This link has not only a discussion of microclimates but pictures and graphs to to illustrate the effect.
If you really want to numb your mind you could read this research paper which goes into a whole bunch of details relating to microclimates.
The above should get you started. I didn't provide the proverbial link to a Wiki article since there are enough of other sources to provide the same information.
but wouldn't it be a lot better if everyone had access to fiber, cable, or something else along those lines?
If all someone does is check their email and visit less than 10 sites, what benefit can they gain by going from 56K to a high-speed connection? They certainly wouldn't be utilizing the bandwidth and gaining those extra few seconds would probably not be worth it to these individuals.
Not everyone has to have the latest and greatest. Besides, unless the price of the high-speed line is the same as the current price for 56K (roughly $20/month), it will be very difficult to convince the average user to switch.
If you're not one of those people who needs to download ISOs or movies or plays online, ping-sensitive games, a dial-up line does what is needed. Sure, getting updates for your Windows box or updates for other software (Adobe, FF, etc) will take a bit longer but these are the same people who don't care that it takes longer.
Considering very recent history, it would appear that that assertion is an apt one.
Consider also that, on the whole, those who would claim to be conservative are for a stronger military and a greater use of that military whereas those who claim to be liberal are for a smaller military and less overall use of said force.
These are just generalizations but they do tend to be accurate.
When you consider Fast Eddy is from Philly, it's no wonder he'll do everything in his power to keep bailing as fast he can to keep the city afloat.
Let's not forget the tons of money that are thrown to the city (and Pittsburgh) every year to cover up the massive budget deficts.
While we're on the subject of subsidizing, it's almost a given that when government subsidizes the construction of sports stadiums, the revenue generated over the years from those stadiums will not equal or exceed the original cost. In other words, it's a money losing proposition.
Lest anyone think it's a strictly Democratic issue (heavy subsidization) it should be noted that former Governor Tom Ridge (also former head of Homeland Security) gave millions of taxpayer dollars to Pittsburgh to build their new stadium as well sending millions to Philadelphia to keep the Kvaerner shipyard open and saving a whopping 100 jobs.
No, I'm not bitter at the incompetence of our elected leaders. Really I'm not. After all, when they can raise our taxes, cut services, give themselves a pay raise AND use legal bribery to keep themselves in power, why would I be bitter.
(Sorry for the offtopic rant. Our state budget was just passed and everything I said is true including the legal bribery part.)
Scary when you think how many of these people are in authority positions!
You mean like the CIO of the department I work in that let a several thousand dollar, one-time-only grant from the Federal government expire? A grant which could have been used to buy a new server for a specific agency but who will now have to budget for the new server?
LOL! I know the feeling. If you look at my journal and ignore the stories that I had submitted, were rejected but posted hours or days later by someone else, you'll see I have the same situation.
Particularly the one about the internal structure of T. Rex bones.
One has to wonder if companies such as Microsoft do things like this intentionally or, as the comment in the article indicated, simply miss some things in the wash?
Either way it will certainly feed the gnashing-of-teeth syndrome that occurs anytime the words 'Microsoft' and 'spyware' are uttered in the same sentence.
No complete fossil lines delineating a full evolutionary climb crossing species lines will be found.
One of many false arguments that ID supporters throw out. There will never be a complete fossil lineage for any creature because you would have to have tens of thousands of skeletal remains to show every permutation that occured. An impossibility.
Instead, what you do have are fossils which show various steps along the way from one creature to the next. We know they are related, in the case of Rex and birds, because of the similarities in the skeletal structure. As I said previously, all it takes is one proof for a theory to be considered valid. That has been done.
Besides, I don't hear anyone complaining about Einsteins theories of General or Special Relativity because they don't delineate every minutae of how things work.
Evidence of Massive WorldWide catastrophe can be seen in the geological record.
Yeah, so? What does that have to do with a supreme being? Meteroids (the term for a meteor still in space) slam into the Earth every day. Most are small dust particles but every so often a slightly larger one comes along. The really big one (or ones as is now being considered) comes along once every few million years.
Remember a decade or so ago when a comet slammed into Jupiter? Stuff happens. Unless you're saying that your supreme being deliberately killed off most of the planets creatures so it could start with a clean slate.
