text:
After the college football bowl season, I typed up a list of lessons that I learned from bowls in hopes that I would actually remember them come next year. The logic behind them was fairly sound, although I am quite certain that I will make the same mistakes again.
I thought about doing the same for March Madness this season, but I learned one lesson and one lesson only: unless you are in a pool with ten people or less, pick a unique team to win the tournament. That seems fairly simple…but it's actually the opposite of how most people pick their brackets. We'll get to that a bit later though. First, you get to read a story.
Every year I enter into a March Madness pool that has upwards of 500 people in it. I have never won it (and won't this year either). The closest I came was in 2006, otherwise known as the year of George Mason. I couldn't fully enjoy the Patriots' run though, since they knocked off Connecticut in the regional final.
That year I went with the traditional formula for bracket selection. I picked several upsets in the first few rounds but picked a favorite to win the tournament. Almost all of my upset picks hit. I literally nailed everything. I hit seven of eight Elite Eight picks, only missing the aforementioned George Mason, which virtually no one picked to even win a game. My Final Four consisted of LSU, UCLA, Florida, and Connecticut. The first three all got there.
Then UConn happened. I picked them to win the tournament that year, but didn't even need them to win. There were about 430 people in the pool, but I was so far ahead that all I needed was UConn to beat George Mason to lock up the title. I had the Huskies beating UCLA in the final. Because of that, no one that picked UCLA to win the title could pass me and no one that picked Florida to win the title could catch me if I got the seven points for UConn's supposedly inevitable Elite Eight victory (and no one picked LSU to reach the title game at all).
Imagine – the $1200 or so first place prize locked up before the Final Four even began. We all know that the sports gods are cruel though. The Huskies blew it in overtime, I received no more points, and the handful of people that picked Florida to win the next two games (11 points for the semifinal and 16 points for the final) passed me. I finished in sixth place, five points behind the overall winner.
You would think the epiphany would have happened then. I really liked UCLA and Florida, but instead of picking either one of them to win the title, I went with the consensus favorite Connecticut. I would imagine that 30% of the people picked UConn to win it that year. I followed all of them and where did it get me? Sixth place. I think I won something like $50.
And for what? The sixteen points obviously wouldn't have done me a whole lot of good, since everybody else picked them. Sure, had the Huskies won it all, I would have needed to pick them at least to the finals to hold the rest of the pack that did pick them. But I should have just taken my chances. Although I finished sixth, I ruined an amazing year of picks.
Had I picked Florida over UConn in the Final Four, I would have won something like $1500 between two pools. Had I done so and UConn actually did win, I would have probably won $0. I think I did win about $75 between the pools, but I would gladly (duh!) exchange that for picking Florida, a team I really liked.
Fast forward to this year. Finally, I went with an off-the-wall team to win the tournament. This time, I went with Kentucky almost completely by accident. I liked the Wildcats to do well in the tournament because they really came together at the end of the season, capped off by the dominant SEC tournament run. I didn't like number one seeds Ohio State and Duke on that side of the bracket, so it was wide open. I also kept hearing about all the parity this year, so I figured why not take my chances with a #4 seed that is playing well.
Eventually I picked Kentucky to make it to the final, where they would lose to Kansas. Then I remembered my track record with Kansas. The last two times I picked them (2006 and 2010), they went out on the first weekend. I quickly erased Kansas and had them go down in the Sweet Sixteen. I ended up with Pitt in the title game for reasons that remain unclear to me. I don't actually like Pitt, so I picked Kentucky to beat them in the title game.
Other than that, this was my worst year ever. That is not an exaggeration. My ENTIRE Elite Eight on the right side of the bracket was done by Saturday night on the first weekend. When the dust settled, Kentucky was the only team that made the Elite Eight that I got right. To put that in perspective, only four of the 490 people in my pool missed all Elite Eight teams…and you know that includes at least 40 women that picked based on name alone (my wife was one of them, and she performed far better than me). Of 490 people, I finished better than four people on Elite Eight picks.
The early rounds weren't much better. I picked Florida State to reach the Sweet Sixteen in an upset pick. I picked Richmond to beat Vandy. And that's it for picks that panned out. Michigan State and Louisville, both Elite Eight picks, went down in the first round. Pitt and Purdue, both Final Four picks, went down in the second. After the first weekend of play, I sat in 423rd place. After the second, I sit in 348th place.
But it turns out almost none of that matters, thanks to Kentucky. If Kentucky ends up winning the title, I will finish in fourth place. I only picked one Elite Eight team correctly, and I still have a legitimate shot to finish fourth in a 490 person pool.
All that time spent looking at first and second round upsets got me nowhere. Sure, I can be proud of my Seminole Sweet Sixteen pick. That got me a whopping three points. I would have had to do that with at least three more Sweet Sixteen picks to finish in first. The three people that would finish ahead of me are the only other three people that picked Kentucky to win.
So that's my lesson. If you are in a pool with ten people or less, by all means follow the standard route. Pick a favorite to win and try to pick off enough points in the early rounds to win the pool. It is fairly unlikely that anybody will have any team lower than a two seed winning the tournament anyway.
But if you are in a big pool, like I am, you HAVE to go with an underdog to win the title. Don't go crazy – no team lower than a four seed has won since #6 Kansas in 1988. And of course your #3 or #4 seeded pick actually winning the tournament is still an extreme longshot.
Yet the one strategic question I missed was this: what are the odds that I do well enough in the sixty pre-tournament games that I build up enough of a lead to top the 100 or so other people in the pool that picked the same favorite I did to win the tournament? Turns out quite a bit less than picking a significant underdog to win the title.
I understand that if UConn would have won just one more game in 2006, I would have still won the pool while picking the runaway favorite to win. That took a great deal of luck and magic to get me in that spot, and I seriously doubt I will end up in that position again. The larger point remains: even the biggest favorite to win the tournament will have less than a twenty percent chance to win. Why not roll the dice on a unique team to win the tourney and take my chances?
The lesson is simple yet a bit counterintuitive. I have picked NCAA brackets every year since I was a four-year old in 1989 (that is not an exaggeration). In my best ever year, I picked the runaway favorite to win the title and finished in sixth place. In my worst ever year, I picked an underdog to win the title and have a very realistic shot at finishing fourth place.
I like those odds. And go Kentucky!


text:
Congratulations to the following teams, their coaches and supporters for making it through to winter sport finals this weekend. Your hard work over the season has paid off, go hard.
Basketball - ASB Sports Centre
Otaki College vs Porirua College - 8pm
Netball - Levin Courts
Otaki Int. Blue vs Levin Intermediate A1 - 9am
Otaki Junior 1 vs Rahui Rangatahi - 11am
Otaki Int. Gold vs Fairfield Kokakos - 11am
Football - Rongotai College
Otaki Junior Boys vs Saint Pats Wellington - 9am
Home > News & Events >

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Written by Ken Gaebler
Published: 11/18/2010
Capital One's National Small Business Barometer reveals 27 percent of entrepreneurs except business to improve
Small business owners are less optimistic than in the previous quarter, according to a recent survey by a leading credit card company.
The National Small Business Barometer, conducted by Capital One Small Business Banking, revealed that in the third quarter of 2010, only 27 percent of entrepreneurs surveyed said that their business was improving, down from 32 percent in the second quarter of the year. Slightly more than half, 51 percent, said that they felt that their company's finances were stable, down seven points from the quarter before. The head of small business banking at Capital One, Robert M. Kottler, said that many were still unsure of the future. "Our survey results for the third quarter of this year suggest that financial performance is stable for many of the small businesses we surveyed, but some respondents have a more cautious outlook about their growth and expectations..." said Kottler regarding the news for small business. "It is a positive sign, however, that most small businesses believe they have access to the credit and financing they need and many are making plans to increase their workforce and begin hiring again."
Leaders from all around the country have been trying to help those in the small business community. In a recent statement, President Barack Obama announced that National Entrepreneurs' Day would take place on November 19, 2010, as a way to honor and encourage small business owners.
Have Friends Who Might Like This Article?
Share this on Twitter
Let them know on LinkedIn
Ready to Learn More? We Think You Might Like These Articles:
About Our Breaking Entrepreneurial News
Our small business writers give you breaking news that focuses on entrepreneurship. Our coverage is all about giving you news you can use to be a successful entrepreneur.
Additional Resources for Entrepreneurs
Help for Native American EntrepreneursResources for Gay EntrepreneursBusinesses for SaleOnline Entrepreneur ToolsEconomicsLists of Small Business IncubatorsLists of Angel Investors


