Not in the women's uneven bars. In that case, China gave a substandard performance but ended up tying the USA, and getting the gold out of a technicality. No way was that deserved.
How do you qualify your "substandard performance" assessment? Are you an Olympic level judge who was present to watch and determine? The final scores they received were tied, but those scores are generated by several bits of data. When a tie happens, there are explicit rules followed to determine who is the winner. Those rules were followed. All of the coaches (US included) looked at the tie breaker and agreed that it followed the rules.
Samantha Peszek (17)
Ivana Hong (16)
Shayla Worley (16)
Shawn Johnson (16)
I'm glad that I "generally don't see" 3 out of the 7 US gymnasts in that age range. I'm also glad that I "generally don't see" 19 year old Nastia Liukin win 5 medals in this Olympics. 5 medals being tied for the largest number of medals won in a single Olympics by a female gymnast (tied with the like of Mary Lou Retton).
My concern isn't with the IOC, my concern is with google changing history.
What?! Are you high? No, seriously. Are you high? Google didn't change history. Their systems noticed the file had changed and updated their index. The only reason Baidu still has the older version is because Google updates their data more often.
Seriously, how in the hell do you attribute wrong-doing to Google here? You really need drink some different Kool-aid.
Please show me where in this article that says that Obama wishes to execute babies? THAT is why you are a troll. All the stuff you are spewing are incendiary lies at worst and unfounded rumor at best.
... because if someone is suddenly filtering his mail for him, perhaps they are filtering his good email too. Unexplained, drastic changes in traffic are a bad thing.
In other words, they're the only political organization who disagree with the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" rhetoric coming from the Demopublicans.
Show me where the Democrats are saying this.
Worrying about your neighbor's freedom because you think your freedoms are next up on the chopping block is a feature, not a bug.
You should reread what I said and tell me where it was bad to protect other people's freedoms based on selfish motivations. You'll have to reread it a lot, because it isn't there.
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc, all of these show some conservative content and some liberal content. Regardless of political leaning, the information found on those networks is generally closer to correct (not correct, but closer) than found on Fox News. Fox News doesn't even have liberal content, it's all straight-up conservative and it's full of unfounded information.
The Pew Research foundation has found on several occasions that Fox News watchers are uninformed and less educated while people who watch/read The Daily Show or the New York Times are more informed and more educated.
A Libertarian cares about him/her/itself. Libertarians aren't going to be upset when something wrong is happening to me, they are going to upset because that wrong thing might happen to them.
However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know." which pretty much say your conclusion is impossible to blame on the news outlet like your attempting to.
You've mistaken the word "format" for the word "content."
The link YOU provided offers the analysis that the level of education is more of a correlation of informativeness then their news source. Again, breaking your claim of Fox News being a nefarious as a bad news site.
No, it doesn't change that Fox News is a bad news site. What this particular section explains is that educated people more often choose The Daily Show and Colbert Report and uneducated people more often choose Fox News.
You apparently want to ignore this part of the research...
For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.
A college education isn't about factions of Islam or about the identify of Scooter Libby (unless your field of study happens to be those two things). So, having a graduate degree doesn't inherently fill you with knowledge of current events. You have to seek it out. The people who seek knowledge from The Daily Show and major newspaper websites are MORE informed than people who seek knowledge from Fox News.
You really like to use this "critical thinking hat" phrase over and over, but it's just your way of discounting things with which you disagree.
It says nothing about the lack of any other sources ability or credibility.
I guess you are the one who didn't read it. It explicitly says that the higher knowledge people use multiple news sources in addition to their primary news source (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report)
BTW, when you mention Fox News as a bad site for news, I'm willing to bet that your more misinformed then anyone who has ever viewed fox news. There hasn't been any studies claiming Fox news puts out erroneous information...
How about Pew Research Study which found that people who watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report are far more informed than the people who watch Fox News?
They found that 54% of the people polled who watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report score in the high-knowledge bracket while only 35% of Fox News watchers did.
I guess you didn't think there was a study because you watch Fox News. Oh snap.
No, it's not. When will people learn? ONE of the top TEN things they've learned in running a successful business is "Do good. Don't be evil."
It's not their motto, and you're missing half of it.
You'll also notice that all new content is always end-game.
No, I won't notice that, because it's not true. They added a great deal of content in Dustwallow Marsh which is a 30s zone.
