief.Hmm "
al.cap wrote on Feb 7, 2013 6:19 PM:
to denounce the patriot act while simultaneously cheering your boy for using the same tactics is more than a little hypocritical. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 8:31 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 8:38 PM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 7, 2013 8:43 PM:
Now Kitty doesn't have to answer you ha
Kitty.. against drone strikes? meaning you feel we should have to put
American boots on the ground to fight fairly? or against going after terrorists all together? I say blow up the whole middle east sept for Israel "
GeorgeK wrote on Feb 7, 2013 9:21 PM:
Kitty, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint carry the iPhone officially, but anyone who has access to Google knows that merely swapping out the SIM card contained within the GSM handset provided to them, can be swapped into any other GSM handset, including the iPhone. Before you respond, confirm this as fact. You're naive to think people receiving this entitlement are all playing by the rules. Somebody always games the system. "
GeorgeK wrote on Feb 7, 2013 9:26 PM:
Here is the article for your perusal.
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/weather/severe_weather/in-line-early-for-irene-food-aid#.URRiB5GL3W4 "
KITTY wrote on Feb 7, 2013 11:50 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 12:03 AM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:18 AM:
meanwhile, in north dakota, where the oil industry is booming, wal mart is paying $17 an hour for trainees, and can't fill the jobs.
completely off topic again.
so then kitty, why did you feel the need to post twice about w and the act?
my post was an ANALOGY. the patriot act was then, like the gun control debate, and the idiotic, fear mongering bills under consideration are now. the emotion and hysteria that were used to push the patriot act are the same tactics being employed by today's administration. and though you bemoan patriot because you say it was bush's doing(george did a fine job of showing that to be a false claim), you cheer obama for doing the exact same thing. that defines a hypocrite. "
conservative1 wrote on Feb 8, 2013 11:35 AM:
How many times have you been in the grocery store and the person in front of you is buying beer with their SNAP card. Then taking out cash on it to go over to buy lottery tickets and cigarettes all while talking on their Obamaphone? I see it ALOT, and it infuriates me.
George you called her out haha. she knows everything....everything.... you don't ...
Oh the weather outside (Waterbury) is frightful, but the beach (Marco Island) is so delightful. Stay safe up there "
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 12:12 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 12:19 PM:
blue star wrote on Feb 8, 2013 12:25 PM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 8, 2013 12:26 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 12:41 PM:
@AL......I was talking about the investigation of the drone attacks and the president .....don't know what you're talking about.......of course i'm doing this and working on a spreadsheet at the same time........so i may have read it very quickly....but it did go over your head as i really don't know what you're talking about "
blue star wrote on Feb 8, 2013 1:13 PM:
Hope that poor spreadsheet comes out ok. "
al.cap wrote on Feb 8, 2013 1:15 PM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 8, 2013 1:57 PM:
It would be cheaper if I just buy the cigs and beer and drop it off at their free rental. Cut out the middleman (government). "
blue star wrote on Feb 8, 2013 3:13 PM:
I don't think any one wants to know what the numbers are on this. It is a way of life in the inner city. A way of life. No less. "
GeorgeK wrote on Feb 8, 2013 4:16 PM:
Here we go again. Let's dance.
"without getting into all the specifics......the carriers you spoke of do not issue phones to snap recipents ........so the sererio you speak of makes no sense......."
Wrong. So wrong. If you qualify for SNAP or D-SNAP, you qualify for Lifeline. AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint issue phones and cover customers who qualify for SNAP. Call them up and ask if you don't believe me.
"the people you saw with those phones are not what was issued to them.......if they had an iphone they bought it and are paying for the service to a major carrier......"
So then why are they in line for D-SNAP? You can afford a luxurious phone, clearly your priorities aren't in line if you are also looking for a little kickback from Uncle Sam. Or they are gaming the system by being on D-SNAP and Lifeline and hot-swapping the SIM cards between the issued device and a smartphone. Either way, they are wrong.
"and to say you can take any droid or reg sim card and put it in an apple product......won't work.......how stupid to you think apple is.......i'll tell ya not stupid at all....." (The fact that you wrote this shows me that you are one who will throw an argument out there without vetting its truthfulness first. We all kind of knew this to begin with, but now your last comment only confirms it to be true.)