text:
CAIRO, Egypt — At the threshold of choosing a new leader after 30 years of authoritarian rule, Egypt is now looking more than ever like it did before — a country run by a corrupt political elite, dominated by the military.
Egyptians will head to the polls today in the second and final round of presidential elections between two candidates: the Muslim Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi, and former prime minister and air-force commander, Ahmed Shafiq, who served under ousted President Hosni Mubarak.
But now, further marring the already controversial election process, is a series of judicial pronouncements that many here say have essentially turned the clock back on the revolution.
After 16 months of a rocky, military-led transition to democratic rule — in which protesters died, free elections were held and political battles were fought — Egypt's military police were granted on Tuesday sweeping, indefinite powers of arrest, and its elected, Islamist-led parliament dissolved.
More from GlobalPost: Was Egypt's revolution just a military coup?
Now, with no legislature, no constitution, and elections being held for a president with yet-to-be-defined powers, Egypt's fate once again lies squarely in the hands of the military rulers that assumed power during the uprising, the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF).
"We are returning to Jan. 24, 2011," said Amr Darag, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood leader in Cairo, in reference to Egypt's political environment on the day before the first anti-Mubarak protests.
The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) had held the most seats in the recently elected parliament, which was annulled on Thursday by the Mubarak-appointed Supreme Constitutional Court for the illegal way in which one-third of the assembly's seats were contested.
The court also struck down a parliament-drafted law that would have excluded Mubarak-era officials from running for Egypt's top post, removing all obstacles for Shafiq, whom many believe SCAF supports, to become president.
The moves by Egypt's highest court also appear to confirm the suspicions among democracy activists that the more powerful elements of the Mubarak regime never really disappeared.
While Mubarak was sentenced to life in prison on June 2 for failing to prevent the killing of more than 800 protesters during the uprising last year, six interior ministry police and security chiefs were acquitted of ordering forces to fire on the demonstrators.
More from GlobalPost: For Egypt's revolutionaries, the election is the stuff of nightmares
"[The rulings] are a reminder that all those ruling Egypt are Mubarak's men through and through," said Noor Ayman, prominent, young anti-regime activist and son of once-imprisoned opposition leader, Ayman Nour.
Like Ayman, many here see the court decisions as a way for the military regime, and its supporters within the government, to consolidate and preserve power ahead of the scheduled June 30 transfer of authority to a civilian president.
"[The military] doesn't want to have a strongly-empowered parliament that could present a challenge to their rule," Robert Springborg, professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in California, and expert on the Egyptian military, told GlobalPost last month. "They believe they can control the president more directly."
On Friday, there were small protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square — the center of the anti-Mubarak uprising — against the court rulings.
But the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest political force, appears to be waiting to see if its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, will be successful in today's run-offs before opting for a head-on collision with the military-run state.
"If Shafiq wins, there will be a second revolution," the Brotherhood's Darag said. "And it will be stronger than the first one."
More from GlobalPost: Has Egypt's election lost all credibility?
Also on Friday, security forces blocked the roads leading to the parliament building in downtown Cairo, under orders to prevent lawmakers from entering. On the roads from Egypt's notoriously lawless Sinai Peninsula to the capital, Cairo, a number of fresh army and police checkpoints sprung up in the wake of the court's decision.
"It is an obvious move on the part of the Constitutional Court, probably with direction from SCAF, to kill the Muslim Brotherhood project [to create] an Islamist government," said Amir Salem, a human rights lawyer.
After securing the most seats in parliament, the Brotherhood's political vehicle sought to dominate the new assembly — now also defunct along with parliament — to draft Egypt's constitution, as well as fielded a presidential candidate after promising not to.
"It's a political message against the Brotherhood," Salem said.
Also speaking to GlobalPost last month, Shadi Hamid, a close observer of the Muslim Brotherhood and director of research at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center, said the 80-year-old Islamist organization, long persecuted by Egypt's rulers, is most at home when it is acting as the opposition.
"They're most comfortable playing the oppositional role of having their backs to the wall, and finding a way to survive," Hamid said. "They have this bunker mentality that helps rally the troops. They say: 'Everyone's against us, but we're going to win this and are not going to back down.'"
While Brotherhood figures spoke of a "second revolution" if the decisions indeed end up reviving and solidifying the rule of the old regime, the largely liberal-secular activists took a different view.
"[The decisions] are a reminder not that the revolution should continue," Ayman said. "But that the revolution should begin."
Heba Habib contributed reporting from Cairo, Egypt


text:
Bad news for our Houston Texans: defensive end Devon Still has just been placed on the injured reserve list after suffering a foot injury that required surgical repair.
Before coming to the Texans, Still spent three seasons with the Cincinnati Bengals, and passed all of 2015 as a free agent. Though he had not had one start since joining the Texans, Still had appeared in three games this season and had contributed three tackles in his final game against the Tennessee Titans.
Despite his lackluster performance here in Houston, Still is still an inspiration to many fans—the player has been very public about his now 6-year-old daughter Leah's fight with cancer—in fact, Cincinnati kept him on their team roster back in 2014 for the most part so the family wouldn't lose health insurance and be unable to cover her treatments. Thankfully, Leah went into remission and Sill found a new home in Texas. For the interim of his recovery, the Texans have promoted defensive end Brandon Dunn to fill Still's spot on the roster.


text:
Pain Channel
Topics & Medications
Related Channels
Darvocet and Valium
In November 2010, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew all medications that contain propoxyphene from the market. It has been determined that the risks of propoxyphene outweigh the possible benefits. In particular, the FDA was concerned about the drug's ability to cause serious changes in the heart rhythm, even at normal doses. Pharmacies will no longer sell this medication, and people who take it should stop and ask their healthcare provider for a more suitable pain medication.
Darvocet® (propoxyphene/acetaminophen) is a prescription pain reliever that can interact negatively with a number of medications. It is generally recommended that you do not combine Darvocet and Valium® (diazepam), an anxiety medicine.
Combining Darvocet with any other medications that cause drowsiness (including anxiety medicines) can increase your risk of side effects, such as memory loss, confusion, or difficulty breathing. Other serious side effects, such as dangerously low blood pressure, may also occur. It is important that you talk to your healthcare provider before taking Darvocet with Valium.
Some of the other medications that may cause drug interactions with Darvocet include:
- Alcohol
- Carbamazepine (Carbatrol®, Epitol®, Equetro®, Tegretol®)
- Certain beta blockers
- Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)
- Other acetaminophen medications, including many prescription and non-prescription pain relievers, fever reducers, and cough and cold medications
- Warfarin (Coumadin®, Jantoven®).
(Click Darvocet Drug Interactions to find out what other medications may interact with Darvocet and to learn about the possible effects of these interactions.)
List of references (click here)
Darvocet-N [package insert]. Newport, KY: Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;2009 September.
Darvocet A500 [package insert]. Newport, KY: Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;2009 November.
Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Propoxyphene: Withdrawal -- Risk of Cardiac Toxicity (11/19/2010). FDA Web site. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm234389.htm. November 19, 2010.
Written by/reviewed by: Kristi Monson, PharmD; Arthur Schoenstadt, MD
Last reviewed by: Kristi Monson, PharmD