I honestly feel that WoW doesn't actually start until you reach level 70.
1-69 is the tutorial.
70 is WoW.
Then you missed a hell of a great game. You should go back and play it.
This "WoW starts at 70" attitude is just as bad as the "grinding at 70 is stupid" attitude. I enjoyed experiencing Stranglethorn Vale just as much as I enjoyed killing Kael and Vashj. Maybe you've just become too jaded.
First, I also disagree with the race to 70 mentality. I enjoy all levels of the game.
1. Essentially the levels 1 to 69 are the actual game content. (Well, ok, plus a couple of things you do at level 70.) That's the actual quests, story, exploration, etc, to be done.
Then you clearly don't understand the story.
Let's take Kael'thas as an example. You run into that storyline everywhere. You see it first in the Draenei starting zone, you see it very briefly in Hellfire Penninsula, again in Terokkar Forest at Firewing Point, etc. If 70 didn't hold any of the story, then you'd be walking out of the movie when it's only 2/3rds of the way through. You miss out on all of the storylines in Netherstorm between The Consortium and Kael'thas, all of the story advancement in the Tempest Keep instances and of course the climax of the whole thing in The Eye! The Isle of Quel'Danas continues the story after Kael and focuses on Kael's attempts to bring Kil'Jaeden through the Sunwell.
Your 1-69 bias is just as bad as the level 70 bias. It sounds to me like it's just a case of sour grapes most likely due to an inability to get into a raiding group that allowed you to see this content.
Seriously? You're going to try to attack me because I didn't say square miles? That's pretty desperate.
I totally agree that not all land is equal.. but guess what? They already have PLENTY of land that they aren't using. They have the ability to increase supply, but they choose not to do so. They don't need more land. They need to use the land they have already leased.
The oil companies are not using 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased. They currently have PLENTY of opportunity to increase supply but they aren't. The government doesn't need to give them MORE land, the oil companies could increase supply anytime they want.
What you do is ask how often does the Speaker order the lights, microphones, and cameras shut down when the House adjourns?
Better question is.... how often does the Speaker order the lights, microphones and cameras shut down when the House adjourns... and the GOP refuses to respect the legally voted upon adjournment.
And yes drilling will help. The very news of drilling will bring oil prices down.
Then why aren't oil companies drilling in the thousands of square miles of land they have already leased from the government? They have all the permission they need to drill there and they aren't doing it. They don't want to, they enjoy the high prices. Those high prices are supported by the current GOP policies, so if they can make it look like the GOP are doing things to help with the prices the GOP stays in control and the oil companies continue to make record profits.
The prices of gas ARE controlled by big business. If the reason why our gas prices are so high has to do with the price of crude, then why are the oil companies making record profits? If they are only raising prices because their raw materials are increasing, then the profit margin should stay the same.
Explain why the price of oil dropped quite a bit the same day the Bush rescinded the executive ban on drilling then?
That's too easy: The oil companies benefit from the Republican policies. They want them to stay this way. They drop the prices temporarily on the same day that their puppet makes his announcement. See it works?! Aren't we awesome! Hey what's that over there! Look a monkey!
The oil companies have thousands of miles of land that they have already leased from the government and have full permission to drill. They aren't doing it. Having access to more land isn't the problem. This is all a spin campaign. Why is it so hard to see that?
Slashdot Mirror
Not in the women's uneven bars. In that case, China gave a substandard performance but ended up tying the USA, and getting the gold out of a technicality. No way was that deserved.
How do you qualify your "substandard performance" assessment? Are you an Olympic level judge who was present to watch and determine? The final scores they received were tied, but those scores are generated by several bits of data. When a tie happens, there are explicit rules followed to determine who is the winner. Those rules were followed. All of the coaches (US included) looked at the tie breaker and agreed that it followed the rules.
Dead gymnasts are still hot. And easier to catch.
Dude. She's like 13.
Just have to cut her open and count the rings.
4 years from now she'd by 19, and you generally don't see anyone that old in Olympic gymnastics.
Alicia Sacramone (21)
Chelsie Memmel (20)
Nastia Liukin (19)
Samantha Peszek (17)
Ivana Hong (16)
Shayla Worley (16)
Shawn Johnson (16)
I'm glad that I "generally don't see" 3 out of the 7 US gymnasts in that age range. I'm also glad that I "generally don't see" 19 year old Nastia Liukin win 5 medals in this Olympics. 5 medals being tied for the largest number of medals won in a single Olympics by a female gymnast (tied with the like of Mary Lou Retton).