For your peanut-sized brain.... Step 1) Unlock the iDevice of your choice using software that can be found on the internet. Step 2) Take SIM Card out of government issued phone, and insert into iDevice. Step 3) Enjoy your new government paid iPhone. Do two minutes of research and figure it out for yourself. ORRRRRRRRR, buy an unlocked version of the iPhone on eBay or Craig's List and skip the whole software part altogether, the choice is your's. Kitty, you are technologically obtuse. I am sure you apply the same level of thought to all of your other arguments. No clue what you are talking about, but profess that your argument is the best.
"as far as the people in the line after the storm with smart phones......many people who collect snap work......they bought those phones......that is what i talk about all the time how walmart employees all these people and don't pay them a living wage and send them to get assistance .........and the taxpayers pick up the tab......."
Sorry, if you are working, have a smartphone and you collect SNAP; Something is wrong. You make ends meet with the bare minimum before collecting a handout. That is how the system should operate. You'll tell me this is cold and heartless, but you certainly will have no argument to show it doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. I am not going to repeat myself on why Walmart pays its employees what it pays them, but at the end of the day, they make their wage and they should spend it appropriately. Satisfy the needs prior to the wants. You may need a phone, but want a smartphone. Big difference. When you scrape the bottom of the barrel to make ends meet, then and only then, will handouts be truly justified.
"this is why the whole compensation structure needs to change in this country ....so people earn a living wage and are not subsidized.......the place to start to change that structure is with the walmarts......"
Start by lowering taxes, eliminating bailouts and abolishing the EPA, FDA and USDA. Get back to a free market system and restore the gold standard. This will reduce costs to employers, increase the value of the dollar, make our currency more competitive and add certainty to our economy which ultimately will foster a lowering of the 'true' unemployment rate. Wal-mart employee's would most certainly see a bump in salary, but also, the buying power of the money they are paid would be largely greater than it is now. Imagine a gallon of milk for only $2.00.
The place to change that structure is with your beloved government Kitty. They're going to go get a bailout, aren't they?
"there was a new study out and to afford an apartment at minimum wage in ct a person has to work 88.5 hours per week.......so place that blame where it truly belongs with the employers not paying a living wage.....until they do we'll continue picking up the tab for the walmarts payrolls....... "
Here is another fact-less piece of information. No source cited. But one could do the math on their own.
Let us do some math... you are a bank teller, so I will assume you know some basic arithmetic.$8.25 x 40 hrs/wk = $330. $330*4wks/mo = $1,320/mo. If you make this much per month, you only make $15,840 per year, which puts you below the poverty line, thus freeing you from paying any taxes at all. It took me 2 minutes to find an apartment for $400/mo. Assume you are liable for all utilities, electric would be free because you live below the poverty line and both CL&P and UI both have charitable programs for low-income individuals. Heat would be electric, oil or gas, in the case of one of the latter two, pick your vendor, they all offer charitable low-income fuel. Water is cheap, hot water is usually electric or gas, and we have already covered that. You don't need internet, nobody does, but if you want it, basic basic internet service from Comcast and Time Warner starts off at $30/mo. Cell phone, you don't need, but again, if you want it just for emergencies, you can afford a cheap pre-paid model or even post-paid as long as you forfeit the costly data plan, which you don't need. Groceries are a bit more dynamic, but if you stick with generic and are only feeding yourself. You could probably set aside $50/wk for groceries, that is probably still too much. So let's add it all up now. $400 for rent + $30 for the internet you must have + $200 for groceries. The total is $630, leaving us with $690 surplus per month. Now, one last thing, assume you have to drive to work because it just is not feasible to walk or ride a bike. Buy a cheap car for $5,000, finance it (no credit, bad credit, we will sell you a car!) $5,000 / 60 months = $83 per month * (a liberally high) 6.9% interest rate. = $89 / month + $40 / month (insurance) = a total of $129 / month. Now add $150 / month to fuel your car (which is very liberal as well) and we are at $279 / month. So, living on minimum wage, I can afford everything I need to live, and still have $411 to spend on my wants or, if you are like me you save it for a rainy day like the car breaking down, or having to go visit the doctor. If you save the $411 dollars every month, without interest, you will have nearly $5,000 saved by the end of the year. That is a lot of money!
Now you say 88.5 hours (which by state law would be 48.5 hours of overtime per week and doing the calculations results in a yearly salary of $44,649) and I did all of the above based on 40 hrs. Show me your documentation. Show me the facts. Show me your sources, because Kitty, I am calling bullsh*t on you.