text:
This page implies that you're an atheist if you believe the mountains of scientific research which supports plate tectonics and other foundations of geological science. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about Geology agree with the assertions found in this field of study, so while is this viewpoint marginalized? Everwill 08:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
Hopefully, I won't get reverted, but I attempted to acknowledge the controversy, without turning this into a debate page. Conservapedia will become a laughing stock if every science is undermined to support a specific theological conclusion. Everwill 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
- This page should be divided into two parts or made into two articles:
- Old-Earth Geology
- Young Earth Geology
Auld Nick 06:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. Everwill
- Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- It's scary just how quickly this page has turned into some kind of theological rant. Additionally, the musings under the "How Old is the Earth" are not supported by credible references, and in some cases the references are broken links.
- Could you be specific? Which points don't have references, or which references don't you consider credible? And which are broken? As far as I know, Galileo (see the blue link) believed that the Earth was created around 4,000 B.C. Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Reference #16 has a list of "facts". The facts are all dead links. Reference 17 relies upon the opinions of someone with any established credibility. I didn't go any further because the entire Young Earth Creation idea relies upon the belief that geologists worldwide are part of a vast conspiracy to push an atheistic agenda. I'm quite sure I can find a long list of things that Galileo thought, or would have thought, that have since been proven quite wrong, but to do so would be a waste of time. You will dismiss anything which does not support your interpretation of the Bible.
- In my experience, mainstream geology finds natural resources. Young Earth Creation geology, on the other hand, finds arguments to support a religious agenda. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the theology behind Young Earth Creation, but it's a waste of time to put the two ideas in side by side. Everwill 12:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- Reference 16 is an FAQ list, and the links in that list work for me at the moment, but that site has had some technical difficulties lately, which may be the problem you encountered.
- I'm guessing that reference 17 is for the list of links also, rather than the text at the start of the page. If so, there is not a single "someone" to question the credibility of.
- That YEC believes that geologists are part of a conspiracy is merely your interpretation and specifically denied by those YECs.
- I will not "dismiss" anything that does not support the Bible. I will point out why it is wrong.
- Mainstream geology finds natural resources, and also claims to know what has happened in the past, from an anti-Biblical ideology. Creationist geologists also find natural resources, but dispute the claims about the past. Allowing one side to make ideological statements about the past but dismissing others doing so as ideologically driven is not fair.
- Incidentally, I'm not a fan of FAQ lists for references (although there may be some cases in which they are appropriate).
- Philip J. Rayment 19:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
This article has been locked for a long time now. Any chance that it could be opened up again for further improvement? Kenservative 14:55, 3 September 2007 (EDT)
Article in need of serious help ...
This is one of the articles that caused me to walk away from Conservapedia for a long time. There are several assertions in this article which are based upon a gross misunderstanding of geology and a presumption that geology undermines a particular theology. They have stood unchallenged for quite a long time. Until such time as this article and others like it are brought up to standard, Conservapedia will suffer a credibility problem, just as Wikipedia suffers a bias problem. As a conservative, I defend the rights of those who believe in a Bible-based geology and there should be a framework and forum where they can explain their theories and views. That said, this article is not the place to argue whether the Earth was created in 7 days and when the universe was created. Is there anyone else who sees the strong need for a better article here? Everwill 07:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Your concern is expressed in rather vague terms (perhaps deliberately), so I can't be certain what you are getting at, but certain geological ideas do "undermine" the biblical account. However, relatively little of this article is to do with when the universe was created, and what is there seems to be fairly balanced. If this article can be written so that it doesn't mention the old-Earth viewpoint, then there's no need to mention the young-Earth viewpoint either, but I doubt that's really feasible. Perhaps you'd like to make some more specific proposals? Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
- Quite frankly, it's difficult to engage in any discussion with you about this topic because the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position or the "9/11 Truth" position. In all these cases, it is true that some people believe these theories. But, it is also true that the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous.
- As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things. I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.
- I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand. There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old. So, this argument with you has all the pain of Galileo's argument, but none of the nobility of the result. It's just a huge time sink.
- That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist. For all I know it was created the day before I was born. But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory. In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate and divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)
- All that aside, my best suggestion is that there are two different articles here. For those who want to believe in Young Earth Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.
- The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose. You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. On this I can see no possibility of compromise. So long as this article stakes out the position that YE Geology and geology are just two different views of geology, Conservapedia will suffer serious credibility problems.
- As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?
- Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? Everwill 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- "...the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position ...": This is nonsense. The "young Earth position" has been held by many millions of people for thousands of years, including many very intelligent people (Ussher, Newton, Kepler, for example) and estimated tens of thousands of scientists today. The flat Earth "position" is largely an invention by evolutionists to discredit creationists (see that article).
- "These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you": I don't ignore facts, and I don't reject them without good reason. And how would you know that they are unknown to me?
- "And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument. I'm well aware that this may sound insulting...": Yep. Because I use good arguments, not ignorance. You're using rhetoric and insults.
- "The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs.": I've studied this issue for over 30 years. I'm not arguing from ignorance, and I use scientific arguments as well as religious/philosophical ones.
- "To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe.": Galileo's issues were not so much with the science, but internal politics and rubbing people the wrong way. Many actually already accepted his ideas.
- "There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old.": There's another insult. You're talking about many highly-qualified scientists there, and simply insulting them rather than refuting their arguments.
- "That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist.": Then why do they claim to?
- "For all I know it was created the day before I was born.": I take it that you believe the Bible, but if so you don't believe that what He said is true!
- "But if it was created ... 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory.": Oh? What evidence? Near enough to no scientists managed to see this evidence until around the time that various agnostics, atheists, etc. starting proposing a much older Earth around 200 or so years ago. It couldn't have been very obvious.
- "Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.": There's nothing hard to explain about coal. And the YEC view has as much right to be in the article as the atheistic view.
- "You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone.": Why not? Other than people's biases getting in the way, of course?
- "...why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains?": Perhaps because, unlike YEC, there's no scientific or other good evidence for them?
- "Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology?": For a layman, I believe that I have a pretty good grasp. And your post has been nothing but rhetoric, with a touch of insult. For someone who claims to have a good grasp of the science and geology, you sure didn't use much of it.
- Here's something to think about. I gather that you reject evolution? (If not, ignore the rest of this.) Pretty-well everything you said about YEC (e.g. "the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous") is also said by evolutionists against those that believe in ID or creation. So what makes your supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position any more credible that my supposedly-minority, supposedly-unscientific, position?
- Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? Everwill 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
For the record: I do not "reject" evolution. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. On the other hand, I do not think that the "Origin of Species" fully explains the creation and permutations of life on this planet. Further, I do not think that evolution, survival of the fittest, has anything to do with creation. Creation is wholly apart from evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.
That said, you have kindly and eagerly provided an example of exactly the type of ridiculous internet debate which I refuse to engage. Quotes vs. counter-quotes round and round in circles, it's all pointless.
Clearly, you're quite passionate in your beliefs and if you have (as you claim) studied the field and still haven't changed your mind after thirty years, there is nothing I can type which will change your mind. I understand and allow for the fact that there is a possibility that the minority position might be the correct position. But I also think it foolish for the minority to lead the majority by demanding "equality". Also, it's not my job to change your mind or educate you. (Thank God!)
By the same token, I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.
Therefore, it's best to agree to disagree and move on to other matters.
That understood, it makes most sense to separate these two variant schools of thought, because quite frankly there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.
To the editors and admins of the site, I plead again. Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority? Everwill 16:06, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
- "I do not "reject" evolution": Okay, my mistake.
- "Evolution is a fact.": If you mean the whole evolutionary family tree, not it's not a fact, it's a (poor) hypothesis.
- "It makes perfect sense to me that God would create an evolving system and would leave evidence of evolution for man to find.": So it makes perfect sense to you that God would do that, then tell His creation that He did it all in six days?
- "...there is nothing I can type which will change your mind.": In other words, I'm close-minded.
- "...I'm quite sure that there is nothing you can write which will countermand well-documented, provable scientific endeavor in the field of geology.": In other words, you're close minded. Well, I guess that makes us even. Except that you attempt to take the intellectual high-ground that you are right! And I disagree that it's all provable.
- "...there is no room in modern geology for what you postulate.": Then modern geology ought to make room.
- "Surely there has to be a conservative who understands geology so that progress need not be hijacked by a tiny but aggressive minority?": In other words, because I'm supposedly in a minority, I don't understand geology? Are you really saying that because I don't agree with something, therefore I don't understand it?
- Philip J. Rayment 09:23, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Yes. Everwill 06:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
- Surely I don't have to point out to you how illogical that is? Philip J. Rayment 06:52, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
I was asked to comment about this "laughing-stock" article, but frankly I don't see it. Granted, I only gave it a brows and it's entirely possible that I missed these gems, but everything seems ok to me. Certainly, Everwill believes that YEC is untrue, and I am inclined to believe (if only by default and not by education), however, there's nothing wrong with the YEC viewpoint -- in fact, it's encouraged at this encyclopedia. Additionally, it's a pet peeve of mine when in articles it is said "Y is X" instead of "Z believe that Y is X" (I don't know why I did that in reverse alphabetical order, but I digress) however in this article, all of the YEC statements that I saw were properly attributed.
Perhaps, Everwill, you could bring up some more specific claims? (If they are in the section above I apologize; that looked more like a discussion of the correctness of YEC Geology, not a discussion of this article in and of itself). HelpJazz 10:29, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
- Perhaps a nice, calm scholarly article comparing young earth and old earth scientific (and/or religious?) views would be helpful at some point. There are excellent reasons for Bible-believing Christians to adhere to the view that the age of the earth is in the thousands of years, as well as excellent scientific reasons for religious people to accept the modern mainstream view of billions of years. --Ed Poor Talk 10:40, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Ed, with all due respect, the scientific reasons for believing the Earth appears thousand of years old were largely undermined more than 200 years ago. Granted the Earth might be older or younger than it appears, but there is little doubt or controversy about how old it appears. As for an example of a retarded sentence:
- Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old assert that one can calculate and extrapolate a presumed age of the Earth.
Belief has nothing to do with calculations. Calculations are calculations and nothing more. We don't know how old the Earth is. In that regard you may believe whatsoever you choose. But we do know the results of the calculations and in that regard there is little argument.
The problem of "appearance of age" is best explained by "Adam's navel". Did Adam have a belly-button? Afterall, he was never in the womb and thus never had a placenta. Did he have DNA? Afterall, he did not have parents and thus inherited no genes. I would say, of course Adam had a belly button and genes. By the same token, geology stands apart from creationism.
The Theory of Earth was published in 1775 and the observations and science of generations of geologists have relentlessly advanced the field since that time. As a result one is free to believe that the earth was created six thousand years ago (or six days ago for that matter), but no informed person can reasonably argue against the evidence of a much older Earth. Geology makes no claims regarding creationism and I'm not sure why it's so difficult for some to believe that God would create a system that makes sense.
It must be understood that at this stage in the game, the burden of proof is not on the field of geology. The burden of proof is on the Young Earth theorists. Geologists around the globe have found pieces of a puzzle that seem to fit nicely together telling the story of this planet. At the risk of making Conservapedia seem foolish, this article might include a link to Young Earth theory, but there is absolutely no room for any Young Earth poppycock in an article about Geology.
When I said the article "needs work", that's because the article in general needs work. I would like to insert more than a few paragraphs into this article and I would like to edit it for further clarity. My problem is I don't want to invest the work while fighting an argument with a well-meaning soul who is quite uninformed about Earth Sciences. To be specific, I have no reason to hold any animosity or grudge against the goodly gentleman Rayment, but I am quite certain from his rhetoric that nothing positive can come from my interaction with him regarding geology.
Because of what I've seen in the study of Intelligent Design and in the case of the IPCC, I'm willing to accept the remote possibility that Young Earth science has some basis in reality. That said, the burden of proof is on Young Earth Theory and not on standard geology because geology is so widely accepted and has practical uses every single day. What I've seen of YE "science" is a reliance on out-of-date facts couple with ignorance of other facts wedged into a particular interpretation of Genesis. I have no tolerance for this argument because the "9/11 Truthers" and others sapped my energy long ago.
The 9/11 "Truthers" taught me that arguing against ignorance is futile because as soon as you explain one mystery another will arise. So with apologies to Mr. Rayment, I can only say that he may be a good fellow and well-intentioned, but he is arguing from a passionate philosophical point but a position of utter ignorance of geology.
I hate to admit it, but this article is sort of an epiphany for me and I must thank Mr. Rayment for that. Although I know that evolution is a fact, I also believe in Intelligent Design Theory. I could never understand why some folks would want to keep ID out of schools. I now fully understand why some liberal parents feel threatened by us conservatives and religious types.
Previously, it was obvious to me the atheistic agenda in teaching Evolution, but I was blind to the dangers of the reverse. Though he will never accept this from me or another, and though this is not intended as an insult, it is clear to me that Mr. Rayment has only a vague and faulty understanding about the science of geology. I respect his right to teach his children whatever he wants. But, I absolutely do not want him teaching my kids anything about Earth Science. Thanks to Mr. Rayment, I now fully understand the issue for our schools: "What does one do with passionately held beliefs which are founded in ignorance?"