My concern isn't with the IOC, my concern is with google changing history.
What?! Are you high? No, seriously. Are you high? Google didn't change history. Their systems noticed the file had changed and updated their index. The only reason Baidu still has the older version is because Google updates their data more often.
Seriously, how in the hell do you attribute wrong-doing to Google here? You really need drink some different Kool-aid.
1) http://wbztv.com/politics/jonkeller/john.kerry.vice.2.796143.html
Hey, look! A guy with a blog spouted unfounded rumor! It must be true, I read it on the internet. Did you even bother to read the random blog entry?
2) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
Please show me where in this article that says that Obama wishes to execute babies? THAT is why you are a troll. All the stuff you are spewing are incendiary lies at worst and unfounded rumor at best.
Troll? Did I actually say something that wasn't true?
This:
And Obama is set to pick Kerry
This:
he'll stand by his stance of executing children who accidentally escape the abortionist's, knife.
And you're complaining because .... ?
... because if someone is suddenly filtering his mail for him, perhaps they are filtering his good email too. Unexplained, drastic changes in traffic are a bad thing.
In other words, they're the only political organization who disagree with the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" rhetoric coming from the Demopublicans.
Show me where the Democrats are saying this.
Worrying about your neighbor's freedom because you think your freedoms are next up on the chopping block is a feature, not a bug.
You should reread what I said and tell me where it was bad to protect other people's freedoms based on selfish motivations. You'll have to reread it a lot, because it isn't there.
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc, all of these show some conservative content and some liberal content. Regardless of political leaning, the information found on those networks is generally closer to correct (not correct, but closer) than found on Fox News. Fox News doesn't even have liberal content, it's all straight-up conservative and it's full of unfounded information.
The Pew Research foundation has found on several occasions that Fox News watchers are uninformed and less educated while people who watch/read The Daily Show or the New York Times are more informed and more educated.
The Libertarians care about you...
A Libertarian cares about him/her/itself. Libertarians aren't going to be upset when something wrong is happening to me, they are going to upset because that wrong thing might happen to them.
However, there is no clear connection between news formats and what audiences know." which pretty much say your conclusion is impossible to blame on the news outlet like your attempting to.
You've mistaken the word "format" for the word "content."
The link YOU provided offers the analysis that the level of education is more of a correlation of informativeness then their news source. Again, breaking your claim of Fox News being a nefarious as a bad news site.
No, it doesn't change that Fox News is a bad news site. What this particular section explains is that educated people more often choose The Daily Show and Colbert Report and uneducated people more often choose Fox News.
You apparently want to ignore this part of the research...
For example, 32% of the public overall could name the Sunni branch of Islam, but 52% of readers of major newspaper websites could do so, as could 50% of the regular audience for the comedy news shows and 49% of NPR's regular audience. Similarly, 29% of the general public could identify Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but 45% of the NewsHour audience and 41%-44% of the regular audiences of Bill O'Reilly, comedy news shows, NPR, Rush Limbaugh, the national newspaper websites, and news magazines could do so. On both of these questions, the audiences for morning news, local TV news, Fox News Channel, blogs, and the network evening news either matched or did only slightly better in answering correctly than did the average American.
A college education isn't about factions of Islam or about the identify of Scooter Libby (unless your field of study happens to be those two things). So, having a graduate degree doesn't inherently fill you with knowledge of current events. You have to seek it out. The people who seek knowledge from The Daily Show and major newspaper websites are MORE informed than people who seek knowledge from Fox News.
You really like to use this "critical thinking hat" phrase over and over, but it's just your way of discounting things with which you disagree.
It says nothing about the lack of any other sources ability or credibility.
I guess you are the one who didn't read it. It explicitly says that the higher knowledge people use multiple news sources in addition to their primary news source (The Daily Show and The Colbert Report)
BTW, when you mention Fox News as a bad site for news, I'm willing to bet that your more misinformed then anyone who has ever viewed fox news. There hasn't been any studies claiming Fox news puts out erroneous information...
How about Pew Research Study which found that people who watch the Daily Show and Colbert Report are far more informed than the people who watch Fox News?
They found that 54% of the people polled who watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report score in the high-knowledge bracket while only 35% of Fox News watchers did.
I guess you didn't think there was a study because you watch Fox News. Oh snap.
their motto is "Don't be evil"
No, it's not. When will people learn? ONE of the top TEN things they've learned in running a successful business is "Do good. Don't be evil." It's not their motto, and you're missing half of it.
I know you were'nt on a pvp realm! : ) (neither was i)
LOL! Trufax.
How about epic mode low level dungeons
Warlock LFG Heroic Deadmines, pst
You'll also notice that all new content is always end-game.
No, I won't notice that, because it's not true. They added a great deal of content in Dustwallow Marsh which is a 30s zone.
I honestly feel that WoW doesn't actually start until you reach level 70.
1-69 is the tutorial.
70 is WoW.
Then you missed a hell of a great game. You should go back and play it.
This "WoW starts at 70" attitude is just as bad as the "grinding at 70 is stupid" attitude. I enjoyed experiencing Stranglethorn Vale just as much as I enjoyed killing Kael and Vashj. Maybe you've just become too jaded.
1. Essentially the levels 1 to 69 are the actual game content. (Well, ok, plus a couple of things you do at level 70.) That's the actual quests, story, exploration, etc, to be done.
Then you clearly don't understand the story.
Let's take Kael'thas as an example. You run into that storyline everywhere. You see it first in the Draenei starting zone, you see it very briefly in Hellfire Penninsula, again in Terokkar Forest at Firewing Point, etc. If 70 didn't hold any of the story, then you'd be walking out of the movie when it's only 2/3rds of the way through. You miss out on all of the storylines in Netherstorm between The Consortium and Kael'thas, all of the story advancement in the Tempest Keep instances and of course the climax of the whole thing in The Eye! The Isle of Quel'Danas continues the story after Kael and focuses on Kael's attempts to bring Kil'Jaeden through the Sunwell.
Your 1-69 bias is just as bad as the level 70 bias. It sounds to me like it's just a case of sour grapes most likely due to an inability to get into a raiding group that allowed you to see this content.
Seriously? You're going to try to attack me because I didn't say square miles? That's pretty desperate. I totally agree that not all land is equal.. but guess what? They already have PLENTY of land that they aren't using. They have the ability to increase supply, but they choose not to do so. They don't need more land. They need to use the land they have already leased.
The oil companies are not using 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased. They currently have PLENTY of opportunity to increase supply but they aren't. The government doesn't need to give them MORE land, the oil companies could increase supply anytime they want.
What you do is ask how often does the Speaker order the lights, microphones, and cameras shut down when the House adjourns?
Better question is.... how often does the Speaker order the lights, microphones and cameras shut down when the House adjourns... and the GOP refuses to respect the legally voted upon adjournment.
And yes drilling will help. The very news of drilling will bring oil prices down.
Then why aren't oil companies drilling in the thousands of square miles of land they have already leased from the government? They have all the permission they need to drill there and they aren't doing it. They don't want to, they enjoy the high prices. Those high prices are supported by the current GOP policies, so if they can make it look like the GOP are doing things to help with the prices the GOP stays in control and the oil companies continue to make record profits.
The prices of gas ARE controlled by big business. If the reason why our gas prices are so high has to do with the price of crude, then why are the oil companies making record profits? If they are only raising prices because their raw materials are increasing, then the profit margin should stay the same.
It's not premature.
Search for ADJOURNMENT at govtrack.us and you'll see when Congress passes motions to adjourn.
Only looking at the ones during the summer for House/Senate:
Jun 29, 2006/Aug 4, 2006
Jun 28, 2007/Aug 4, 2007
Jun 26, 2008/Aug 1, 2008 (Senate isn't listed here yet)
It looks like a pretty damn standard time to adjourn.
Explain why the price of oil dropped quite a bit the same day the Bush rescinded the executive ban on drilling then?
That's too easy: The oil companies benefit from the Republican policies. They want them to stay this way. They drop the prices temporarily on the same day that their puppet makes his announcement. See it works?! Aren't we awesome! Hey what's that over there! Look a monkey!
The oil companies have thousands of miles of land that they have already leased from the government and have full permission to drill. They aren't doing it. Having access to more land isn't the problem. This is all a spin campaign. Why is it so hard to see that?