Fossil record will show "recent" forms and "ancient forms" mixed together. Most forms present today will be present in most all strata including ancient strata.
I call bullshit. There has never been any such discovery of old and new forms being mixed together. If there has been such mixing it is only due to the incompetence of those doing the excavating. It is impossible, outside of an earthquake, for strata to be mixed. Next time you're out driving and the road has been cut through a hillside or mountain, take a look at the strata. Don't see any mixing, do you?
Nothing you have said offers any proof any supreme being having a hand in the way creatures evolve. In fact, nothing you have said is even testable other than the last part which is patently false to being with.
What it all comes down to is that ID is a crackpot theory along the lines of astrology, flat earth, the moon made of green cheese and lighting being the work a god (or gods if you follow Norse mythology). It is impossible to test for a supreme being. ID is not a theory and does not belong in the annals of science. Philosophy maybe but certainly not science.
They don't of course form definitive proof. They do however offer partial corroborating evidence of Creation.
No they don't. Nothing you've presented leads to that conclusion. You're just trying to make facts fit your theory when it should be the other way round. You make predictions and examine the evidence.
My only point is "don't call it crackpot just because it's not your personal belief.
This isn't about beliefs. It's about looking at the evidence and proving or disproving predictions. So far all the evidence leads to the conclusion that Darwin was correct.
This nonsense reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Messenger: Joan of Arc' (played by Mila Jovovich) where Dustin Hoffman plays Joans conscience. When Joan talks about how her sword was a sign from God, Dustin asks her if she's sure because there are numerous ways for the sword to have gotten where it was (in the field).
It could have fallen from a horsemans side as he rode through the area, two men could have fought with one losing his sword and dying, a man could have running through the area and to lessen his load tossed it aside. Dustin then says that that there is the possibility it could have been the inexplicable event of a man walking through and simply tossing the sword a
There are three parts to a theory: observation, prediction and testing. ID only meets one of the three; observation.
ID does not make any testable predictions (how do you test for a supreme being?) and as a result cannot be considered a theory. In fact, those who support ID go out of their way to show the flaws of Darwins theory but never show why ID is better.
It's not about logic. It's about the scientific process which requires facts to validate or invalidate a theory. No such proof is ever given by the ID side.
This whole argument is useless since Darwins theory has been shown to be the correct one thanks to both horses and birds. In both cases these animals evolved from other animals. In the case of horses the fossil evidence (see, there's that proof I'm talking about) shows that horses were not always horses. They are descended from creatures roughly the size of a large dog and can in no way be considered a horse.
As far as birds are concerned the proof, while not absolute, is all but confirmed especially in light of this article (which was rejected for submission) which describes how the bone of a T. Rex was examined and found to have a similar structure to only one living relative: female birds who had just ovulated.
Combine the above information with the overall skeletal structure of birds with those of T. Rex (and other dinosaurs), throw in archaeopteryx and you have another link in the chain.
Remember, nowhere does Darwin say that all creatures must have evolved from other forms. He only says that creatures may evolve. Since both horses, and to a large extent, birds have been shown to have evolved from other creatures, the theory has been proven to be correct. Even leaving out birds gives one such proof of the theory and one is all you need.
The issue isn't about using logic, it's about people wanting to believe that somehow we're unique. That there is a reason for our existence. The idea that we're born, live and die just like the billions of other creatures on this planet is too much for their egos to take. They need to find a reason for their existence. If that reason is religion, so be it. Just don't try to masquerade religion for science.
A crackpot theory is typically believed by one or two people.
Except in the case of Intelligent Design/Creationism in which millions of Christians with stupid amounts of money are trying to develop a cottage industry of substituing faith for facts.
Ya know, I was thinking about this decision today (rather than doing actual work) and I realized something: this is actually a conservative decision because it represents states rights. Hear me out on this.
For the longest time you have probably heard the conservatives in the country talking about how the federal government is imposing too many rules and regulations on states and how this is a bad thing.
This decision is a victory (if you can call it that) for states rights because the court ruled that states have control over their own domain (no Seinfeld jokes thank you). It is the states who can decide who can build what and under what circumstances.
In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.
