text:
Whether you liked it or not, Warner Bros. had everything riding on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and whether the critical reception to the film affected their plans or not, the incredibly disappointing box office total of the film, which Captain America: Civil War beat in just three weekends, had to. It would be almost impossible for the studio not to reexamine their plans.
Following the departure of director Seth Grahame-Smith from The Flash, as well as giving full creative control over the solo Batman movie to Ben Affleck and Geoff Johns, it looks like Warner Bros. may finally be doing what they should have done all along.
THR is reporting that the studio is going to completely change the way they've been handling their DC films moving forward now, including creating an entire DC division in their projects, bring DC Chief Creative Officer, Geoff Johns, and executive producer Jim Berg on to run it, essentially assuming the roles that Kevin Feige has over at Marvel and the MCU. At least, that's what it sounds like. This means that both Johns and Berg will also produce and watch over the upcoming Justice League films as well.
Johns, fans will already know, transitioned from the comics and helped to shepherd in the ascension of the entire DC TV Universe, including the success of shows like Arrow, The Flash, and Supergirl, which fans may not give him enough credit for if I'm being honest. Johns is reportedly not leaving DC with this though, but is instead adding film to his portfolio now and will still report to DC Entertainment President Diane Nelson.
Meanwhile, Berg was already working on BvS, Justice League, Wonder Woman, and Suicide Squad, but has also acted as the conduit between Ben Affleck and the DCCU after working with the director and writer on Argo and Affleck's new crime thriller, Live by Night.
While the report states that the DC films will still try to remain filmmaker driven, the studio is hoping that having Johns and Berg on at the helm, an experienced producer alongside a comic book veteran, can bring on a cohesiveness and tone more reminiscent of the MCU, rather than the disappointing and jumbled quality of Batman v Superman. Which at this point, comes as music to my ears.
Make sure to keep checking back for more updates — right here on GeekNation.
Alex Welch
Latest posts by Alex Welch (see all)
- 'War For the Planet of the Apes' First Synopsis Released, Footage Premiere Date Announced - September 30, 2016
- 'Luke Cage' Star Simone Missick Was Actually Shot While Filming The Netflix Series - September 30, 2016
- First Image of The Justice Society of America in 'Legends of Tomorrow' Revealed - September 30, 2016
- Full 'Murder on the Orient Express' Remake Cast Includes Daisy Ridley, Michael Pena, and More - September 30, 2016
- Ryan Gosling Announces New 'Blade Runner 2' Set Visit Contest Online - September 30, 2016


text:
We're sorry, this listing is off the market. Try these listings instead:
Well Known Service Business For Sale In Eastern NE #481814 posted Jan 4, 2018
- Nebraska, United States
- $4,000,000
Very well-known and highly publicized service business for sale in Eastern Nebraska. This business is an iconic household name recognized for local award accreditations and has received national recognition for specific installations. This business has grown every year at a steady pace. All of the...
Full Service Architectural Firm #458406 posted Nov 22, 2016
- South Dakota, United States
- Available On Request
Founded in 1989, the Firm provides programming, schematic design, design development, construction document, pricing and construction administration services to clients. Employees across all areas are tasked with developing strategic relationships with potential clients. The Company primarily works...
Home Decor & Interior Design Services #478977 posted Nov 4, 2017
- Castle Pines, Colorado, United States
- $149,000
The retail home décor and interior design business is located in a beautiful upscale neighborhood just outside of Denver, Colorado with a very high end demographic. The retail business sells unique home décor &finishing items and the business also provides interior design services for customers as well....
About DealStream.com
DealStream.com is an online community for dealmakers with over 100,000 active members in 100 countries.
Our members include entrepreneurs, corporate executives, private equity groups, business brokers, investment bankers, and M&A advisors. They use our website to buy businesses, sell businesses, and expand their professional networks.
If you are looking to buy a company or buy a business, we offer a searchable database with over 15,000 listings of businesses for sale, companies for sale, and franchises for sale. We have a lot of listings for middle market businesses for sale and large businesses for sale.
If you are looking to sell a company or sell a business, you can list your business for sale for free and reach thousands of business buyers and intermediaries.