I have no easy solution. In this particular case, I think segregation is the best option. This is because, I'm certain that Mr. Rayment is equally certain of my ignorance or of my involvement the geological conspiracy against the Bible.
So, after rambling a while, I'll get to the point. What I'm asking the "powers that be" to enforce segregation here. In an article about Geology, I think that the best Young Earthers can hope for is a link to an article about their theory. I personally refuse to write this article as if there was any controversy between "young earth theory" and "old earth theory". I know too much about the field of study to pretend as if these were two different but equal lines of thought.
I'm a conservative. Therefore, I don't want informed people to think that conservatives are ignorant. I firmly believe that if Conservapedia allows "young earth theory" (disproved long ago) to mingle with modern geology, then we make ourselves look uneducated and ignorant. And I don't say that flippantly or with anything other than Conservapedia's best interests at heart! But for the fact that some people interpret Genesis to mean what they want it to mean, there is little difference between taking young earth theory and flat-earth theory seriously.
I would like to improve and edit this article but I don't have energy for an edit war. If I have to write this much on the talk page before a single edit is made, then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. Everwill 07:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
- One of the good things about discussion pages is that is reveals the assumptions of article contributors. To collaborate, we need to identify our common ground as well as our areas of disagreement. When we agree, it's easy to help each other write an article, but when we disagree it is often hard to "agree to disagree"; see Conservapedia:Collaborative writing.
- Right at the top of your comments, you referred to the problem of Adam's navel:
- Adam's navel (like Schroedinger's cat) is one of those things which are brought up to make us think. So let's consider this. Were Adam and Eve created as adults? Or as brand new people with no experience or memory but with adult bodies? Could they have been created as teenagers, or toddlers, or even as infants?
- If Adam and Eve were created as anything other than mature adults, then whose job was it to take care of them? If they were infants or children, who got their food? Who kept them from dangers like drowning or falling off of cliffs? Did angels do this, or what?
- I'm not looking for specific answers here and now, so don't worry ;-)
- I'm only trying to illustrate the point that Geology relates to Theology. The issue of young earth vs. old earth is a valid and important one. I'm not sure this article should have full coverage of the dispute, but we could take a page out of Wikipedia's book and do what they say they do, even if they are not consistent when push comes to shove.
- Let's describe this issue where it best belongs, where readers will be happiest to see it. I suggest something like Creation Science, because in 1988 when I first became interested in the Origins debate that was the term (or Scientific Creationism).
- Now, I'm hoping that nothing in what I wrote above shows any "prejudice regarding the issue". I want to be completely open-minded and even-handed in my writing, because I love Philip as a brother but I also respect you, dear sir. And I'm thinking about our readers. For every 1 person who comments, probably 10 or 50 people read these discussions and ponder them. --Ed Poor Talk 07:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
- "Calculations are calculations and nothing more": Yes, but dates are calculations built on assumptions. See radiometric dating. Otherwise much of Everwill's post, as before, was rhetoric. Philip J. Rayment 08:03, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
- Every waking (and sleeping) moment of life is based on assumptions. If we spend our lives questioning every single assumption then we are paralyzed with analysis. Unless you yourself dedicate your life to being a geologist then you have no basis or authority to question the assumptions and conclusions of those who have in good faith dedicated themselves to the study of geology. (Geologists go to church too.)
- What about the issue of a flat-earth? Are we going to explain the basis for flat-earth theory? Can we not post a graphic depicting the simple truth that things on the bottom of a sphere fall off the sphere? Can we not point to the obvious fact that the earth pretty much appears flat?
- What about Earth-centric astronomy? Can we explain the rationale and the thinking behind why some well-educated well-informed people believed and believe that the Earth, or more specifically Jerusalem, is the center of the universe?
- Can we also punch into the article about the Moon the theory that the Moon is made from green cheese?
- In other words where do you draw the line. At what point do you realize that the explanations refuting these theories are wastes of time and are only there for the benefit of a tiny tiny minority of people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand why the majority has reached another conclusion? Everwill 11:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, much of life is based on assumptions. That's no reason to disregard those questioning those assumptions and just argue that assumptions need not be questioned. And neither is it intellectually honest to argue that something that is based on disputed assumptions is proved.
- If the geologists' assumptions are worldview-based, then I have as much right to question them as anyone else. Besides, there are geologists who question those assumptions also. Geologists are trained in geology, not worldviews.
- The shape of the Earth and the composition of the moon can be observed; the age of the Earth cannot.
- You draw the line at teaching the evidence, both for and against. And denigrating people who disagree with you is not a good argument. Many of those who believe in a young Earth do understand why others reached another conclusion, because they themselves used to hold to that other view themselves, but have been convinced otherwise, often by the evidence.
- Philip J. Rayment 05:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- In other words where do you draw the line. At what point do you realize that the explanations refuting these theories are wastes of time and are only there for the benefit of a tiny tiny minority of people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand why the majority has reached another conclusion? Everwill 11:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm not denigrating and hope it hasn't been perceived as such. I'm going out of my way to remain as respectful as possible. But think of it this way: if you're anything like me (and every other human on the planet), sometimes you're just flat-out wrong.
This time: you're just plain wrong.
Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. No one alive knows the answer to that question.... you claim to know the answer to that question. Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated. At the same time, a Biblical scholar would be wise to say that a popular interpretation of the Bible suggests that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact. Others may interpret the Bible differently.
I'm quite sure that in the mountains of geological evidence that has been compiled you can point to certain factors that support your opinion. Just as the 9/11 Truthers can point to "evidence" to support their beliefs, I'm certain you have evidence to support your belief. I'm equally certain you can find mysteries in the science of geology. That's why we continue to study geology, because we don't understand the entire planet yet. Neither of those two facts change the reality that since the 18th Century, Young Earth geology has been shattered as a theory time and time again by countless geologists.
The question remains: are we going to take seriously the flat-earth theory, the green cheese theory and the other "scientific" theories? Everwill 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- When you refer to creationists, which includes qualified geologists and other scientists, as "people who don't understand/don't want to understand/will never understand", you're denigrating.
- "...sometimes you're just flat-out wrong. This time: you're just plain wrong.": Or you are.
- "Geology (and I) do not claim to know how old the Earth is. ... Geology claims to know how old the Earth appears. Actual age and apparent age are completely unrelated": Can you find me one quote from a leading geologist that makes that distinction? I can't recall ever seeing a quote about the age of the Earth that qualifies it as merely "appearance". Here's some I just Googled:
- "The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years"Talk.Origins
- "Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54×109 years)" Wikipedia
- "...scientists have been able to ... calculate an age for the Earth..."USGS
- "How old is the Earth? 4.6 billion years (4,600,000,000 years)"[1]
- Not even a hint that they are talking about appearance rather than actual age. No, you're making a distinction that geologists don't make.
- "It would be unwise and presumptuous to assume that your interpretation of the Bible is fact.": Not at all. Words have meanings, else we could not communicate. Not all written text is clear, but the Bible is quite clear on this, and this is the way that essentially everyone understood it until atheistic geological assumptions took over. Even today, though, the experts of Hebrew and Old Testament say that this is the way that the writer(s) of Genesis meant it to be understood. Would you accept the argument, "geologists say that the Earth is/appears to be 4.6 billion years old, but there's different ways of interpreting that, and it can be interpreted to mean that it's only 6,000 years old? You'd think I was being stupid for arguing that, yet that is essentially what you are arguing about "interpreting" the Bible.
- Opposition to mainstream geological ideas does not comprise a handful of "mysteries" and a few facts. It comprises a different but equally valid interpretation of the evidence, based on a different worldview.
- I've already dismissed the flat-Earth and green cheese red herrings. They are not scientific theories, but anti-creationist propaganda and a fairy tale.
- Philip J. Rayment 09:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Points of Agreement
There are few points of agreement between the modern science of Geology and Young Earth science. But in the interest of advancing the article I'm going to labor through what I see as a very short list of agreement.
- You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.
- I have a right to teach my children whatever I want.
- Cataclysmic geology was a popularly held theory until 1775.
- A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.
- The vast majority of working geologists scoff at "young earth theory" and "cataclysmic geology".
- Working geologists find mineral resources for mining companies, oil companies and others. Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.
- We are in agreement that unpopular scientific opinion is not necessarily the wrong opinion. For example, it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction.
- You believe that geology has something to do with theology.
- Theoretical geologists in the field perform research every day about the history of the Earth's crust. The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.
That last bullet point alone should be enough to stop a well-reasoned person in their tracks. The rarity of such a concurrence is so rare as to defy my ability to take your position seriously on any level.
My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated. As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not. I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty. Furthermore, I cannot stand silent, while under the banner of conservatism someone else champions a position founded in ignorance.
Maybe the conclusion or lesson is that online references such as this and Wikipedia can't work. How does one resolve the fact that there will always be vocal passionate minorities who hold beliefs that contradict accept theory?
All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock. I suppose I need to walk away and find some liberal moderate friends so I can empathize with them when they are embarrassed by the far left. Everwill 07:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- There's actually lots of points of agreement. The only areas of disagreement relate to origins: how old they are and how they formed: Both things that are not observed, but inferred.
- "You have a right to teach your children whatever you want.": Up to a point, but if I have my children in a government school, the government decides, not me. The only right I have is to not put my children in a government school.
- "A tiny almost invisible minority of "scientists" still believe in cataclysmic geology.": You downplay it a bit too much, especially the "invisible" bit.
- "Working geologists do not ascribe to the science of the 18th century.": First, some working geologists are YECs, so that statement is incorrect. Second, creation geology has advanced beyond the 18th century, so that was a loaded statement.
- "...it took thirty years to amass enough data for the scientific community to concur as to the cause of the dinosaur's extinction": Even ignoring the creationist component of that community, I don't think they've agreed yet!
- "You believe that geology has something to do with theology.": No, not really. I believe that claims about the history of the rocks are claims about history, which conflict with the Bible's claims about history. So it's all about which history is correct, not that geology has something to do with theology, although the history does have implications in other areas.
- "The percentage of theoretical geologists who concur with standard geological theory are much higher than say Stalin or Hussein's percentage of the popular vote.": Neither science nor history are popularity contests.
- "The rarity of such a concurrence is so rare as to defy my ability to take your position seriously on any level.": Again, see the popularity contest point. Further, how rare do you think it is?
- "My biggest problem is that as a conservative, I don't want to look like naive, foolish or politically-motivated.": Sorry, but if you believe in intelligent design, then you already do look that, in the eyes of most scientists. I'm sure that if anti-ID people made the sorts of statements to you about ID that you are making hear about YEC (as they do), you wouldn't accept it. So why should I accept it from you? Second, you should be more interested in the truth than in how you look.
- "As a conservative, I support the truth whether it supports my position or not.": So which is your biggest concern? Not looking naive, foolish, or politically-motivated, or the truth?
- "I can no more embrace young earth geological theory than I can embrace any other 18th century scientific theory that has long since been proven faulty": Again, creation geology is not stuck in the 18th century: that's not a valid argument. Second, I totally disagree that it has long since been proven faulty.
- "All this and the radio-carbon dating article just popped in my head---an article which is mostly poppycock.": Yeah? How about pointing out what's (supposedly) wrong instead of making meaningless hand-waving statements like that?
- Philip J. Rayment 10:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Point of order (and Comment part II)
Point of order: Everwill, while I've already stated (if not here then elsewhere) that I agree with the standard viewpoint, however saying that the majority agrees with something therefore it is true is an ad populum (proof by numbers) logical fallacy. This is fallacious reasoning, and does not prove your argument.
Comment part II: I still am not sure I understand the distinction between what you (or Philip) believe and what should be allowed in this article. In other words, why try to convince Philip he is wrong, when it has no bearing on what will be put in the article (this is, afterall, an article talk page)? YEC views are put into articles on Conservapedia, and it sounds to me like you are arguing that it is wrong and should not be allowed into the article. Like I said before, unless I missed something in my cursory overview, this is a well-written article. You might think that YEC is wrong, but that's ok! All YEC views are properly attributed to those who believe them, and they aren't being stated as fact. If the article said "the earth is 6,000 years old", I could rightly see why you would object, but the article says "YECs believe that the earth is 6,000 years old", which is true and verifiable.
So in conclusion, if the article needs work, fix it! If the field of YEC needs work, this isn't really a great forum to try and change that. Perhaps a debate page? HelpJazz 10:32, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with and understand your assertion ad populum. Here's my problem: I have a finite amount of life, so I can't afford to spend too much of my precious life energy arguing points with a few stubborn and obstinate people that are well understood by a good many people. I also trust in the intelligence in good well of my fellow human beings.
- Because of this trust, and my understanding of human nature, I don't feel any need to argue a position held by .01% of the experts in a field. I don't have time to study every rock ever cataloged. I trust that others have done so already. Geology is not a small field. Basic geology is taught at every community college in America.
- I can agree to an admission that no one knows when the Earth was made. But I cannot agree that cataclysmic geology is anything more than a fringe position on par with flat-earth society, UFO conspiracy, Moon Conspiracy, alchemy or phrenology or countless other beliefs passionately held by a tiny minority.
- I support the minority's right to think what they want. As an oddity or in the wildly improbably chance that the fringe is correct, I support the expression of the fringe idea in a form that others can access. But I can't see room for the fringe position in a serious discussion.
- But another of your points is well-taken. Maybe I should at last stop wasting time talking here and begin to make my edits. Perhaps there is no argument after all? Everwill 12:36, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
Gantczak's edits
The recent edits by Gantczak (most of these) I consider to be somewhat unclear and not particularly relevant, and propose reverting them. Philip J. Rayment 21:33, 9 February 2009 (EST)