In essence, the conservatives of the country got what they've asking for: limited federal intrusion onto the right of a state to conduct its affairs.
While I understand the logic of the court I don't agree with the decision. Even allowing that the people will be fairly compensated for their home and land (don't bet on it) and that they have had their due process of law (as required by the 5th Amendment) this ruling will come back to haunt the justices and everyone else.
My diatribe was aimed at those who want to consider Intelligent Design/Creationism alongside Darwins theory of Natural Selection. Apparently the part about testing what a theory proposes escapes them.
Yes, you are correct. I confused General and Special Relativity. My apologies. Good thing I don't have a geek card or it would be taken away for such an oversight.
Regardless, I still think it's cool that bodies in space can change space itself. Opens up interesting possibilities.
it's only a theory, not a fact. As such I demand that schools teach that it is tiny demons which are causing the effects we are seeing.
My theory is just as credible as yours since it's only a theory and not a fact.
Ok, now that that diatribe is over, what's truly interesting is not that what Einstein proposed 100 years ago is still being studied and restudied, it's that one portion of it was recently confirmed. Frame dragging was only confirmed last year.
Certainly other parts have been verified (relative time for example) but this portion, frame dragging, puts things in a whole new light. We're not just bodies in space. Instead, are bodies are changing the space around us!
Personally, I don't download movies, or music, or anything else (except purchases from iTunes, or artist-approved concerts via Bittorrent) because I believe it's stealing.
So, is anyone here going to jump around and yell at him because he believes that taking something without paying for it is stealing?
For me it has gotten to the point where I actually mute the TV during station breaks
I'm glad you said that. I was talking with my parents not too long ago and mentioned that when commercials come on I do the same thing. I usually put away some dishes if they're clean and dry or put the dirty dishes in the sink for the next commercial break where I start to clean some of them.
I might also do some stretching or finger pushups (great exercise) or even, gasp!, play with my cat who's alone all day.
I once told some folks on IRC that advertisers must hate me. I mute their commercials, I fast forward through commercials, I turn down the volume on my radio when they're on and I sort through my sunday paper and remove all the ad cruft first before I start reading.
And no Diehl Motors, I don't give a shit about your loud, obnoxious shitty car dealership. Stop paying for every other spot! (You too Comcast. I don't give a shit about your pathetic CN8 shit confiscating a 1/4 of every hour of CNN Headline News.)
Yeah, the pics aren't the best. Robin looks much better on tv as does Heidi. Veronica, well, she's asian (yes, despite the name) and I have a thing for asians.
Betty is abslutely outstanding on tv. Again the picture doesn't do her justice.
Sometime take a stop by CNN in the early morning (around 6 am EST, -5 GMT) and you'll see Robin or Christi. Betty is on on the weekends as is Veronica. Heidi they keep moving around. Sometimes in the morning hours when I'm at work, other times at night. Sometimes even on the weekends.
I do have to agree with you that Juliet and Kiran are hot. Juliet has a great pair of legs and wears her skirts just the right length to show them off.
I wasn't trying to disagree with you about the Fox females. Just providing links to those that I regularly see on CNN (though I wish the pics were better).
Just yesterday they replayed the speech of the final ultimatum to Saddam and it did NOT focus on WMDs. It stated that his days of tyranny and murder were over and they had 48 hours to leave Iraq.\
That's because Bush knew there were no weapons there. Bush changed the reasoning for invading and now occupying Iraq several times. First was the link to 9/11 but when that didn't pan out it was the weapons. Then it was blocking inspections (which Saddam wasn't. The inspectors left because of Bushs march to war). Then it was because of the things Saddam had done in the past (with a wink and nod from the U.S.). Then it was to free the Iraqi people and now we're at 'to spread freedom and democracy'.
Liberals also conveniently forget that the entire world was behind a resolution to his regime and they all thought there were WMDs.
False. The whole world was not behind the resolution nor did they all think there were wmds. In fact, even when the UN inspectors who were on the ground asked for the 'evidence' that the White House had of supposed wmds, every single piece proved to be false. There were no weapons or evidence of weapons at any site the White House pointed to.
Further, Scott Ritter and others, people who were directly involved with the inspections, stated that there were no wmds and were immediately singled out for the propoganda machine to try and discredit them.