The cold truth is that poor people feel entitled to the better fruits of life. Here is a wake-up call, they aren't. You are entitled to what you can afford as a result of the fruits of your own labor. If you are going to sit at home, complain that you can't find a job (that you want), then you deserve squat! Nothing. If you have so much as one modern electronic device or modern automobile, and are collecting a healthy chunk of change from the state or federal government, you are WRONG! Nobody deserves an iPhone, a Lexus, a Range Rover, paid vacation, an HDTV, an XBOX, or any of the creature comforts in life. They are all wants. If it comes to the point that you have none of these, and still can't make ends meet, then, and only then can some sort entitlement be considered. However, nobody is actually that poor because of the above paragraph where I have already proven you can satisfy all of your basic needs on minimum wage.
Lastly, the kids. Kitty, don't even give me one piece of lip about the kids. You only push the kid card when it is convenient for you. If it is in the womb, screw 'em! Swirl it around and vacuum it out. But when it means Mommy and Daddy might have to sell the XBOX, or PS3, it's 'WAH! IT'S FOR THE KIDS!' If you have kids, they are YOUR responsibility, not MINE! I don't impose on any other single soul in this world for the well-being of my kids, so why the hell do I have to pay for someone else's!
Kitty, you are just wrong. Liberals are wrong. You guys have great use of words when it comes to provoking emotion, but for anyone with half a brain, we can see through that bullsh*t cloud. You can feel bad all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the free-market works, and this economy is headed right for the crapper.
Those flare-ups must be a daily thing. I am sure my numbers are going to completely throw her off her spreadsheet 'A-game'. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:06 PM:
..no usda.....no epa.......we live in the most advanced country in the world ....you would turn it into a third world country.........you are very small minded indeed.....
.and i have never worked as a bank teller ......i have told everyone what i do for a living......what you do is a closely guarded secret.......hmmmmm
you completely blew your arguement when you spoke about the utility programs for low income. residents.....the point was to live on your own with no subsidies......
yes you may have no yearly income tax liability but taxes are taken out of your pay every week....and your social security and medicare taxes are never returned to you....you left out car insurance... medical insurance..... also most insurance plans come with large copays and deductibles so you have to figure how much you would actually pay for all medical needs before your insurance would start covering all medical needs including prescription drugs.............go back and crunch those numbers again with the real expenses i just outlined for you.........this is what the study was based on... it was for a person working a minimum wage job and receiving nothing in the form of subsidies...... "
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:08 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:15 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:23 PM:
Social Security and Medicare are flat taxes, meaning a specific percentage is taken out of your paycheck. For Medicare in 2011, the rate is 1.45 percent of your gross income. The Social Security tax has an income cap that is adjusted yearly. For example, in 2011 the cap was $106,800. Once you earn that much, your employer stops deducting additional Social Security tax. The usual rate for Social Security tax is 6.2 percent. However, for the 2011 tax year it was lowered to 4.2 percent as part of efforts to stimulate the economy.
Federal Taxable Income
Before you can calculate how much federal income tax is taken out of a paycheck, you have to determine how much of your pay is subject to income tax. That depends largely on how many withholding allowances you claim. One withholding allowance equals $3,700 per year (for 2011). You divide this amount by the number of pay periods per year. For example, if you are paid weekly, you would divide $3,700 by 52 for a weekly withholding allowance of $71.15. Multiply this figure by the number of withholding allowances claimed. Subtract the total from your gross pay. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:34 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 9:50 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 8, 2013 10:43 PM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 9, 2013 5:28 PM:
I spent 20 years serving these freebees.
They live for free in filthy projects, their mama lives next door in hers. There is barely any furniture in them sept for maybe a couch and a few mattresses laying on the floor. (sheets optional). There is ALWAYS a 42"+ flat screen (usually over 60"), an xbox or ps2, a computer, and sink full of dirty dishes. The heat is cranked up and windows are open. They own 1-2 cars yet they dial 911 for ailments you or I wouldn't even seek treatment for (headaches, sore ankles, tummy aches). Then complain when the FREE ambulance didn't get there as fast as they expect.
This is what Socialism has done to the minority communities across this country. They cannot survive without the government taking care of them, their sense of right and wrong is out of whack and they have no pride.