subset: commoncrawl


text: Hi Guys and Girls, Just bought myself a 2007 Legend, with all the toys, yes, it has ACC and LKS too Car seems pretty sorted so far, just a few niggles, like the front tracking has to be done, as it's destroyed the inside of the two fronts, which currently read 6-4-2 Ouch! So two new front tyres and getting the tracking done should sort that. It also has the dreaded front caliper "broken slide pads" issue, which I read about on here. I discovered this after having isses with the front brakes rubbing like crazy, so currently looking at my options, but I really can't imagine those old screws coming out without snapping off. I'll maybe source a pair of Acura calipers from the US, as there seems to be a major lack of available Legend bits in the UK. Sigh .. So far though, one week in, I'm very impressed, and this is me coming from a solid lexus background


text:
I've come to think of the Duke lacrosse case as kind of like a honeypot for would-be critics. In the world of network security and spam detection, a honeypot is a resource that invites abuse — an open mail relay or an unprotected comment box begging to be spammed, for instance. The idea is that the bad guys will use it and reveal themselves. Then they can, for instance, be put on a blacklist (and that's just scratching the surface).
The analogy isn't by any means perfect, but it captures my feeling that the lacrosse case invites opinionated people to unleash their irrational, tribalistic reflexes in a self-incriminating way. I'm sure that countless other culture-war touchstones have the same effect and this just happens to be the one I've paid the most attention to. The honeypot reaction is purely rhetorical. The primary source of it is the conviction that the situation is all very simple and perfectly one-sided, which means it usually comes from people who are free to reconstruct the setting and the cast of characters solely on the basis of things they've read and heard. Some reactions from up close are so reflexive and self-involved that they manage to fit the pattern. Houson Baker's infamous open letter, for instance, has that tell-tale gush.
Since knee-jerk criticism isn't exactly hard to come by, it's especially interesting when people who are clearly capable of doing better fall into the trap. The most sobering example from the Left, for me, is the Tenured Radical, history professor Claire Potter, that is, who, over a year after the incident and in the course of writing about a completely different scandal, took some careless shots at the lacrosse team. Potter is one of the most fair-minded and thoughtful bloggers I know of, so I have to assume that in different circumstances I could easily do the same kind of thing. Looking to the Right, some of the staff at FIRE have outed themselves with overwrought commentary on the case that shows they're not quite as nonpartisan and dedicated to principle as they claim to be. *
I have a neat little example that I saved up from last spring (a recent post sort of explains why I'm dredging this old stuff up). I probably disagree with this person on most any political question, but when he's writing on his own blog, at least, he can be thoughtful and generous (compare his reaction to this miscarriage-of-justice story to what follows, for instance). But when he came across a Duke professor writing unapologetically about the lacrosse case, his knee commenced to jerkin' and he cranked out a remarkably small-minded and uninformed rant. More to the point, a rant that revels in being uninformed and small-minded.
Back in April, a few days after the Attorney General decided to toss out the case against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Duke Law professor James Coleman wrote a piece for the Huffington Post. His point was that the justice system stumbled but didn't ultimately fail in Stevens' case, and in the lacrosse case as well. Parts of the system failed, but ultimately the failures were corrected. Coleman argues that the true failures are the cases, typically involving indigent or minority defendants, in which the misconduct of prosecutors is met with indifference (disclaimer).
Duke's Office of News and Communications reposted Coleman's op-ed a few days after it ran on HuffPost. Over at Protein Wisdom, "The Sanity Inspector" found it too much to bear, so he fired off an irate memo to the "Department of Chutzpah Studies":
I don't know that Duke law professor Dr. James E. Coleman Jr. had anything to do with the attempted railroading of the Duke lacrosse players. But anything on the subject of that case that appears under Duke University's masthead ought to take the form of abject apology for years to come, if common shame were operative. …
… But most defendants don't have a whole education institution presuming their guilt and baying for their punishment, primarily on the basis of their identity. Most defendants do not become the targets of radical, post-modern, identity politics mongering, class warfare waging inmates of a left-wing loony bin. …
Is Dr. Coleman sorry for what Duke's faculty did to those players? A quick search of Durham In Wonderland seems to indicate that he was one of the good guys in this case. But he surely could find a better way of publicizing the no doubt good work of the Duke Innocence Project than venturing to claim that the lacrosse players had it easy.
Apparently that quick search of Durham-in-Wonderland (DIW) didn't turn up this ("Coleman Tears Down the Wall"), or this ("one figure is of towering significance: Jim Coleman"), or this, defense attorney Jim Cooney's statement at the time his client, Reade Seligmann, was exonerated. First on Cooney's list of "heroes and cowards" is "the magnificent professor Jim Coleman at Duke University, one of the few professors who was willing to stand up and say, this is not right. We have procedures for a reason. We have presumptions for a reason. What is going on is wrong." (I'm actually quoting the CNN transcript, which fills in things that KC Johnson, quite understandably, wasn't able to catch when he was live-blogging.) Why do a lot of searching, anyway, when all you'll learn is how Coleman handled himself in this case. Who knows, really, how many other cases there are just like it. (Kudos to Wayne for dropping in with a more informed perspective, though).