The fact that you keep using the word liberal shows your bias. There are many of us true conservatives who didn't believe Bush and certainly do not approve of his policies. You aren't by chance a shill for Fox are you? After all, their people, commentators and reporters alike, like to throw out the word liberal as a means of denigration but which only goes to show how biased they are.
"Opera is configured by default to identify itself as Internet Explorer' "
And whose fault is that? Maybe if you would default your browser to itself rather than trying to pass itself off as someone else the statistics would show an even deeper drop in IEs marketshare and an increase in your share.
Yeah, I guess actually getting news at it happens without having to wait for the spin is a bad thing.
After all, the CNN article had quotes from the people actually running the project whereas the FOX article had some nebulous quotes from various people in Russia who couldn't figure out where the sail might be.
Oh, and in case you're going to think about using some quote about how FOX is beating CNN in the ratings, just remember, FOXs ratings are based on those who happen to watch FOX during any given mintue. CNNs cume rating still blows FOX out of the water.
Games can easily be programmed in java. I remember when that was all you could find on the web. Nice, simple, easy to play games based on java.
Now everyone thinks that Flash is the way to go because they can throw in more eye candy. Apparently the numerous comments on game playability that come up when talking about game design only apply to console or pc games but not Flash games.
While yes, I do dislike Flash, I have seen one or two pages which use it in a great manner to enhance. Unfortuantely the other 5 billion pages out there which try to use Flash fail miserably.
Want another site that requires one to use Flash? The New York Olympic committes bid for the 2012 Olympics. Why is Flash needed? Other than moving pictures what benefit is there to using Flash over dynamic web pages? None. It's just an excuse to use Flash for the eye candy rather than putting your best forward as to why New York should be chosen.
I'm going on the presumption that the KISS principle isn't in the vocabularies of many web designers nowadays.
I chose the Arts and Entertainment section and scrolled down a bit until I saw a link about online games. Curiousity got me when I saw this in the description:
Choices are presented as icons on the home page (no names, no explanations) but this only heightens the joy of discovery.
So I clicked on the link and what did I see? A site which uses nothing but Flash! What a complete and utter waste of 5 seconds.
Apparently Flash is the new blink tag.
The site in question was orisinal.com in case anyone was wondering.
Slashdot Mirror
CNN has an article which talks about the same phenomenon.
This link has not only a discussion of microclimates but pictures and graphs to to illustrate the effect.
If you really want to numb your mind you could read this research paper which goes into a whole bunch of details relating to microclimates.
The above should get you started. I didn't provide the proverbial link to a Wiki article since there are enough of other sources to provide the same information.
If all someone does is check their email and visit less than 10 sites, what benefit can they gain by going from 56K to a high-speed connection? They certainly wouldn't be utilizing the bandwidth and gaining those extra few seconds would probably not be worth it to these individuals.
Not everyone has to have the latest and greatest. Besides, unless the price of the high-speed line is the same as the current price for 56K (roughly $20/month), it will be very difficult to convince the average user to switch.
If you're not one of those people who needs to download ISOs or movies or plays online, ping-sensitive games, a dial-up line does what is needed. Sure, getting updates for your Windows box or updates for other software (Adobe, FF, etc) will take a bit longer but these are the same people who don't care that it takes longer.
Considering very recent history, it would appear that that assertion is an apt one.
Consider also that, on the whole, those who would claim to be conservative are for a stronger military and a greater use of that military whereas those who claim to be liberal are for a smaller military and less overall use of said force.
These are just generalizations but they do tend to be accurate.
When you consider Fast Eddy is from Philly, it's no wonder he'll do everything in his power to keep bailing as fast he can to keep the city afloat.
Let's not forget the tons of money that are thrown to the city (and Pittsburgh) every year to cover up the massive budget deficts.
While we're on the subject of subsidizing, it's almost a given that when government subsidizes the construction of sports stadiums, the revenue generated over the years from those stadiums will not equal or exceed the original cost. In other words, it's a money losing proposition.
Lest anyone think it's a strictly Democratic issue (heavy subsidization) it should be noted that former Governor Tom Ridge (also former head of Homeland Security) gave millions of taxpayer dollars to Pittsburgh to build their new stadium as well sending millions to Philadelphia to keep the Kvaerner shipyard open and saving a whopping 100 jobs.