They don't value their own lives so why would they value ours? "
KITTY wrote on Feb 9, 2013 9:22 PM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 10, 2013 9:18 AM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 10, 2013 9:22 AM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 10, 2013 9:43 AM:
@kitty- it's funny, you tell us we are uninformed, we only listen to talking heads. but you consistently mistake our positions, even though they've been expressed on these pages, sometimes in the same thread. it seems like you get your info somewhere else and then, in your mind, relate it to us. "
KITTY wrote on Feb 10, 2013 11:24 AM:
blue star wrote on Feb 10, 2013 12:21 PM:
etc abbreviation
Definition of ETC
et cetera —usually punctuated "
KITTY wrote on Feb 10, 2013 12:27 PM:
al.cap wrote on Feb 10, 2013 2:25 PM:
KITTY wrote on Feb 10, 2013 8:55 PM:
Sami6 wrote on Feb 10, 2013 9:08 PM:
But..... But I favor corporate welfare over the welfare that spawns 2,3,4 generations of single parent mothers with multiple kids all by different families.
Let me tell you why. The later is destroying the fabric of America. At least corporations provide employment and in most cases produce something (except for the Solindra's of the world (Obama project)). "
Sami6 wrote on Feb 10, 2013 9:10 PM:
conservative1 wrote on Feb 10, 2013 11:27 PM:
Kitty you get a pass. we all misspell.
Got Snowplow? "
Post a reader commentWe encourage your feedback and dialog.
Please be civil and respectful.
If you're witty, to the point and quotable, your reader comments may also be included on the Around the Towns page of The Sunday Republican.
Readers must be registered and logged in to post comments on the site. Registration is free. Click Here to register.
A Subscription is not required to post comments only a Registration.
Log In
|Register / Forgotten Password?
- One-size-fits-all approach won't stop gun violence
- Pay raises for educrats insult state taxpayers
- School choice is solving many of state's problems
- 'Solutions' put us in a war zone
- Communities best source of answers for school safety
- Racist, greedy and Uninformed voters cast pall on America
- McDonald unfit for appointment to state Supreme Court
- Lack of answers proved frustrating to meeting attendee
- A Vietnam Vet's perspective on what gun owners need
- Ralph Nader's '17 Solutions' worthy of consideration


text:
50 Greatest Celeb Mom MakeoversEmma Sarran
Kate Gosselin 1 of 50Though she got a lot of flack for the cost, there was a nationwide sigh of relief when the reality mom of eight finally shed her peacock hairdo and opted for long locks instead.
Nicole Richie 2 of 50Harlow's mom seamlessly transitioned from the streaky-haired, overly made-up bad girl to the queen of understated boho chic.
Ashlee Simpson-Wentz 3 of 50Along with the singer's new last name and new baby came a new look. Jessica's little sis ditched the mismatching, rebellious outfits and harsh black hair for a totally glammed-up look, complete with softer locks and chicer duds.
Cate Blanchett 4 of 50This superstar celeb mom has always looked perfectly-styled and amazing, but now Cate's rocking a shorter do and often appears on the red carpet sporting handsome-chic looks like this suave suit.
Britney Spears 5 of 50Brit started out on her first album cover looking sweet and youthful as a teen pop idol but soon spiraled down into many not-so-flattering looks. Nowadays, it seems Britney Spears has finally found her classier side again — and this time, all grown up as a mom of two!
Katie Holmes 6 of 50Once upon a time, Tom's wife and Suri's mom embraced long locks and a fresh-faced look that made her famous on Dawson's Creek. Now the actress seems to prefer a slightly shorter 'do and a much trendier wardrobe.
Kendra Wilkinson 7 of 50From Playboy Mansion eye candy to new mom! Kendra's lengthened her hemlines and classed up her overall look with ensembles like this modest-but-not-too-modest teal dress and nude pumps.
Christina Milian 8 of 50This actress and singer went from wearing midriff-bearing, tacky teenage clothes to sophisticated-yet- sassy styles perfect for a young, new mom.
Kirstie Alley 9 of 50The star of Kirstie Alley's Big Life stepped away from frumpy, odd ensembles (like the one below, in which she looks like a cast member of Hocus Pocus) to toned-down and age-appropriate outfits, like this simple black and white maxi dress with wrap jacket.
Victoria Beckham 10 of 50The ex-Spice Girl used to be your typical bombshell next door: a pretty woman with decent clothes, a good body and long, shiny hair. Now, she's an internationally-admired style icon, designer, and uber-chic mom sporting modern, edgy pieces that we can't help but drool over.
Sherri Shepherd 11 of 50The TV hostess and actress went from super-tacky — that mustard, velvet jumpsuit, eeks! — to super-trendy in just a few years.
Valerie Bertinelli 12 of 50With Valerie's famous Jenny Craig-endorsed weight loss also came a new image, which is much more natural and mature.
Melissa Joan Hart 13 of 50The Melissa & Joey star still loves to rock the casual look at events, but fortunately, she's ditched the odd, frumpy turtle-necks and orange pants. She looks so much more chic now!