text:
I-O Data presents a new BDXL-capable portable Blu-ray burner
Andy Ruffell / 9 years ago
I-O Data, a Japanese company, has recently revealed their latest portable Blu-ray drive, the BRP-U6XE.
Not only does it supports today's standard BD format, it also supports the new BDXL format, allowing for discs capable of up to 100GB of capacity.
This new product measures 137x154x20mm and connects to your PC through a built-in retractable USB 2.0 cable. Included with the BRP are Corel WinDVD DB3D and Nero Express Essentials.
It's burning capabilities are as follows:
- Single & double layer BD-R at 6X;
- Triple & quadruple layer BD-R (BDXL) at 4X;
- BD-RE at 2X;
- DVD-R/+R & DVD+RW at 8X;
- DVD-R/+R double-layer & DVD-RW at 6X;
- DVD-RAM at 5X;
- CD-R at 24X;
- CD-RW at 16X.
The BRP-U6XE comes with a one-year warranty for a price of approximately $233.


text:
As the name suggests, the 14th century Pele Tower is an integral part of this incredible 21ft long bedroom with its magnificent en-suite bathroom and very own original spiral stone stairway. There is a king size bed and a full size single day bed (with plenty space for another single bed) as well as a sofa, large television and DVD player so a family can stay for an extended break in comfort.
The 2 metre thick walls contain a lovely large window looking out over farmland which was a familiar haunt of the border Reivers. This super room is also much loved by couples who are looking for that special place.
The South Room
Another very spacious, bright and airy room with both a king size and single bed making it a comfortable option either for a family, a couple who like extra space or friends who wish to share a room but not a bed. Plenty space for our wooden cot or even another single bed!
The generous en-suite has a bath and a powerful hand held shower attachment – the best of both worlds. The room is south facing and looks out over the paddock and across farmland. Well stocked hospitality hamper.