The Inspector has a good reason to be skeptical, actually. A towering figure is awfully useful if you want to create a landscape of moral midgets, and all of Johnson's building up of Coleman is of a piece with his knocking down of the so-called "Group of 88." It's hard to tell, just skimming the blog, where the analysis leaves off and the self-serving parable begins. Coleman really does stand out in the narrative of the case, though. As Cooney points out, he stuck to the most pressing issues and the core principles behind them. Whether he was addressing the legal situation or campus culture, his efforts were focussed, constructive, and informative, and they made a difference.
The thing is, cranking out opinions online is a pretty self-indulgent occupation — these virtual soapboxes that we're all climbing on come with very little moral authority, and here's a fine way to shred it: post a half-baked rant that presumes to judge, on the basis of "common shame," a man who put his profession reputation on the line in order to help the people whose mistreatment supposedly justifies the rant in the first place. It's an object lesson in doing vs. spewing:
Dr. Coleman seems to believe in indiscriminate justice for all, and even if he thought that in the end the justice system wasn't likely to fail the lacrosse players, he still spoke out forcefully against their prosecutor.
The Sanity Inspector believes in applying indiscriminate common shame to anyone affiliated with a certain large, politically suspect institution, and he doesn't mind saying so.
Dr. Coleman spent hours chairing a committee that, according to KC Johnson, was scrupulously fair and "should have shamed those who blindly accepted the caricatures of the team offered in late March and April 2006."
The Sanity Inspector managed to skim DIW for a while before he launched into his rant.
Dr. Coleman used quotes from the lacrosse players and their families to underscore his point that they were relatively well equipped to deal with the faults of the justice system.
The Sanity Inspector misrepresents Coleman's essay as callous in order to give his own parting shot some resentful bite.
Dr. Coleman may well feel that, whatever other faculty at Duke did or said, he's entitled to speak freely about the lacrosse case because of the public stands he took when the case were being prosecuted as well has his considerable experience with the legal system.
The Sanity Inspector seems to feel that the offense he endured while hearing and reading about the lacrosse case entitles him to cast aspersions, under cover of glib ignorance, on someone who gave a significant boost to the players when they really needed it.
If common shame was operative on Protein Wisdom, the Sanity Inspector would have been stripped of his neckerchief and drummed off the staff (have no fear, though — PW is a truly and awesomely shameless place). Oh, and by the way, anyone know if the Inspector is still beating his wife? **
One really annoying thing that's happened in the last few months is that both the News and Observer and the Duke Chronicle have changed their URLs. None of the old links work any more. My blog is now full of broken links (I hesitate to think about how many there are in DIW). Since I was going through the N&O archive anyway to remind myself what Jim Coleman said about the case, I thought I might as well post the new links, and while I was doing that, why not pull out some representative quotes? And now that I've rounded all that stuff up, I'm feeling the need to pontificate a bit.
What the collection shows is how consistent, forthright, and pointed Coleman's commentary was. Naturally it reflects his perspective on the legal system and his experience with it — the same things he brings to his work with the Duke Innocence Project. But while the lacrosse players were in legal jeopardy, he didn't use the case to plug the Innocence Project and he didn't rank the lacrosse players as more or less deserving of concern and help. The thing I found most interesting is his somewhat more expansive comments after the three indicted students were exonerated. In them he talks about the public reaction as well as the legal one. Again he doesn't downplay what happened or try to refocus the discussion on some other, more deserving victims. Instead, he points out where and why people went wrong in their rush to judgment. He also comments that he hopes the case disabused people of the notion that the legal system only screws the poor and minorities (he doesn't put it quite that way, of course).
The contrast between Coleman and KC Johnson is every bit as striking as the contrast between Coleman and any of Duke's tenured radicals. If they were "only too willing to advance their personal, pedagogical, or ideological agendas on the backs of their own students," Johnson has been only too willing to use their students as rhetorical pawns in response. Not that the lacrosse players minded. On the contrary, during the April 2007 press conference he was thanked by all three of the exonerated students. He was friendly and supportive both in person and in writing, and he helped fill a vacuum left by an academic community that couldn't manage to work through its collective horror to a more complex and humane response, something I don't think anyone at Duke should be allowed to forget. If Johnson was to some extent frying his own fish, that just meant that he poured more effort and intensity into his blog. My problem with all that is that he worked relentlessly to fan the flames and in the process churned out reams of thoroughly nasty and uninsightful criticism.