Candace Cameron Bure 14 of 50A few years ago, the Full House star was still sporting clothes better suited for a high school kid. Now, the Make It Or Break It star has blossomed, donning edgy and mature pieces everywhere she goes.
Gwen Stefani 15 of 50Gwen Stefani has transformed from young rocker "chic" (really? A wife-beater under a lace cami?) to a musician-mom donning super cute, off-beat outfits. While she still maintains her unique style, she's taken it to a much higher level.
Demi Moore 16 of 50Demi Moore is one of those moms who got better with age. Everything about her — from her hair and makeup to her wardrobe — looks 100% more elegant and gorgeous now, than when she first appeared on the scene.
Melanie Brown 17 of 50Looking at ex-Spice Girl Mel-B now, it's hard to believe she was ever called "Scary Spice." She emanates a level of decidedly un-scary sophistication on a regular basis.
Sarah Jessica Parker 18 of 50Though SJP has always been a style icon, she's definitely made slight wardrobe adjustments over the years that classed up her look quite a bit.
Julia Louis-Dreyfus 19 of 50She stars in the show The New Adventures of Old Christine and could easily title her real life similarly. Julia Louis-Dreyfus looks like a completely different person from her style-lacking self of almost 10 years ago.
Jennifer Lopez 20 of 50Who can forget J.Lo's infamous green gown at the 2000 Grammy Awards? Now, the mom of twins opts to be a bit more covered up, and we love her current choices.
Michelle Williams 21 of 50The former Dawson's Creek star did a fab job of shedding her casual teen-queen look in favor of an elegant, mature-mom aesthetic.
Uma Thurman 22 of 50In Uma Thurman's case, she went through a bit of a make-under. The actress now steps out looking much more natural and refreshed.
Julia Roberts 23 of 50Though her acting would've taken her far no matter what, thank goodness Julia Roberts created a sleeker, sassier look for herself — those major ringlets just didn't jive with us.
Kate Winslet 24 of 50Kate recently chopped off the long hair she's had since her Titanic days. We've always looked to Kate as a down-to-earth mom (yet stylish!) celeb we can relate to, but now her new edgy do gives us something else to admire — her bravery!
Paulina Rubio 25 of 50This Mexican singer and actress looked more like a member of a teen girl group just four years ago — nothing like the sexy solo act she is now.
Milla Jovovich 26 of 50Milla once had long, dark, wavy hair, but these days she's showing off a new look with this short, choppy 'do — which looks amazing, whether she's on the red carpet or doing the school run.
Jennifer Garner 27 of 50When Jennifer Garner first appeared on our radar, she wasn't much more than a sweet, plain-looking girl next door. Now, she's a bonafide red-carpet star.
Nicole Kidman 28 of 50The Australian actress went from harsh hair and makeup that totally didn't suit her gorgeous fair skin to a much softer look that the cameras — and fans — absolutely love.
Melanie Chisholm 29 of 50Another former Spice Girl, Melanie Chisholm (or Mel C) barely resembles her old self at all, and we're ever so grateful. We hope the spiky hair and leather dress are gone for good!
Reese Witherspoon 30 of 50Six years ago, Reese Witherspoon was a cute blonde actress who suited romantic comedies well. Now she's a savvy A-lister who looks like she could take over Hollywood with one flash of her gorgeous smile.
Mariska Hargitay 31 of 50Mariska Hargitay's old 'do didn't do much to help her look like a sophisticated actress (or tough detective, per her Law and Order character, for that matter), but now she embodies sophistication with a head-to-toe look that we love.
Tina Fey 32 of 50No longer just the funny gal in Hollywood, Tina Fey is a comedic goddess, regularly showing up her peers on the red carpet.
Madonna 33 of 50Madonna's reinvented herself more times than we can count, but in recent years, she's only gotten sexier — and no longer so "in-your-face."
Halle Berry 34 of 50We have two words for mom Halle Berry's very drastic transformation: thank goodness.
Jennifer Hudson 35 of 50The American Idol alum and Weight Watchers spokesperson trimmed down to a perfectly curvy size. And along with the weight loss, Hudson stepped her look up to become one hot mama.
Fantasia Barrino 36 of 50Another American Idol mom, Fantasia Barrino had a not-so-great spiky hair-do when she emerged from the TV contest a winner. Now, she can hold her own on the red carpet with the best of 'em, sporting a tricked-out look that's undeniably Hollywood.