text:
Save time, empower your teams and effectively upgrade your processes with access to this practical Communication channel Toolkit and guide. Address common challenges with best-practice templates, step-by-step work plans and maturity diagnostics for any Communication channel related project.
Download the Toolkit and in Three Steps you will be guided from idea to implementation results.
The Toolkit contains the following practical and powerful enablers with new and updated Communication channel specific requirements:
STEP 1: Get your bearings
Start with...
- The latest quick edition of the Communication channel Self Assessment book in PDF containing 49 requirements to perform a quickscan, get an overview and share with stakeholders.
Organized in a data driven improvement cycle RDMAICS (Recognize, Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control and Sustain), check the…
- Example pre-filled Self-Assessment Excel Dashboard to get familiar with results generation
Then find your goals...
STEP 2: Set concrete goals, tasks, dates and numbers you can track
Featuring 834 new and updated case-based questions, organized into seven core areas of process design, this Self-Assessment will help you identify areas in which Communication channel improvements can be made.
Examples; 10 of the 834 standard requirements:
- How to check and ensure sensors, actuators, and communication channels are safe throughout the lifecycle of the vehicle?
- What message design and communication channel(s) are likely to be most effective for the target audience?
- How has the volume of inquiries and associated cost in each communication channel changed?
- How will it be delivered; what communication channels do you have available?
- What communication channels will you use (face-to-face, print, Web)?
- Are communication channels generally free and open?
- Are we changing as fast as the world around us?
- Are different communication channels needed?
- How do we keep the momentum going?
Complete the self assessment, on your own or with a team in a workshop setting. Use the workbook together with the self assessment requirements spreadsheet:
- The workbook is the latest in-depth complete edition of the Communication channel book in PDF containing 834 requirements, which criteria correspond to the criteria in...
Your Communication channel self-assessment dashboard which gives you your dynamically prioritized projects-ready tool and shows your organization exactly what to do next:
- The Self-Assessment Excel Dashboard; with the Communication channel Self-Assessment and Scorecard you will develop a clear picture of which Communication channel areas need attention, which requirements you should focus on and who will be responsible for them:
- Shows your organization instant insight in areas for improvement: Auto generates reports, radar chart for maturity assessment, insights per process and participant and bespoke, ready to use, RACI Matrix
- Gives you a professional Dashboard to guide and perform a thorough Communication channel Self-Assessment
- Is secure: Ensures offline data protection of your Self-Assessment results
- Dynamically prioritized projects-ready RACI Matrix shows your organization exactly what to do next:
STEP 3: Implement, Track, follow up and revise strategy
The outcomes of STEP 2, the self assessment, are the inputs for STEP 3; Start and manage Communication channel projects with the 62 implementation resources:
- 62 step-by-step Communication channel Project Management Form Templates covering over 6000 Communication channel project requirements and success criteria:
Examples; 10 of the check box criteria:
- Probability and Impact Assessment: What are the uncertainties associated with the technology selected for the Communication channel project?
- Variance Analysis: What costs are avoidable if one or more customers are dropped?
- Procurement Audit: In case of decisions not to conclude a procurement or award a contract, were tenderers informed in writing and on a timely basis of those decisions and their grounds?
- Variance Analysis: Does the contractor use objective results, design reviews and tests to trace schedule performance?
- Quality Management Plan: Have Communication channel project management standards and procedures been established and documented?
- Risk Audit: Will an appropriate standard of care be applied to all involved?
- Source Selection Criteria: How should comments received in response to a RFP be handled?
- Project Schedule: Does the condition or event threaten the Communication channel projects objectives in any ways?
- Risk Audit: Do the people have the right combinations of skills?
- Activity Duration Estimates: Do you think many information technology professionals have experience writing RFPs and evaluating proposals for information technology Communication channel projects?
Step-by-step and complete Communication channel Project Management Forms and Templates including check box criteria and templates.
1.0 Initiating Process Group:
- 1.1 Communication channel project Charter
- 1.2 Stakeholder Register
- 1.3 Stakeholder Analysis Matrix
2.0 Planning Process Group:
- 2.1 Communication channel project Management Plan
- 2.2 Scope Management Plan
- 2.3 Requirements Management Plan
- 2.4 Requirements Documentation
- 2.5 Requirements Traceability Matrix
- 2.6 Communication channel project Scope Statement
- 2.7 Assumption and Constraint Log
- 2.8 Work Breakdown Structure
- 2.9 WBS Dictionary
- 2.10 Schedule Management Plan
- 2.11 Activity List
- 2.12 Activity Attributes
- 2.13 Milestone List
- 2.14 Network Diagram
- 2.15 Activity Resource Requirements
- 2.16 Resource Breakdown Structure
- 2.17 Activity Duration Estimates
- 2.18 Duration Estimating Worksheet
- 2.19 Communication channel project Schedule
- 2.20 Cost Management Plan
- 2.21 Activity Cost Estimates
- 2.22 Cost Estimating Worksheet
- 2.23 Cost Baseline
- 2.24 Quality Management Plan
- 2.25 Quality Metrics
- 2.26 Process Improvement Plan
- 2.27 Responsibility Assignment Matrix
- 2.28 Roles and Responsibilities
- 2.29 Human Resource Management Plan
- 2.30 Communications Management Plan
- 2.31 Risk Management Plan
- 2.32 Risk Register
- 2.33 Probability and Impact Assessment
- 2.34 Probability and Impact Matrix
- 2.35 Risk Data Sheet
- 2.36 Procurement Management Plan
- 2.37 Source Selection Criteria
- 2.38 Stakeholder Management Plan
- 2.39 Change Management Plan
3.0 Executing Process Group:
- 3.1 Team Member Status Report
- 3.2 Change Request
- 3.3 Change Log
- 3.4 Decision Log
- 3.5 Quality Audit
- 3.6 Team Directory
- 3.7 Team Operating Agreement
- 3.8 Team Performance Assessment
- 3.9 Team Member Performance Assessment
- 3.10 Issue Log
4.0 Monitoring and Controlling Process Group:
- 4.1 Communication channel project Performance Report
- 4.2 Variance Analysis
- 4.3 Earned Value Status
- 4.4 Risk Audit
- 4.5 Contractor Status Report
- 4.6 Formal Acceptance
5.0 Closing Process Group:
- 5.1 Procurement Audit
- 5.2 Contract Close-Out
- 5.3 Communication channel project or Phase Close-Out
- 5.4 Lessons Learned
With this Three Step process you will have all the tools you need for any Communication channel project with this in-depth Communication channel Toolkit.
In using the Toolkit you will be better able to:
- Diagnose Communication channel projects, initiatives, organizations, businesses and processes using accepted diagnostic standards and practices
- Implement evidence-based best practice strategies aligned with overall goals
- Integrate recent advances in Communication channel and put process design strategies into practice according to best practice guidelines
Defining, designing, creating, and implementing a process to solve a business challenge or meet a business objective is the most valuable role; In EVERY company, organization and department.
Unless you are talking a one-time, single-use project within a business, there should be a process. Whether that process is managed and implemented by humans, AI, or a combination of the two, it needs to be designed by someone with a complex enough perspective to ask the right questions. Someone capable of asking the right questions and step back and say, 'What are we really trying to accomplish here? And is there a different way to look at it?'
This Toolkit empowers people to do just that - whether their title is entrepreneur, manager, consultant, (Vice-)President, CxO etc... - they are the people who rule the future. They are the person who asks the right questions to make Communication channel investments work better.
This Communication channel All-Inclusive Toolkit enables You to be that person.
Includes lifetime updates
Every self assessment comes with Lifetime Updates and Lifetime Free Updated Books. Lifetime Updates is an industry-first feature which allows you to receive verified self assessment updates, ensuring you always have the most accurate information at your fingertips.