Last summer Johnson pointed out, apropos of nothing in particular except that I'd criticized him, that I was silent while "a District Attorney violating myriad procedures in an attempt to railroad three innocent students at Prof. Zimmerman's own institution." It's a fine example of what it means to use "three innocent students" as rhetorical pawns, in this case just to shrug off some annoying criticism. It also sets up an implicit standard for what we should have been doing on campus back in 2006. And by that measure, Coleman's performance was exemplary. When he commented about the legal situation, his overriding concern seems to have been the decent administration of justice, his immediate priority was derailing Nifong and he didn't bother with anything else. It should be pretty obvious that Johnson was doing something quite different and yet I don't think that the Sanity Inspector is the only person to overlook it. Johnson took to writing about the lacrosse case as part of an ongoing critique of academic culture. From the beginning his attention to the railroading in Wonderland was at least as much a way to energize his own agenda as it was an effort to stop the train.
I don't mean to suggest that there's a meaningful head-to-head comparison here. Coleman was approached both for his legal expertise and his Duke affiliation, and what made it into the news reflects not just what he said but also the choices of the reporters who interviewed him and their editors. The comments I've assembled are to some extent a product of the role he was playing, and that wasn't a role that was open to Johnson. But the comparison sheds some light on what I think is an interesting question — was all the noise Johnson was making really serving the players' interests? And the same general question applies to partisans all around. A couple of years ago I laid out my doubts that the potbanging protesters were offering any meaningful support to the lacrosse team's accuser, who they idealized in a self-serving way. It looks to me like they were just co-opting a stranger's misery for the cause. On the other side, "blog hooligans" turned the lacrosse team into poster boys and ran around trash-talking the enemies of their friends and demanding apologies on their behalf. A lot of it strikes me as little more than online potbanging. I suspect that by jettisoning all the self-indulgent crap, Coleman offered a lot more of a boost.
Anyway, here are some highlights from Coleman's interviews in the News & Observer during the criminal phase of the lacrosse case (and a little past it).
Duke prof: Rape case needs new prosecutor (Jun 13, 2006). This is what caused KC Johnson to write about Coleman tearing down the wall — the "Duke prof's" opinion that Nifong should be replaced was the whole point of the story.
Coleman said he's followed the case closely in the newspapers but hasn't spoken with any of the lawyers involved. He said he was disturbed by the transcript of the identification procedures, where a police officer told the accuser that she was about to look at photos of everyone who attended the party.
"The officer was telling the witness that all are suspects, and say, in effect, 'Pick three,' " Coleman said. "It's so wrong; it had to be done for a reason other than identification."
DA's statements, record at odds (Jun 15, 2006):
"Either he knew what the facts were and misstated them, or he was making them up," said James Coleman, a Duke law professor who has publicly requested that Nifong remove himself from the case. "Whether he acted knowing they were false, or if he was reckless, it doesn't matter in the long run. This is the kind of stuff that causes the public to lose confidence in the justice system."
Suspects, dancer contradict accuser (Oct 16, 2006), about the lacrosse-case exposé on 60 Minutes:
During the segment, James Coleman, a Duke University law professor, said he thought Nifong had committed prosecutorial misconduct by speaking out before charges were filed.
"If this case resulted in a conviction, I think there would be a basis to have the conviction thrown out based on misconduct," Coleman said.
Duke attack story shifts (Jan 12, 2007):
Critics, such as Duke law professor James Coleman, said the new document was a blatant attempt to fix a flawed case and called for a criminal investigation of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his staff.
"Who would believe that a witness, nine months later, suddenly recalls facts that coincidentally negate evidence produced by the defense?" said Coleman, who led a Duke committee that investigated the lacrosse team's culture and has criticized Nifong's handling of the case for months.
"These people are almost criminal. It's making a mockery of the system. It's like Nifong is mooning the system. It's contemptuous."
Durham DA may face another entanglement (Jun 7, 2007):
James Coleman, a Nifong critic and a Duke University law professor who has followed the lacrosse case closely, lauded Smith for leaving the disciplinary possibility open.
"Judges should not tolerate this crap," Coleman said. "They see it all the time. If they don't do anything about it, that's how it keeps going on. [Nifong's] behavior was a total affront to the court."
"Prosecutors can ruin lives very easily, they do it and clap their hands and say never mind and move on," Coleman added. "Courts have basically ignored it. I've seen misconduct by prosecutors in a capital case where everyone recognizes the misconduct, but the judge declares it a harmless error. Then the prosecutors show up at the execution."
Now a couple of quotes from the Duke Chronicle:
Campus tunes in to '60 Minutes' (Oct 16, 2006):
Bradley also interviewed Duke law professor James Coleman, who decried the line-up used to bring charges against the three players.
Coleman, who chaired a University committee last Spring that investigated the lacrosse program, has been involved in establishing the North Carolina standards for line-up procedures.
"[Nifong] pandered to the community by saying, 'I'm going to go out there and defend your interests in seeing that these hooligans who committed the crimes are going to be prosecuted,'" he said. "I think in this case, it appears that this prosecutor has set out to develop whatever evidence he could to convict people he already concluded were guilty."
Experts: DA's case nearing 'implosion' (Jan 12, 2007):