No, I'm not bitter at the incompetence of our elected leaders. Really I'm not. After all, when they can raise our taxes, cut services, give themselves a pay raise AND use legal bribery to keep themselves in power, why would I be bitter.
(Sorry for the offtopic rant. Our state budget was just passed and everything I said is true including the legal bribery part.)
You mean like the CIO of the department I work in that let a several thousand dollar, one-time-only grant from the Federal government expire? A grant which could have been used to buy a new server for a specific agency but who will now have to budget for the new server?
People like that?
LOL! I know the feeling. If you look at my journal and ignore the stories that I had submitted, were rejected but posted hours or days later by someone else, you'll see I have the same situation.
:)
Particularly the one about the internal structure of T. Rex bones.
But like you, no grousing.
Interesting how the same story can be submitted and accepted under two different topics.
One has to wonder if companies such as Microsoft do things like this intentionally or, as the comment in the article indicated, simply miss some things in the wash?
Either way it will certainly feed the gnashing-of-teeth syndrome that occurs anytime the words 'Microsoft' and 'spyware' are uttered in the same sentence.
One of many false arguments that ID supporters throw out. There will never be a complete fossil lineage for any creature because you would have to have tens of thousands of skeletal remains to show every permutation that occured. An impossibility.
Instead, what you do have are fossils which show various steps along the way from one creature to the next. We know they are related, in the case of Rex and birds, because of the similarities in the skeletal structure. As I said previously, all it takes is one proof for a theory to be considered valid. That has been done.
Besides, I don't hear anyone complaining about Einsteins theories of General or Special Relativity because they don't delineate every minutae of how things work.
Evidence of Massive WorldWide catastrophe can be seen in the geological record.
Yeah, so? What does that have to do with a supreme being? Meteroids (the term for a meteor still in space) slam into the Earth every day. Most are small dust particles but every so often a slightly larger one comes along. The really big one (or ones as is now being considered) comes along once every few million years.
Remember a decade or so ago when a comet slammed into Jupiter? Stuff happens. Unless you're saying that your supreme being deliberately killed off most of the planets creatures so it could start with a clean slate.
Fossil record will show "recent" forms and "ancient forms" mixed together. Most forms present today will be present in most all strata including ancient strata.
I call bullshit. There has never been any such discovery of old and new forms being mixed together. If there has been such mixing it is only due to the incompetence of those doing the excavating. It is impossible, outside of an earthquake, for strata to be mixed. Next time you're out driving and the road has been cut through a hillside or mountain, take a look at the strata. Don't see any mixing, do you?
Nothing you have said offers any proof any supreme being having a hand in the way creatures evolve. In fact, nothing you have said is even testable other than the last part which is patently false to being with.
What it all comes down to is that ID is a crackpot theory along the lines of astrology, flat earth, the moon made of green cheese and lighting being the work a god (or gods if you follow Norse mythology). It is impossible to test for a supreme being. ID is not a theory and does not belong in the annals of science. Philosophy maybe but certainly not science.
They don't of course form definitive proof. They do however offer partial corroborating evidence of Creation.
No they don't. Nothing you've presented leads to that conclusion. You're just trying to make facts fit your theory when it should be the other way round. You make predictions and examine the evidence.
My only point is "don't call it crackpot just because it's not your personal belief.
This isn't about beliefs. It's about looking at the evidence and proving or disproving predictions. So far all the evidence leads to the conclusion that Darwin was correct.
This nonsense reminds me of the scene in the movie 'Messenger: Joan of Arc' (played by Mila Jovovich) where Dustin Hoffman plays Joans conscience. When Joan talks about how her sword was a sign from God, Dustin asks her if she's sure because there are numerous ways for the sword to have gotten where it was (in the field).
It could have fallen from a horsemans side as he rode through the area, two men could have fought with one losing his sword and dying, a man could have running through the area and to lessen his load tossed it aside. Dustin then says that that there is the possibility it could have been the inexplicable event of a man walking through and simply tossing the sword a
ID does not make any testable predictions (how do you test for a supreme being?) and as a result cannot be considered a theory. In fact, those who support ID go out of their way to show the flaws of Darwins theory but never show why ID is better.