text:
Thanks to the tireless efforts of Daniela Capistrano at POC Zine Project, the second issue of the Race Riot compilation zine (2002) is now available as a digital read on Issuu. You can still read the first one too (1997). The introduction to the second issue isn't in my documents, but I did find an earlier iteration, which included these unfinished paragraphs:
Insidiously, we have found ourselves cited at length to provide a bit of "difference," while our critiques of such token gestures have been largely ignored and the relations of exchange that govern the production and circulation of fanzines or other texts and the politics of authorship are evaded. What does it mean for a whitepunkgirl to get more play as a theorist or activist when her critiques are built upon the work of women of color?
I am still so suspicious. I am suspicious of inappropriate assumptions of intimacy, of the valorization of poverty, of the appropriation of terms to construct similarity through equivalencies when material histories would indicate otherwise.
But I have importantly learned patience as a teacher….
I do still have the introduction to the Race Riot Project Directory, originally included in the print version of the second issue. This will be available as a digital zine in 2013, also from the POC Zine Project, with its enormous list of POC zines from the United States, and some shorter lists of Filipino and Southeast Asian zines, but I want to publish the introduction now.
I like making lists, compiling things.
I was sitting in front of my computer, looking over old files, when I decided I needed to do this. Make a list of projects undertaken by people of color, in, around, or on their way out of punk rock (in any of its incarnations, hardcore, indie, grrrl, et cetera). Most of what I already had was left over from a previous list I'd made, but it was both cursory and several years old. I wanted to do something a little different, to make the list itself the point.
I told an Asian American punk girl I was doing this, a casual conversation in a local record store. We run into each other from time to time when our circles overlap, if only for brief moments. She scrunched up her nose and smiled. She doesn't see the point of making this kind of list, because her race has never been an issue.
I never believed that this was going to matter to everybody.
There are at least three stories here, each to explain why I wanted to do this for different reasons.
For one, this is a very partial history, a footnote that we were here. I started reading zines in 1990, so my knowledge only goes so far, as well as my sleuthing skills. Some of the zines and projects listed are no longer around, but I felt it was important to at least note their existence, to recognize the contributions they made – or didn't. (People of color can turn out crappy product, too, you know.) I wanted to create a sort of chronology, to paint a portrait of our involvement, however fleeting. That fleeting nature is a question in and of itself that begs an answer from punk rock hegemony, but I don't pretend to begin to answer it here (in the introduction, at least). I just want to point it out, for now. It's a history that tends toward tokenism and erasure; when most people are asked to name a person of color in the "scene," only a few "big names" come to mind and the rest of us are relegated to amnesiac arrest. You know you've heard it, "There should be more zines by strong Asian women," and you're standing right there, a strong Asian woman who does a zine, amazed at the assured authority of the white boy who thinks he's down. (True story.) So I want to be sure that I'm not an exception, a bizarre anomaly, that there are more instances than are acknowledged.
Another (if related) part of this is about me, wanting to remember, to chronicle my own search for work by other people of color. I wanted a conversation about race in the scene that wasn't dominated by liberal platitudes, romances with exoticism or race traitors, and reactionary "shock value" racism. I needed it if I was going to justify to myself my participation in this scene. A few years ago I eventually edited a compilation zine called Evolution of a Race Riot to share some of the amazing writing and artwork I've found. Along with original writing, I reprinted essays and excerpts from many of the defunct zines below. And three years later I'm working on another issue because I'm still being inspired and still need that inspiration, because I continue to want to have this critical dialogue.
But this is not to redeem punk rock, to provide more tokens for the "see, there are people of color in punk rock, it's not racist" argument. This is rather an indictment of punk rock, for forgetting, for conspiring to forget, for posting unwritten rules for entry into the clubhouse.
After all, what does it mean that I felt this list is even necessary, a record of our participation? It means something when Mabuhay Gardens (San Francisco) is remembered as "just" a famous punk venue and not also a Filipino arts center, or when it is, this vexed convergence of differently positioned subcultural spaces is ignored. Or that I'd never heard of Raul'sin Texas, a bar run by two Chicano brothers and whose willingness to host punk shows resulted in a tribute compilation LP. It means something when I didn't even know V. Vale, an early figure in the Bay Area punk/avant-garde art scene (Search and Destroy, V/Search), is Asian American until I actually met him, face-to-face. I didn't know that an original member of the Go-Gos was a Latina who left the band to protest their move away from their punk rock roots. And it means something when someone shrugs, says race has never been an "issue," because she's never made it one.
It bears asking the question: What is it about punk rock that asks for that kind of erasure? The history of race in punk rock is long, complex, and convoluted, and intimately tied to the histories of gender and sexuality in punk rock as well. (And of course, how punk is conceptualized in Los Angeles suburbs versus metropolitan Manila is bound to be differentially understood and enacted.) No single trajectory of race and punk rock has ever sufficed, and this project won't be able to either. However, this is an effort to make a history and ask critical questions about the issue of remembering and participating – whose "voices" are deemed seminal, important, inspirational? Whose are ignored? What are the contours of the punk rock hierarchy? White boys over colored girls? Bands over fanzines? The West over The Rest? How do we know that what we remember is true? whole? the "real" story? (Answer: we don't.)
Again, this is a partial history and a networking tool. Use it and make your own.


text:
LOS ANGELES - Cyd Charisse, the long-legged Texas beauty who danced with the Ballet Russe as a teenager and starred in MGM musicals with Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, died Tuesday. She was 86.
Charisse was admitted to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center on Monday after suffering an apparent heart attack, said her publicist, Gene Schwam.
She appeared in dramatic films, but her fame came from the Technicolor musicals of the 1940s and 1950s.
Classically trained, she could dance...
Celebrity Deaths by Category
Celebrity Search
Receive email notification about people of national interest.
Years in Review
A look back at those who passed.


text:
Illustrator Tip #12: Transform Pattern
In this simple but very time saving and useful tip, we will see how we can transform pattern fill in Illustrator without transforming the object on which the pattern fill is applied.
For example, if you have a pattern fill applied on a square or rectangle shape like this:
And, if you want to transform the pattern without transforming the square shape itself. Select your shape and go to Object>Transform>Rotate. in the resulting dialog box, uncheck the Object option. keep the Pattern option checked and specify the angle of rotation. Click on preview and you will see the changes as shown in the image below. You can see that the pattern is rotated at 45 degree while keeping the square sitting in its place.
Of course you can do this with other Transform options like, Move, Scale, Shear etc. as well! Likewise you can also choose to transform just the object and not the pattern or you can choose to transform both.
Also, to quickly transform the pattern, hold down the tilde key (~) while dragging the pattern filled shape with move, rotate, scale or shear tool.
You can also transform pattern or object or both from Transform Palette.
Back to 101 Illustrator Tips & Tricks »
Related Articles
Get up to 35 free images from Bigstock
- Complimentary video clips on Bigstock.Get up to 35 videos in a week.
See the list of all Illustrator tutorials.
Learn 101 Illustrator tips and techniques for free.
About The Author: Tony Soh
Hi. I'm the founder of Vector Diary. Illustrator is my passion and I have written numerous tutorials on illustrator helping people learn illustrator. My most popular tutorial on learn illustrator has been a hit. It makes learning illustrator so easy and has benefited more than 20,000 people worldwide. Also, I've revealed some of my secret techniques in the premium tutorials. So don't forget to check it out!