Pink 37 of 50Once upon a time, this rocker had over-the-top neon hair to match her name. Lately, she's been going with platinum blonde locks, classing up her look as a new mom while still keeping her rock-star style.
Sarah Chalke 38 of 50At some point during her rise to fame as a star on Scrubs and How I Met Your Mother, Sarah Chalke ditched that weird school-girl look for a seriously sexy image.
Sandra Bullock 39 of 50There's no question Sandra Bullock has always been gorgeous. She so didn't need that dramatic blue and silver eye makeup and extreme ponytail to catch America's eyes.
Salma Hayek 40 of 50Looking at the unbelievably stylish Salma Hayek nowadays, it's hard to believe the actress ever stepped out with a less-than-stunning hairstyle and awkward ankle-length dress.
Geri Halliwell 41 of 50Yep, another Spice Girl. As recently as the group's reunion tour in 2007, Geri Halliwell baffled us with her strange peasant dress, but now she rocks her killer curves and gorgeous face with a fresh wardrobe and hairstyle.
Rebecca Romijn 42 of 50Okay, she's a supermodel so she's always looked great. But back when her last name still had "Stamos" attached to it, Rebecca Romijn tried a bit too hard to be edgy. We much prefer her more recent head-to-toe choices.
Rachel Weisz 43 of 50Rachel Weisz went from being an awkward-looking, fresh-faced actress to a red-carpet stunner.
Naomi Watts 44 of 50Years ago, Naomi Watts could've blended in with a number of blonde girls-next-door. Now, there's no mistaking this stunning mom; she stands out fabulously.
Jessica Alba 45 of 50And we thought Jessica Alba was always as perfect and glamorous-looking as she is now. Just one question: What was with the greasy hair on the red carpet?
Maggie Gyllenhaal 46 of 50Several years ago, Maggie Gyllenhaal looked like a little girl playing an actress on the red carpet. Now, she's a stunning style icon whose face glows every time the camera hits it.
Katherine Heigl 47 of 50Long before Katherine Heigl was Izzy on Grey's Anatomy, she was Izzy on Roswell, playing a teenage alien misplaced on Earth. And, well, she kind of looked the part — young and
slightly off-base.
Idina Menzel 48 of 50When Idina Menzel was a lesser-known Broadway beauty, her look was significantly more toned-down. Now that she's hit it big (in movies like Rent and Enchanted and TV shows like Glee), she's stepped up her image, too.
Teri Hatcher 49 of 50Pre-Desperate Housewives, Teri Hatcher didn't seem to understand the idea of "leaving it to the imagination." But, like Demi Moore, she's gotten better with age, looking classier and much
more beautiful.
Natalie Portman 50 of 50Back in her younger days, Natalie Portman showed up on the red carpet with some daring looks (who could forget her shaved head for the film V for Vendetta?). Since then, she's grown out her long locks again and has taken on an elegant and mature style to fit her newest role — a proud mama to baby boy, Aleph.
Article Posted 5 years Ago


text:
Top Definition
He is a chinese Hollywood superstar. He is the master of Martial Arts. He is very fast in fighting and his face is graceful. He is the best actor of Martial Arts and comedy movies.
"I train not to finish my opponents, I train to have a strong body and a sane mind."-Jackie Chan in the movie "Gorgeous"
by Samurai Katsu September 15, 2003
Trending Now
The only manan fight ten people with a shoe and a broomstick.
Man, Jackie Chan totally killed those guys using the CD cases.
by Bebea July 16, 2005
The greatest man Alive
Jackie Chan is the greatest man alve.
by Brian October 31, 2004
World's g-r-eatest movie stah
by mandingo August 21, 2003
Pure awesomeness ... except for Tuxedo.
"Howdy parner!"
by Mister Ignorant May 17, 2004
Used as a verb, means to "attack," "physically abuse," or "totally whoop," something or someone. Often used in jest.
"You ate the last doughnut! Man, I oughta Jackie Chan your ass for that."
by Bryce February 28, 2004
A man who is greater and more powerful than Chuck Norris.
Jackie Chan does all his own stunts. He has injured himself a lot while performing them and even cheated death during one.
by some guy from Hell August 31, 2009


text:
Not only can you adjust the rear shock at any time using the Multitool, but in an emergency it will also loosen and tighten many screw connections, including the mirror, on the F 650 /700/ 800 GS.
This multi tool stores in the original slot for the plastic preload adjustment tool.
Combines the following wrenches/tools:
No instructions are currently available for this product.