Under North Carolina law, a man can only be convicted of rape if there is sufficient evidence that his penis penetrated the victim's vagina, law professor James Coleman said. In her most recent testimony, the alleged victim in the lacrosse case could not confirm that the object that entered her was a penis, forcing the prosecution to drop the rape charges.
Coleman said the increasingly contradictory testimonies given by the alleged victim provides the defense with a valuable asset in getting the remaining charges dismissed.
"The more significant effect is that it undermines the witness's credibility on all the charges she has made," Coleman said. "It's extraordinary that a witness testimony changed so drastically nine months after the incident. A jury would find it hard to believe her. That's just not credible. It's like the end of a bad mystery novel where all the ends are tied up."
Finally a few pieces from here and there in which Coleman commenting on things other than Nifong's mismanagement and procedural misconduct.
First, a letter he wrote to the Durham Herald-Sun in Oct. 2006, as quoted in DIW.
Your editorial about the recent "60 Minutes" report mischaracterizes both what the district attorney's role has been in the Duke lacrosse rape case and why some of us have criticized him. Like much of the media hype that has surrounded the case, your editorial turns the case into an ugly caricature by suggesting that the decision to prosecute the Duke students was made by a valiant prosecutor on a white horse who is defending a helpless black woman who "ranks near the bottom of society." That is what the prosecutor also suggested when he told a largely African-American audience that he personally would protect "this black girl" from the hooligans at Duke. I find that characterization of the case offensive and patronizing. Why do you say the accuser is "near the bottom of society?" She is an apparently talented student and mother who dances to support herself and her child. She is a woman, not a "black girl." Trying to make this case about race and class has done a great disservice to Durham. From the start, it should have been handled as just an alleged rape that had to be investigated and prosecuted if the evidence warranted it. As someone who has criticized Nifong's handling of the case, I have not called for him to dismiss it; rather, I have suggested only that a special prosecutor be appointed who can make the kind of disinterested decisions about the case that Nifong has shown himself incapable of making. If the case goes to trial, it should be based on the strength of the evidence against the defendants, rather than as a convenient way to shift responsibility for ending what now appears to be a highly questionable prosecution to a judge or jury.
This is from a a post-exoneration interview with CBS news, Apr. 12, 2007. This was an opportunity to talk about how the lacrosse players had it easy, but that's not at all the route he took.
Coleman … said that the circumstances surrounding the case ended up being "something of a perfect storm."
"It had all kind of elements, but we know now it was based on this false notion a crime had been committed," he said. "That generated everything. That gave energy to everything."
The story, as it was portrayed in the media, was about class and race in a community surrounding an elite university…. The three accused represented — at least in the eyes of their critics — the privileged white students many felt were running wild on campus. But in the end, none of it was true, Coleman said.
"It got reported that way over and over, and then it became fact," he said. "You know, it took a year for the truth to catch up."
District Attorney Mike Nifong, Coleman said, was initially motivated by the belief that a crime had occurred but also saw it as an opportunity for him to gain fame and notoriety.
"He was in a political race," Coleman said. "You know, he rushed to judgment…."
During the past year, there have been several stories about race and sports, including the recent debacle with radio host Don Imus and comments he made about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Coleman says they are all related.
"I think what's happening is that athletes are treated like disposable items," he said. "We forget they are human beings, students and have feelings, and we just ignore that. They are treated like commodities."
Here, finally, is what he told Robert Bliwise for the story "One Year Later", which ran in the May-June 2007 issue of Duke Magazine.
Lacrosse-committee chair Coleman—who also serves as faculty adviser for the Innocence Project, which investigates cases believed to have resulted in wrongful convictions—says he and his colleagues talked about the case constantly. But he acknowledges that faculty members (and civil-rights organizations) have been reticent to speak out against this particular prosecutorial transgression. That reticence, he says, in part may reflect "the strange role that race was playing in the case, which is that the prosecutor said that this was a predatory crime and one that was racially motivated."
Just as race-consciousness constrained discussion around the case, so too, he adds, did "the notion that rich people have all the help they need," in legal proceedings and otherwise. He says he hopes that those who saw the lacrosse case in terms of such broad categories now realize the problems with their preconceptions. "People thought that whatever happens is happening to poor people and black people; it's not a threat to me. This case says, the system isn't functioning and it's a threat to all of us."
Disclaimer: I don't know James Coleman, haven't ever communicated with him, and have no inside information on him. He's not responsible for anything I've written here.
* The TR post that stirred up the hornets nest was about Don Imus's crack about the "nappy headed hos" playing basketball for Rutgers. Potter has since taken it down, but you can get a sense of the post and the controversy in her follow-up (go to the first comment for quotes from the problematic post).
** This is a loaded question, not a serious or factual claim. How could it be? I don't even know who the guy is, much less how he treats his wife.