It's not about logic. It's about the scientific process which requires facts to validate or invalidate a theory. No such proof is ever given by the ID side.
This whole argument is useless since Darwins theory has been shown to be the correct one thanks to both horses and birds. In both cases these animals evolved from other animals. In the case of horses the fossil evidence (see, there's that proof I'm talking about) shows that horses were not always horses. They are descended from creatures roughly the size of a large dog and can in no way be considered a horse.
As far as birds are concerned the proof, while not absolute, is all but confirmed especially in light of this article (which was rejected for submission) which describes how the bone of a T. Rex was examined and found to have a similar structure to only one living relative: female birds who had just ovulated.
Combine the above information with the overall skeletal structure of birds with those of T. Rex (and other dinosaurs), throw in archaeopteryx and you have another link in the chain.
Remember, nowhere does Darwin say that all creatures must have evolved from other forms. He only says that creatures may evolve. Since both horses, and to a large extent, birds have been shown to have evolved from other creatures, the theory has been proven to be correct. Even leaving out birds gives one such proof of the theory and one is all you need.
The issue isn't about using logic, it's about people wanting to believe that somehow we're unique. That there is a reason for our existence. The idea that we're born, live and die just like the billions of other creatures on this planet is too much for their egos to take. They need to find a reason for their existence. If that reason is religion, so be it. Just don't try to masquerade religion for science.
Except in the case of Intelligent Design/Creationism in which millions of Christians with stupid amounts of money are trying to develop a cottage industry of substituing faith for facts.
Ya know, I was thinking about this decision today (rather than doing actual work) and I realized something: this is actually a conservative decision because it represents states rights. Hear me out on this.
For the longest time you have probably heard the conservatives in the country talking about how the federal government is imposing too many rules and regulations on states and how this is a bad thing.
This decision is a victory (if you can call it that) for states rights because the court ruled that states have control over their own domain (no Seinfeld jokes thank you). It is the states who can decide who can build what and under what circumstances.
In this case the state decided that they could make more money buy having a private business on property on which citizens now reside.
In essence, the conservatives of the country got what they've asking for: limited federal intrusion onto the right of a state to conduct its affairs.
While I understand the logic of the court I don't agree with the decision. Even allowing that the people will be fairly compensated for their home and land (don't bet on it) and that they have had their due process of law (as required by the 5th Amendment) this ruling will come back to haunt the justices and everyone else.
My diatribe was aimed at those who want to consider Intelligent Design/Creationism alongside Darwins theory of Natural Selection. Apparently the part about testing what a theory proposes escapes them.
Yes, you are correct. I confused General and Special Relativity. My apologies. Good thing I don't have a geek card or it would be taken away for such an oversight.
Regardless, I still think it's cool that bodies in space can change space itself. Opens up interesting possibilities.
My theory is just as credible as yours since it's only a theory and not a fact.
Ok, now that that diatribe is over, what's truly interesting is not that what Einstein proposed 100 years ago is still being studied and restudied, it's that one portion of it was recently confirmed. Frame dragging was only confirmed last year.
Certainly other parts have been verified (relative time for example) but this portion, frame dragging, puts things in a whole new light. We're not just bodies in space. Instead, are bodies are changing the space around us!
a) a sense of humor
b) an understanding of what sarcasm is
c) any idea of what they're doing
Unfortunately we're stuck with the current system until the bad mods can somehow be weeded out. Meta moderating doesn't seem to be doing the trick
as if millions of pcs suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
So, is anyone here going to jump around and yell at him because he believes that taking something without paying for it is stealing?
Now, be good little whiners and mod me down.
I'm glad you said that. I was talking with my parents not too long ago and mentioned that when commercials come on I do the same thing. I usually put away some dishes if they're clean and dry or put the dirty dishes in the sink for the next commercial break where I start to clean some of them.
I might also do some stretching or finger pushups (great exercise) or even, gasp!, play with my cat who's alone all day.
I once told some folks on IRC that advertisers must hate me. I mute their commercials, I fast forward through commercials, I turn down the volume on my radio when they're on and I sort through my sunday paper and remove all the ad cruft first before I start reading.