text:
There are several very good film noirs at the Internet Archive. Since I have previously only written about five of them, the latest over a year ago – the "historical noir thriller" The Black Book, which is not exactly a "pure" noir – it is about time for another. The turn has therefore come to the exellent The Scar, originally titled Hollow Triumph.
When John Muller is released from prison, he and his companions decide to rob a casino. The heist goes awry, however, and he is now a wanted man. The casino owner wants to get even. In a stroke of good luck, Muller meets a psychoanalyst who is his doppelgänger, except for a large scar on one cheek. He decides to take over the man's identity in order to disappear from his hunters. But this is a noir. Things are bound to go wrong somehow.
Just like any good example of the genre, this film is ripe with suspense and drama. The minds of most people who populate its black-and-white world are as dark as the dramatic shadows falling across the screen. The actors are really good, too, so even though the plot has some not so brilliant moments, this is not to be missed if you are a fan of the genre.
This film is best enjoyed whenever you need something to make you happy. Even though film noir tend to be pretty downbeat in many ways, they never fail to improve my mood.
The Scar
Download link
Year: 1948
Running time: 1 h 41 min
Director: Steve Sekely
Stars: Paul Henreid
Image quality: Good
Resolution: Medium (640×480)
Sound quality: Good
Best file format: Cinepack (900 M)


text:
David Huffman is a painter whose work has been featured in group exhibitions such as the Studio Museum in Harlem, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco, and elsewhere. He has had solo exhibitions at such galleries as Patricia Sweetow Gallery in San Francisco, The Renaissance in Santa Monica, and Watts Tower Art Center and Jan Baum Gallery in Los Angeles.
Associate Professor, Painting Drawing
Associate Professor, Fine Arts


text:
Treasure Coast Research Park
St. Lucie County is actively sowing the seeds of the future by creating a Research, Education and Development Park (Research Park) in Fort Pierce, Florida. It currently comprised of 356 acres with future additions bringing the total acreage to more than 1,000 acres.
The St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners and the University of Florida collectively created this agriculturally-and-biotechnologically-focused Research Park on Florida's east coast. The county created Treasure Coast Education and Research Development Authority, comprised of local agricultural experts, real estate investors, financial advisors and educators, to help manage and develop the park.
The Research and Biotech Park is anchored by the USDA's 170,000-square-foot Horticultural Research Laboratory and the 90,000-square-foot University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences' Research and Education Center. The Treasure Coast Research Park is home to more than 200 multi-disciplinary researchers, scientists, educators and staff.
The Sunshine Kitchen, a 10,000-square-foot facility, located inside the Research Park, is a professionally equipped, commercial kitchen and research lab designed to help entrepreneurs in the development of commercially viable food ventures.
With over three square miles of land, the park is planned for 3.3 million square feet of research and advanced manufacturing development and 800 acres of agricultural test fields. Since its formation in 2005, the Treasure Coast Education and Research & Development Authority (TCERDA) has guided the planning and operation of the Park.
In recent years, the county has invested millions in state and federal grants to make sure the park has the infrastructure it needs to be shovel ready for expansion. The Research Park is located at off Kings Highway and Pruitt Road in Fort Pierce.
For more information contact TCERDA Coordinator Regina McCants at 772-467-3107 or email@example.com.


text:
I'm always a little unsure of beets. I've had them before, and know they have a very earthy flavor. The problem is, I can never decide if I like that earthy quality or not.
However, since I had some beets on hand, I decided to try them again. This time, I decided to eat them cold, rather than mixed into a hot risotto or steamy stew.
I wanted to use the ricotta called for in the original recipe, but I've forbidden myself from buying any more ricotta until I use up the huge box of cheddar from Cabot. The cheddar worked pretty well, though!
As it turns out, I actually liked this beet salad! The beets really tasted more like carrots. Kind of sweet, with an underlying earthiness.
FYI: I made the mistake of not looking closely at the pictures before we finished off the salad, and the pictures are not so great. Oops!
Roasted Beet Salad
Inspired by Food & Wine's Roasted Beets with Ricotta, Dill and Mint
5 medium beets
1 1/2 c water
2 T olive oil
2 T red wine vinegar
2 tsp chopped dried rosemary
2 tsp chopped dried oregano
2 c spinach
3/4 c shredded cheddar cheese
Preheat the oven to 400*F. Peel the beets and remove their ends. Place the beets and water in a small baking dish, and cover with foil. Bake for 45 minutes, at which point the beets should be tender. Allow to cool, then dice the beets.
In a large bowl, toss the beets with the remaining ingredients. Season to taste with salt and pepper.
How do you feel about beets: love 'em or hate 'em?
FOOD & WINE is giving away a year-long subscription to a lucky reader from Savvy Eats. Click here to enter and read official rules here.
This post is part of a series featuring recipes from the FOOD & WINE archive. As a FOOD & WINE Blogger Correspondent, I was chosen to do four recipes a week from FOOD & WINE. I received a subscription to FOOD & WINE for my participation.


text:
Sun's out, guns out.
Stay well within the UCI's sock height restriction with Pearl Izumi's Men's Elite Low Sock. It features a seamless toe for blister-free riding and a compressive arch for a secure performance fit. ELITE Transfer fibers are highly-moisture wicking, and a mesh forefoot provides excellent ventilation.
3 inch cuff. 69% polyester, 27% nylon, 4% spandex.
Discount Codes are not applicable to Closeouts.
Wears very well. Size tends to run small, order one sizrpe up.
Good socks for a cheap price
Socks comfortable, good fit
Our complete inventory is available at our warehouse store located just of I-205 one exit south of PDX airport.
5741 NE 87th Ave(I-205 exit 23B)Portland, OR 97220
503-342-9986[email protected]
Mon-Sat: 9am - 5pmSunday: Closed
800-445-4790[email protected]
Customer Service HoursMon-Sat: 8am - 5pm PT
Want to save on all your TriSports purchases? Sign up here for exclusive discount offers. 41


text:
Extent and Depth to Top of Basalt and Interbed Hydrogeologic Units, Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington
Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5045
Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Yakama Nation
By: M.A. Jones and J.J. Vaccaro
- More information: USGS Index Page (html)
- Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core
The hydrogeologic framework was delineated for the ground-water flow system of the three basalt formations and two interbeds in the Yakima River Basin, Washington. The basalt units are nearly equivalent to the Saddle Mountains, Wanapum, and Grande Ronde. The two major interbed units between the basalt formations generally are referred to as the Mabton and Vantage. The basalt formations are a productive source of ground-water for the Yakima River Basin. The Grande Ronde unit comprises the largest area in the Yakima River Basin aquifer system. This unit encompasses an area of about 5,390 mi2 and ranges in altitude from 6,900 ft, where it is exposed at land surface, to a depth of 2,800 ft below land surface. The Wanapum unit encompasses an area of 3,450 mi2 and ranges in altitude from 5,680 ft, where exposed at land surface, to a depth of 2,050 ft below land surface. The Saddle Mountains unit, the least extensive, encompasses an area of 2,290 mi2 and ranges from 4,290 ft, where exposed at the surface, to a depth of 1,840 ft below land surface.
Study Area
Additional publication details
|Publication type
|Publication Subtype
|USGS Numbered Series
|Extent and Depth to Top of Basalt and Interbed Hydrogeologic Units, Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington
|Series title
|Scientific Investigations Report
|Series number
|Year Published
|Geological Survey (U.S.)
|Contributing office(s)
|Washington Water Science Center
|Report: vi, 23 p.; 5 Plates: each 30 x 36 inches
|Additional Online Files (Y/N)
|Google Analytic Metrics
|Metrics page


text:
Self Catering in Ness, Isle of Lewis
A spacious detached 2 storey house in a beautiful situation on North Lewis. Panoramic views to the North & West over the Atlantic Ocean and North Minch. The house is situated in lands traditionally known to be home to the Morrison's of Ness.
Accommodation comprises on the ground floor front & rear entrance porches, hallway, sitting room, day room, fitted kitchen with large dining area suitable for 8 persons. There are a two double bedrooms and king size bedroom upstairs off a common landing.
Having recently been refurbished the property is double glazed and heated by oil fired central heating. Extensive gardens surround the property making this an ideal family holiday home.


text:
Congratulations Class 1704
International Air and Hospitality Academy is pleased to announce the graduation of Airline/Travel Specialist class 1704. Congratulations on completing another step in your journey. Class 1704 graduated on August 30, 2017 in Vancouver, Washington. Students come to International Air Academy to learn the skills necessary to land a position in the airline industry. In Class 1704, 7 of the 11 graduates already had job offers when they graduated and the others will have positions soon. Congratulations!


text: This post originally appeared on the Dallas Socials blog. By Betsy Mitchell Public transportation is the way to go. Over the years, Dallas has become more and more public transportation friendly. We still have a long way to go til we are able to get everywhere without a car but we're heading in the... Read Story »


text: Dr. Leslie Pitner has put together the top team in orthodontics in the Carolinas! Every person at Pitner Orthodontics has a passion for helping you to achieve your best smile while enjoying a great time in our office. From the day you first open the door to our practice to the day your treatment is complete, you will be greeted as a friend and spend time with a team of people dedicated to making your day better. From making your appointments to tracking down all of your insurance benefits, our office staff is focused on making the process as smooth and convenient as possible. Our clinical staff has over 50 years of experience (and no – we aren't that old!). We take pride in making every visit easy and fun.