text:
A couple of weeks ago, I sat down with my Nook, eager to spend the afternoon reading the novel I'd just downloaded. About halfway through the afternoon, I found myself thinking this book is really violent. I don't necessarily have a problem with fictional violence, and I don't think of myself as squeamish either. So what prompted that thought?
For me, the amount of violence I consider "acceptable" depends a lot on the context. Is it a natural, logical part of the story? Is there a point to it? It also depends on how the violence is portrayed—the attitude of the characters and the overall statement the author is trying to make.
I went on to finish the book and decided that it passed my criteria. The violence was a logical part of the story. There was a point to it. The main character was horrified by what was happening around him and disturbed by the actions he was forced to take at times. The author definitely portrayed violence as an undesirable, last resort kind of thing. I finally realized that it was more of an issue with writing style and editing, not necessarily the content.
Violence creates a strong emotional response, and it can be a very effective tool in fiction, but if it's used over and over in every single chapter it loses its effectiveness. I think that's what made the difference for me. Not every scene needed intense physical confrontation to work, and some might have been better off without it. There was a point in the book when the violence went from effective to excessive. It took over, becoming the focus, and the story was unfortunately lost somewhere in the excess.
Plenty of story elements can be overused and abused—everything from setting and description to dialogue and action. Sometimes even a single word will appear so often that it becomes a distraction. The challenge for writers is to find the perfect balance. We need to incorporate enough information to make the story vivid but do it without overstimulating or annoying readers. Much easier said than done.
What story elements have you seen overused? Did it kill the story for you?
©2012 Kim Vandel