And no Diehl Motors, I don't give a shit about your loud, obnoxious shitty car dealership. Stop paying for every other spot! (You too Comcast. I don't give a shit about your pathetic CN8 shit confiscating a 1/4 of every hour of CNN Headline News.)
Yeah, the pics aren't the best. Robin looks much better on tv as does Heidi. Veronica, well, she's asian (yes, despite the name) and I have a thing for asians.
Betty is abslutely outstanding on tv. Again the picture doesn't do her justice.
Sometime take a stop by CNN in the early morning (around 6 am EST, -5 GMT) and you'll see Robin or Christi. Betty is on on the weekends as is Veronica. Heidi they keep moving around. Sometimes in the morning hours when I'm at work, other times at night. Sometimes even on the weekends.
I do have to agree with you that Juliet and Kiran are hot. Juliet has a great pair of legs and wears her skirts just the right length to show them off.
I wasn't trying to disagree with you about the Fox females. Just providing links to those that I regularly see on CNN (though I wish the pics were better).
That's because Bush knew there were no weapons there. Bush changed the reasoning for invading and now occupying Iraq several times. First was the link to 9/11 but when that didn't pan out it was the weapons. Then it was blocking inspections (which Saddam wasn't. The inspectors left because of Bushs march to war). Then it was because of the things Saddam had done in the past (with a wink and nod from the U.S.). Then it was to free the Iraqi people and now we're at 'to spread freedom and democracy'.
Liberals also conveniently forget that the entire world was behind a resolution to his regime and they all thought there were WMDs.
False. The whole world was not behind the resolution nor did they all think there were wmds. In fact, even when the UN inspectors who were on the ground asked for the 'evidence' that the White House had of supposed wmds, every single piece proved to be false. There were no weapons or evidence of weapons at any site the White House pointed to.
Further, Scott Ritter and others, people who were directly involved with the inspections, stated that there were no wmds and were immediately singled out for the propoganda machine to try and discredit them.
The fact that you keep using the word liberal shows your bias. There are many of us true conservatives who didn't believe Bush and certainly do not approve of his policies. You aren't by chance a shill for Fox are you? After all, their people, commentators and reporters alike, like to throw out the word liberal as a means of denigration but which only goes to show how biased they are.
And whose fault is that? Maybe if you would default your browser to itself rather than trying to pass itself off as someone else the statistics would show an even deeper drop in IEs marketshare and an increase in your share.
Robin Meade
Christi Paul
Veronica De La Cruz
Heidi Collins
Betty Nguyen
Sibila Vargas
Kyra Phillips
I would have liked to have included Sumi Das but I can't find a decent picture of her.
Yeah, I guess actually getting news at it happens without having to wait for the spin is a bad thing.
After all, the CNN article had quotes from the people actually running the project whereas the FOX article had some nebulous quotes from various people in Russia who couldn't figure out where the sail might be.
Oh, and in case you're going to think about using some quote about how FOX is beating CNN in the ratings, just remember, FOXs ratings are based on those who happen to watch FOX during any given mintue. CNNs cume rating still blows FOX out of the water.
Now everyone thinks that Flash is the way to go because they can throw in more eye candy. Apparently the numerous comments on game playability that come up when talking about game design only apply to console or pc games but not Flash games.
While yes, I do dislike Flash, I have seen one or two pages which use it in a great manner to enhance. Unfortuantely the other 5 billion pages out there which try to use Flash fail miserably.
Want another site that requires one to use Flash? The New York Olympic committes bid for the 2012 Olympics. Why is Flash needed? Other than moving pictures what benefit is there to using Flash over dynamic web pages? None. It's just an excuse to use Flash for the eye candy rather than putting your best forward as to why New York should be chosen.
I'm going on the presumption that the KISS principle isn't in the vocabularies of many web designers nowadays.
Choices are presented as icons on the home page (no names, no explanations) but this only heightens the joy of discovery.
So I clicked on the link and what did I see? A site which uses nothing but Flash! What a complete and utter waste of 5 seconds.
Apparently Flash is the new blink tag.
The site in question was orisinal.com in case anyone was wondering.