text:
Listen to free music played by adrift
Blip.fm is internet radio made social. It's easy to search for, play, and discover free music recommended by real people. Join today to create your own free station and start listening to @adrift.
adrift Welcome new listener @worrior_: "Gary Valenciano - The Warrior is a Child ~ #warrior #child ~ http://bit.ly/n1Ms5q #generation #gun #stop ~ religion" (reblip)


text:
[Boy Scout Group]
Description: Photograph of a Boy Scout Camporee outdoors. There are parked cars on the road and what appears to be a buffet table with Boy Scouts lined up near it. There is writing on the back of the photograph that reads, "Boy Scout Camporee, 1937, near St. Mary's Hostpital. Port Arthur, Texas."
Date: 1937
Item Type: Refine your search to only Photograph
Partner: Museum of the Gulf Coast


text:
On top of all that, I exceeded my bandwidth on Photobucket again, although I wasn't anywhere near the limit a couple of days ago!? I've reloaded a few pictures for now, but the archives will be back functioning tomorrow (hopefully!)
If you're using my pictures then that's fine, but PLEASE don't just link them, save them to your own photo hosting place (and make sure you CREDIT! Yes, I mean you, dirty robbing tumblr users!!)
Anyhow, now for some actual content. Here's a behind-the-scenes video from a photo shoot my gorgeous friend Sacha did at the weekend. She's the tall girl with the long blonde hair, wearing a green jumper in part of the video.
Also, I've been featured on the Clothing at Tesco blog. Thanks guys!
Anyone care to give me some ideas for posts? I know that's not how it's supposed to work, but just a couple of words, (or a picture?) would give me a jumping-off point.
Right, off to revise some more! See you soon!


text:
Release Date: November 3rd, 2015
Developer: Ghost Games
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Platform: [Reviewed: Xbox One], PlayStation 4, PC (2016)
Genre: Racing
Rated: T for Teen
Sometimes you have to feel the need, the need for speed. Cliche indeed but it's worth saying when Electronic Arts brings us a couple of toys to play with on the open road. Need For Speed is back, but with so much competition out there we wonder can it take over and finish first.
Ghost Games have taken what made Need For Speed's core elements successful in attempt to fully revitalize the franchise. Older installments of the series would position you in races with individuals in an attempt to not only win but drive away with their pink slip. Need For Speed (2015) introduces you to a new crew that helps you find your footing within the underground community by giving you wheels, races and challenges along the way.
What's makes this installment worth calling a step forward is the return of full customization. No longer are you subjected to only having the choice of altering decals and paint jobs; finally you're allowed back under the hood to make the adjustments that adheres to your liking.
Handling your vehicle isn't much of a problem as Ghost Games maintained it's arcade feel with controls and overall mechanics. Handling the competition however proves to be at times a struggle. Even when in the lead with a clear distance from other drivers, the AI manages to not only catch up to you but take your position.
While Need For Speed is an open world with a plethora of side missions and a rather short campaign, a handful of red flags raise for the same reasons.
Need for Speed is online only, meaning all 79 challenges that makes up the story mode does not has the capability of being played offline. It doesn't make sense especially with most players online requiring no interaction to progress. It further ruins the story as you're unable to pause at any time, ramming you into barricades, even at complete stops causing unexpected police chases.
The only other annoyance that tends to be over-excessive are the number of phone calls from the crew. The calls are how the additional missions are opened, but at times you may receive two to three calls back to back, one being a group call with the same person you just talked to.
Need for Speed have daily challenges lined up as well that you can accomplish by completing objectives. Visually, the game looks amazing as you embrace the environment; however it's confusing and a bit dissatisfying that the entire game takes place at night. And just when you've reached an area that hints to the break of dawn, it shifts right back into the darkness.
Ghost Games took the franchise in the right direction but seemed to have hit a few road blocks in the process. Gamers will find it hard to overlook an offline campaign being implemented as online only, a rigged AI that consistently manages to snatch the lead unexpectedly and forced, non-stop gameplay by eliminating the ability to pause when needed.
The Scores
Gameplay: 3/5
Visuals: 4.5/5
Audio: 3.5/5
Controls: 4/5
Replay Value: 2.5/5


text:
Cindy Diane Smith
- 43 years old
- Date of birth: Nov 18, 1967
- Date of passing: Oct 4, 2011
|Let the memory of Cindy be with us forever
This memorial website was created in memory of our loved one, Cindy Smith, 43, born on November 18, 1967 and passed away on October 4, 2011. We will remember her forever.
Leave a Tribute:
Invite your family and friends
to visit this memorial:
to visit this memorial:
Subscribe to receive e-mail notifications when others contribute to this memorial.
727 views
Have a suggestion for us?


text:
Great Lakes Waterspout Season Is at Hand
Now is the time of year when waterspouts start putting in an appearance on the Great Lakes. I had largely forgotten about spouts until a few days ago when my friend and fellow weather weenie Mike Kovalchick mentioned them in an email. Bing! A light blinked on in my head: That's right! Waterspouts! I've never seen a waterspout. But then, until last year about this time with my buddy Kurt Hulst, I'd never made a point of going out after them. Kurt and I busted that day, but maybe this year I'll get lucky, provided I increase my chances by taking more opportunities to chase spouts. I have zero experience forecasting waterspouts. Thankfully, there's a snappy little graph called the Waterspout Nomogram that simplifies the process. Developed by Wade Szilagyi of the Meteorological Service of Canada, the Waterspout Nomogram provides a quick visual aid for determining when certain critical parameters are in place for four different classifications of waterspout: tornadic, upper low, land breeze, and winter. The tornadic variety is self-explanatory, and any storm chaser with some experience making his or her own forecasts should have a good feel for when that kind of waterspout is likely. Mike favors the 500 mb cold-core, closed low setup, which to my thinking may be a variant of the first in producing low-top supercells. The remaining two, land breeze and winter, seem to involve different dynamics. For all the waterspout categories, one of the constraints is that for spouts to occur, winds at 850 mbs have to be less than 40 knots, something I find particularly interesting in the case of supercell-based waterspouts. In any event, I'm hoping that this year is my year to finally witness a spout or two. Michigan chasers and weather weenies, it's time to pay attention to the marine forecasts. The "second season" can include action right along the lakeshore even when nothing's popping anywhere else. Make sure you bring your shotgun just in case a waterspout gets too close for comfort (written with a wink and a grin).
August 27, 2010 by Leave a Comment


text:
He does. He likes to say it. China.
Related Posts
- Video || Schooled by Trump
Some of Trump's best debate putdowns over the last few weeks. ` By the video…
- Video || Grubermania!
Grubergate, so far.
- Video || Trump Does SNL
Well, Donald Trump appeared on Saturday Night Live this weekend, but the skit everyone seems…


text:
InfluAds is a platform allowing publisher to lead the development and curation of advertising networks around a simple, relevant yet beautifully designed ad targeting highly influential audiences.
Radiate Media provides software and services that empower local media and businesses to find and capture the audience that matters most. From local news, weather and traffic information to online and broadcast marketing tools, Radiate Media...
In terms of market share, InfluAds is clearly lagging behind, losing to Matchbin in all segments.
InfluAds has better usage coverage in more websites categories. Including Business & Industry, Internet & Telecom, Arts & Entertainment, Computer & Electronics and 38 other categories.
Matchbin is leading in Beauty & Fitness, Pets & Animals, Pets, Coupons and one other category.
InfluAds is leading in most countries, including United States, Spain, India, China and 17 other countries.
Matchbin is leading in Slovenia, United Arab Emirates, Ghana and Hungary.


text: Brother Brooks takes us on a three course trip with his latest offering Progress. It lets us delve a bit deeper into his mind and inner workings. From atmospheric breaks to groovy deep house, Brother Brooks' second offering on MK837 adds a main floor to the strong foundation he laid with Salt Symphony.


text:
Steve Madden Women's Troopa Combat Boot
[soliloquy id="4810″]Handcrafted from soft, supple leather, these combat boots make the grade for their comfort, convenience, and fashionable awesomeness. You can pair these boots with absolutely anything – even your birthday suit, ha!
The rubber soles offer optimum shock absorption, while the laces can be as tight or loose as you wish.
Steve Madden Women's Troopa Lace-Up Boot, Brown Leather, 6 M US
Retail Price:
Price: $79.95
(968 customer reviews)
2 used & new available from $79.95
Shaft height: 8″"
Heel height: 1″
Shaft circumference: 10.5″
True to size: Yes
More on sizing: Get more sizing info on this boot…
Compare prices on this boot: