Cheap Viagra Information | Search results for "joe"

We were blessed to be invited to celebrate the birthday of a dear life of solitary of our persons friends. The pace was filled with profuse traits . . . Pinatas . . . Lydia takes a dimension with Mr. Ganage holding the rope. Fountain Hunts . . . Mrs. Ganage victuals instructions to the children. Sack Races . . . Don't turn up up! Birthday Feastings . . . The birthday boy blows out well 8 candles chronology Mrs. Gerhardt Also Joel build dormant. buy software cheap oem software

Tags: mr, birthday, software, ganage, races

The second debate between Republican Chris Chocola and Democrat Joe Donnelly for IN-02 seat is tonight at 8. WSBT tv is going to air the debate. If you don't see it, I hope to have it on YouTube sometime this weekend. buy software cheap oem software

Tags: debate, software, chocola, tonight, donnelly

  Scrums are the most dangerous phase in rugby, since a collapse or improper engage can lead to a front row player damaging or even breaking his neck. — Wikipedia When I was growing up, cholesterol used to be bad for you. It was easy to remember. Fat, bad. Cholesterol bad. Salt, bad. Everything, bad. Nowadays, though, they differentiate between "good" cholesterol and "bad" cholesterol, as if we're supposed to be able to distinguish them somehow. And it was weird when they switched it up on us, because it was as if the FDA had suddenly issued a press release announcing that there are, in fact, two kinds of rat poison: Good Rat Poison and Bad Rat Poison, and you should eat a lot of the Good kind, and none of the Bad kind, and definitely not mix them up or anything. Up until maybe a year ago, I had a pretty one-dimensional view of so-called "Agile" programming, namely that it's an idiotic fad-diet of a marketing scam making the rounds as yet another technological virus implanting itself in naive programmers who've never read "No Silver Bullet", the kinds of programmers who buy extended warranties and self-help books and believe their bosses genuinely care about them as people, the kinds of programmers who attend conferences to make friends and who don't know how to avoid eye contact with leaflet-waving fanatics in airports and who believe writing shit on index cards will suddenly make software development easier. You know. Chumps. That's the word I'm looking for. My bad-cholesterol view was that Agile Methodologies are for chumps. But I've had a lot of opportunity to observe various flavors of Agile-ism in action lately, and I now think I was only about 90% right. It turns out there's a good kind of Agile, although it's taken me a long time to be able to see it clearly amidst all the hype and kowtowing and moaning feverishly about scrums and whatnot. I have a pretty clear picture of it now. And you can attend my seminar on it for the low, low price of $499.95! Hahaha, chump! No, just kidding. You'll only find seminars about the Bad kind of Agile. And if in the future you ever find me touring around as an Agile Consultant, charging audiences to hear my deep wisdom and insight about Agile Development, you have my permission to cut my balls off. If I say I was just kidding, say I told you I'd say that. If I then say I'm Tyler Durden and I order you not to cut my balls off , say I definitely said I was going to say that , and then you cut 'em right off. I'll just go right ahead and tell you about the Good Kind, free of charge. It's kinda hard to talk about Good Agile and Bad Agile in isolation, so I might talk about them together. But I'll be sure to label the Good kind with a happy rat, and the Bad kind with a sad dead rat, so you'll always know the difference. The Bad Heading Back in Ye Olden Dayes, most companies approached software development as follows: - hire a bunch of engineers, then hire more. - dream up a project. - set a date for when they want it launched. - put some engineers on it. - whip them until they're either dead or it's launched. or both. - throw a cheap-ass pathetic little party, maybe. This step is optional. - then start over. Thank goodness that doesn't happen at your company, eh now? Whew! Interestingly, this is also exactly how non-technical companies (like, say, Chrysler) handled software development. Except they didn't hire the engineers. Instead, they contracted with software consultants, and they'd hand the consultants 2-year project specs, and demanded the consultants finish everything on time plus all the crap the customer threw in and/or changed after signing the contract. And then it'd all fall apart and the contractors wouldn't get paid, and everyone was really miffed. So some of the consultants began to think: "Hey, if these companies insist on acting like infants, then we should treat them like infants!" And so they did. When a company said "we want features A through Z", the consultants would get these big index cards and write "A" on the first one, "B" on the second one, etc., along with time estimates, and then post them on their wall. Then when the customer wanted to add something, the consultant could point at the wall and say: "OK, boy . Which one of these cards do you want to replace , BOY? " Is it any wonder Chrysler canceled the project? So the consultants, now having lost their primary customer, were at a bar one day, and one of them (named L. Ron Hubbard) said: "This nickel-a-line-of-code gig is lame. You know where the real money is at? You start your own religion." And that's how both Extreme Programming and Scientology were born. Well, people pretty quickly demonstrated that XP was a load of crap. Take Pair Programming, for instance. It's one of the more spectacular failures of XP. None of the Agileytes likes to talk about it much, but let's face it: nobody does it. The rationale was something like: "well if ONE programmer sitting at a terminal is good, then TEN must be better, because MORE is ALWAYS better! But most terminals can only comfortably fit TWO programmers, so we'll call it PAIR programming!" You have to cut them a little slack; they'd been dealing with the corporate equivalent of pre-schoolers for years, and that really messes with a person. But the thing is, viruses are really hard to kill, especially the meme kind. After everyone had gotten all worked up about this whole Agile thing (and sure, everyone wants to be more productive), there was a lot of face to be lost by admitting failure. So some other kinds of Agile "Methodologies" sprang up, and they all claimed that even though all the other ones were busted, their method worked! I mean, go look at some of their sites. Tell me that's not an infomercial. C'mon, just try. It's embarrassing even to look at the thing. Yeah. Well, they make money hand over fist, because of P.T. Barnum's Law, just like Scientology does. Can't really fault 'em. Some people are just dying to be parted with their cash. And their dignity. The rest of us have all known that Agile Methodologies are stupid, by application of any of the following well-known laws of marketing: - anything that calls itself a "Methodology" is stupid, on general principle. - anything that requires "evangelists" and offers seminars, exists soley for the purpose of making money. - anything that never mentions any competition or alternatives is dubiously self-serving. - anything that does diagrams with hand-wavy math is stupid, on general principle. And by "stupid", I mean it's "incredibly brilliant marketing targeted at stupid people." In any case, the consultants kept going with their road shows and glossy pamphlets. Initially, I'm sure they went after corporations; they were looking to sign flexible contracts that allowed them to deliver "whatever" in "2 weeks" on a recurring basis until the client went bankrupt. But I'm equally sure they couldn't find many clients dumb enough to sign such a contract. That's when the consultants decided to take their road show to YOU. Why not take it inside the companies and sell it there, to the developers? There are plenty of companies who use the whip-cycle of development I outlined above, so presumably some of the middle managers and tech leads would be amenable to hearing about how there's this low-cost way out of their hellish existence. And that, friends, was exactly, precisely the point at which they went from "harmless buffoons" to "potentially dangerous", because before they were just bilking fat companies too stupid to develop their own software, but now the manager down the hall from me might get infected. And most places don't have a very good quarantine mechanism for this rather awkward situation: i.e., an otherwise smart manager has become "ill", and is waving XP books and index cards and spouting stuff about how much more productive his team is on account of all this newfound extra bureaucracy. How do we know it's not more productive? Well, it's a slippery problem. Observe that it must be a slippery problem, or it all would have been debunked fair and square by now. But it's exceptionally difficult to measure software developer productivity, for all sorts of famous reasons. And it's even harder to perform anything resembling a valid scientific experiment in software development. You can't have the same team do the same project twice; a bunch of stuff changes the second time around. You can't have 2 teams do the same project; it's too hard to control all the variables, and it's prohibitively expensive to try it in any case. The same team doing 2 different projects in a row isn't an experiment either. About the best you can do is gather statistical data across a lot of teams doing a lot of projects, and try to identify similarities, and perform some regressions, and hope you find some meaningful correlations. But where does the data come from? Companies aren't going to give you their internal data, if they even keep that kind of thing around. Most don't; they cover up their schedule failures and they move on, ever optimistic. Well if you can't do experiments and you can't do proofs, there isn't much science going on. That's why it's a slippery problem. It's why fad diets are still enormously popular. People want fad diets to work, oh boy you bet they do, even I want them to work. And you can point to all these statistically meaningless anecdotes about how Joe lost 35 pounds on this one diet, and all those people who desperately want to be thinner will think "hey, it can't hurt. I'll give it a try." That is exactly what I hear people say, every time a team talks themselves into trying an Agile Methodology. It's not a coincidence. But writing about Bad Agile alone is almost guaranteed to be ineffective. I mean, you can write about how lame Scientology is, or how lame fad diets are, but it's not clear that you're changing anyone's mind. Quitting a viral meme is harder than quitting smoking. I've done both. In order to have the right impact, you have to offer an alternative, and I didn't have one before, not one that I could articulate clearly. One of the (many) problems with Bad Agile is that they condescendingly lump all non-Agile development practices together into two buckets: Waterfall and Cowboy. Waterfall is known to be bad; I hope we can just take that as an axiom today. But what about so-called Cowboy programming, which the Agileers define as "each member of the team does what he or she thinks is best"? Is it true that this is the only other development process? And is Cowboy Programming actually bad? They say it as if it's obviously bad, but they're not super clear on how or why, other than to assert that it's, you know, "chaos". Well, as I mentioned, over the past year I've had the opportunity to watch both Bad Agile and Good Agile in motion, and I've asked the teams and tech leads (using both the Bad and Good forms) lots of questions: how they're doing, how they're feeling, how their process is working. I was really curious, in part because I'd consented to try Agile last Christmas ("hey, it can't hurt"), and wound up arguing with a teammate over exactly what metadata is allowed on index cards before giving up in disgust. Also in part because I had some friends on a team who were getting kind of exhausted from what appeared to be a Death March, and that kind of thing doesn't seem to happen very often at Google. So I dug in, and for a year, I watched and learned. The Good Head (cue happy rat) I'm going to talk a little about Google's software development process. It's not the whole picture, of course, but it should suffice for today. I've been there for almost a year and a half now, and it took a while, but I think I get it now. Mostly. I'm still learning. But I'll share what I've got so far. From a high level, Google's process probably does look like chaos to someone from a more traditional software development company. As a newcomer, some of the things that leap out at you include: - there are managers, sort of, but most of them code at least half-time, making them more like tech leads. - developers can switch teams and/or projects any time they want, no questions asked; just say the word and the movers will show up the next day to put you in your new office with your new team. - Google has a philosophy of not ever telling developers what to work on, and they take it pretty seriously. - developers are strongly encouraged to spend 20% of their time (and I mean their M-F, 8-5 time, not weekends or personal time) working on whatever they want, as long as it's not their main project. - there aren't very many meetings. I'd say an average developer attends perhaps 3 meetings a week, including their 1:1 with their lead. - it's quiet. Engineers are quietly focused on their work, as individuals or sometimes in little groups or 2 to 5. - there aren't Gantt charts or date-task-owner spreadsheets or any other visible project-management artifacts in evidence, not that I've ever seen. - even during the relatively rare crunch periods, people still go get lunch and dinner, which are (famously) always free and tasty, and they don't work insane hours unless they want to. These are generalizations, sure. Old-timers will no doubt have a slightly different view, just as my view of Amazon is slightly biased by having been there in 1998 when it was a pretty crazy place. But I think most Googlers would agree that my generalizations here are pretty accurate. How could this ever work? I get that question a lot. Heck, I asked it myself. What's to stop engineers from leaving all the trouble projects, leaving behind bug-ridden operational nightmares? What keeps engineers working towards the corporate goals if they can work on whatever they want? How do the most important projects get staffed appropriately? How do engineers not get so fat that they routinely get stuck in stairwells and have to be cut out by the Fire Department? I'll answer the latter question briefly, then get to the others. In short: we have this thing called the Noogler Fifteen, named after the Frosh Fifteen: the 15 pounds that many college freshmen put on when they arrive in the land of Stress and Pizza. Google has solved the problem by lubricating the stairwells. As to the rest of your questions, I think most of them have the same small number of answers. First, and arguably most importantly, Google drives behavior through incentives. Engineers working on important projects are, on average, rewarded more than those on less-important projects. You can choose to work on a far-fetched research-y kind of project that may never be practical to anyone, but the work will have to be a reward unto itself. If it turns out you were right and everyone else was wrong (the startup's dream), and your little project turns out to be tremendously impactful, then you'll be rewarded for it. Guaranteed. The rewards and incentives are too numerous to talk about here, but the financial incentives range from gift certificates and massage coupons up through giant bonuses and stock grants, where I won't define "giant" precisely, but think of Google's scale and let your imagination run a bit wild, and you probably won't miss the mark by much. There are other incentives. One is that Google a peer-review oriented culture, and earning the respect of your peers means a lot there. More than it does at other places, I think. This is in part because it's just the way the culture works; it's something that was put in place early on and has managed to become habitual. It's also true because your peers are so damn smart that earning their respect is a huge deal. And it's true because your actual performance review is almost entirely based on your peer reviews, so it has an indirect financial impact on you. Another incentive is that every quarter, without fail, they have a long all-hands in which they show every single project that launched to everyone, and put up the names and faces of the teams (always small) who launched each one, and everyone applauds. Gives me a tingle just to think about it. Google takes launching very seriously, and I think that being recognized for launching something cool might be the strongest incentive across the company. At least it feels that way to me. And there are still other incentives; the list goes on and ON and ON ; the perks are over the top, and the rewards are over the top, and everything there is so comically over the top that you have no choice, as an outsider, but to assume that everything the recruiter is telling you is a baldfaced lie, because there's no possible way a company could be that generous to all of its employees, all of them, I mean even the contractors who clean the micro-kitchens, they get these totally awesome "Google Micro-Kitchen Staff" shirts and fleeces. There is nothing like it on the face of this earth. I could talk for hours , days about how amazing it is to work at Google, and I wouldn't be done. And they're not done either. Every week it seems like there's a new perk, a new benefit, a new improvement, a new survey asking us all if there's any possible way in which life at Google could be better. I might have been mistaken, actually. Having your name and picture up on that big screen at End of Quarter may not be the biggest incentive. The thing that drives the right behavior at Google, more than anything else, more than all the other things combined, is gratitude . You can't help but want to do your absolute best for Google; you feel like you owe it to them for taking such incredibly good care of you. OK, incentives. You've got the idea. Sort of. I mean, you have a sketch of it. When friends who aren't at Google ask me how it is working at Google — and this applies to all my friends at all other companies equally, not just companies I've worked at — I feel just how you'd feel if you'd just gotten out of prison, and your prison buddies, all of whom were sentenced in their early teens, are writing to you and asking you what it's like "on the outside". I mean, what would you tell them? I tell 'em it's not too bad at all. Can't complain. Pretty decent, all in all. Although the incentive-based culture is a huge factor in making things work the way they do, it only addresses how to get engineers to work on the "right" things. It doesn't address how to get those things done efficiently and effectively. So I'll tell you a little about how they approach projects. Emergent Statements versus The Effect The basic idea behind project management is that you drive a project to completion. It's an overt process, a shepherding: by dint of leadership, and organization, and sheer force of will, you cause something to happen that wouldn't otherwise have happened on its own. Project management comes in many flavors, from lightweight to heavyweight, but all flavors share the property that they are external forces acting on an organization. At Google, projects launch because it's the least-energy state for the system. Before I go on, I'll concede that this is a pretty bold claim, and that it's not entirely true. We do have project managers and product managers and people managers and tech leads and so on. But the amount of energy they need to add to the system is far less than what's typically needed in our industry. It's more of an occasional nudge than a full-fledged continuous push. Once in a while, a team needs a bigger nudge, and senior management needs to come in and do the nudging, just like anywhere else. But there's no pushing. Incidentally, Google is a polite company, so there's no yelling, nor wailing and gnashing of teeth, nor escalation and finger-pointing, nor any of the artifacts produced at companies where senior management yells a lot. Hobbes tells us that organizations reflect their leaders; we all know that. The folks up top at Google are polite, hence so is everyone else. Anyway, I claimed that launching projects is the natural state that Google's internal ecosystem tends towards, and it's because they pump so much energy into pointing people in that direction. All your needs are taken care of so that you can focus, and as I've described, there are lots of incentives for focusing on things that Google likes. So launches become an emergent property of the system. This eliminates the need for a bunch of standard project management ideas and methods: all the ones concerned with dealing with slackers, calling bluffs on estimates, forcing people to come to consensus on shared design issues, and so on. You don't need "war team meetings," and you don't need status reports. You don't need them because people are already incented to do the right things and to work together well. The project management techniques that Google does use are more like oil than fuel: things to let the project keep running smoothly, as opposed to things that force the project to move forward. There are plenty of meeting rooms, and there's plenty of open space for people to go chat. Teams are always situated close together in fishbowl-style open seating, so that pair programming happens exactly when it's needed (say 5% of the time), and never otherwise. Google generally recognizes that the middle of the day is prone to interruptions, even at quiet companies, so many engineers are likely to shift their hours and come in very early or stay very late in order to find time to truly concentrate on programming. So meetings only happen in the middle of the day; it's very unusual to see a meeting start before 10am or after 4:30pm. Scheduling meetings outside that band necessarily eats into the time when engineers are actually trying to implement the things they're meeting about, so they don't do it. Google isn't the only place where projects are run this way. Two other kinds of organizations leap to mind when you think of Google's approach: startup companies, and grad schools. Google can be considered a fusion of the startup and grad-school mentalities: on the one hand, it's a hurry-up, let's get something out now, do the simplest thing that could work and we'll grow it later startup-style approach. On the other, it's relatively relaxed and low-key; we have hard problems to solve that nobody else has ever solved, but it's a marathon not a sprint, and focusing requires deep concentration, not frenzied meetings. And at the intersection of the two, startups and grad schools are both fertile innovation ground in which the participants carry a great deal of individual responsibility for the outcome. It's all been done before; the only thing that's really surprising is that Google has managed to make it scale. The scaling is not an accident. Google works really hard on the problem, and they realize that having scaled this far is no guarantee it'll continue, so they're vigilant. That's a good word for it. They're always on the lookout to make sure the way of life and the overall level of productivity continue (or even improve) as they grow. Google is an exceptionally disciplined company, from a software-engineering perspective. They take things like unit testing, design documents and code reviews more seriously than any other company I've even heard about. They work hard to keep their house in order at all times, and there are strict rules and guidelines in place that prevent engineers and teams from doing things their own way. The result: the whole code base looks the same, so switching teams and sharing code are both far easier than they are at other places. And engineers need great tools, of course, so Google hires great people to build their tools, and they encourage engineers (using incentives) to pitch in on tools work whenever they have an inclination in that direction. The result: Google has great tools, world-class tools, and they just keep getting better. The list goes on. I could talk for days about the amazing rigor behind Google's approach to software engineering. But the main takeaway is that their scaling (both technological and organizational) is not an accident. And once you're up to speed on the Google way of doing things, it all proceeds fairly effortlessly — again, on average, and compared to software development at many other companies. The Tyranny of the Vocabulary We're almost done. The last thing I want to talk about here is dates . Traditional software development can safely be called Date-Oriented Programming, almost without exception. Startup companies have a clock set by their investors and their budget. Big clients set target dates for their consultants. Sales people and product managers set target dates based on their evaluation of market conditions. Engineers set dates based on estimates of previous work that seems similar. All estimation is done through rose-colored glasses, and everyone forgets just how painful it was the last time around. Everyone picks dates out of the air. "This feels like it should take about 3 weeks.""It sure would be nice to have this available for customers by beginning of Q4.""Let's try to have that done by tomorrow." Most of us in our industry are date-driven. There's always a next milestone, always a deadline, always some date-driven goal to it. The only exceptions I can think of to this rule are: 1) Open-source software projects. 2) Grad school projects. 3) Google. Most people take it for granted that you want to pick a date. Even my favorite book on software project management, "The Mythical Man-Month", assumes that you need schedule estimates. If you're in the habit of pre-announcing your software, then the general public usually wants a timeframe, which implies a date. This is, I think, one of the reasons Google tends not to pre-announce. They really do understand that you can't rush good cooking, you can't rush babies out, and you can't rush software development. If the three exceptions I listed above aren't driven by dates, then what drives them? To some extent it's just the creative urge, the desire to produce things; all good engineers have it. (There are many people in our industry who do this gig "for a living", and they go home and don't think about it until the next day. Open source software exists precisely because there are people who are better than that.) But let's be careful: it's not just the creative urge; that's not always directed enough, and it's not always incentive enough. Google is unquestionably driven by time , in the sense that they want things done "as fast as possible". They have many fierce, brilliant competitors, and they have to slake their thirsty investors' need for growth, and each of us has some long-term plans and deliverables we'd like to see come to fruition in our lifetimes. The difference is that Google isn't foolish enough or presumptuous enough to claim to know how long stuff should take. So the only company-wide dates I'm ever aware of are the ends of each quarter, because everyone's scrambling to get on that big launch screen and get the applause and gifts and bonuses and team trips and all the other good that comes of launching things with big impact at Google. Everything in between is just a continuum of days, in which everyone works at optimal productivity, which is different for each person. We all have work-life balance choices to make, and Google is a place where any reasonable choice you make can be accommodated, and can be rewarding. Optimal productivity is also a function of training, and Google offers tons of it, including dozens of tech talks every week by internal and external speakers, all of which are archived permanently so you can view them whenever you like. Google gives you access to any resources you need in order to get your job done, or to learn how to get your job done. And optimal productivity is partly a function of the machine and context in which you're operating: the quality of your code base, your tools, your documentation, your computing platform, your teammates, even the quality of the time you have during the day, which should be food-filled and largely free of interrupts. Then all you need is a work queue. That's it. You want hand-wavy math? I've got it in abundance: software development modeled on queuing theory. Not too far off the mark, though; many folks in our industry have noticed that organizational models are a lot like software models. With nothing more than a work queue (a priority queue, of course), you immediately attain most of the supposedly magical benefits of Agile Methodologies. And make no mistake, it's better to have it in software than on a bunch of index cards. If you're not convinced, then I will steal your index cards. With a priority queue, you have a dumping-ground for any and all ideas (and bugs) that people suggest as the project unfolds. No engineer is ever idle, unless the queue is empty, which by definition means the project has launched. Tasks can be suspended and resumed simply by putting them back in the queue with appropriate notes or documentation. You always know how much work is left, and if you like, you can make time estimates based on the remaining tasks. You can examine closed work items to infer anything from bug regression rates to (if you like) individual productivity. You can see which tasks are often passed over, which can help you discover root causes of pain in the organization. A work queue is completely transparent, so there is minimal risk of accidental duplication of work. And so on. The list goes on, and on, and on. Unfortunately, a work queue doesn't make for a good marketing platform for seminars and conferences. It's not glamorous. It sounds a lot like a pile of work, because that's exactly what it is. Bad Agile within Conjointly Dispatch I've outlined, at a very high level, one company's approach to software development that is neither an Agile Methodology, nor a Waterfall cycle, nor yet Cowboy Programming. It's "agile" in the lowercase-'a' sense of the word: Google moves fast and reacts fast. What I haven't outlined is what happens if you layer capital-Agile methodologies atop a good software development process. You might be tempted to think: "well, it can't hurt!" I even had a brief fling with it myself last year. The short answer is: it hurts. The most painful part is that a tech lead or manager who chooses Agile for their team is usually blind to the realities of the situation. Bad Agile hurts teams in several ways. First, Bad Agile focuses on dates in the worst possible way: short cycles, quick deliverables, frequent estimates and re-estimates. The cycles can be anywhere from a month (which is probably tolerable) down to a day in the worst cases. It's a nicely idealistic view of the world. In the real world, every single participant on a project is, as it turns out, a human being. We have up days and down days. Some days you have so much energy you feel you could code for 18 hours straight. Some days you have a ton of energy, but you just don't feel like focusing on coding. Some days you're just exhausted. Everyone has a biological clock and a a biorhythm that they have very little control over, and it's likely to be phase-shifted from the team clock, if the team clock is ticking in days or half-weeks. Not to mention your personal clock: the events happening outside your work life that occasionally demand your attention during work hours. None of that matters in Bad Agile. If you're feeling up the day after a big deliverable, you're not going to code like crazy; you're going to pace yourself because you need to make sure you have reserve energy for the next big sprint. This impedance mismatch drives great engineers to mediocrity. There's also your extracurricular clock: the set of things you want to accomplish in addition to your main project: often important cleanups or other things that will ultimately improve your whole team's productivity. Bad Agile is exceptionally bad at handling this, and usually winds up reserving large blocks of time after big milestones for everyone to catch up on their side-project time, whether they're feeling creative or not. Bad Agile folks keep their eye on the goal, which hurts innovation. Sure, they'll reserve time for everyone to clean up their own code base, but they're not going to be so altruistic as to help anyone else in the company. How can you, when you're effectively operating in a permanent day-for-day slip? Bad Agile seems for some reason to be embraced by early risers. I think there's some mystical relationship between the personality traits of "wakes up before dawn", "likes static typing but not type inference", "is organized to the point of being anal", "likes team meetings", and "likes Bad Agile". I'm not quite sure what it is, but I see it a lot. Most engineers are not early risers. I know a team that has to come in for an 8:00am meeting at least once (maybe several times) a week. Then they sit like zombies in front of their email until lunch. Then they go home and take a nap. Then they come in at night and work, but they're bleary-eyed and look perpetually exhausted. When I talk to them, they're usually cheery enough, but they usually don't finish their sentences. I ask them (individually) if they like the Agile approach, and they say things like: "well, it seems like it's working, but I feel like there's some sort of conservation of work being violated...", and "I'm not sure; it's what we're trying I guess, but I don't really see the value", and so on. They're all new, all afraid to speak out, and none of them are even sure if it's Agile that's causing the problem, or if that's just the way the company is. That, my friends, is not "agile"; it's a just load of hooey. And it's what you get whenever any manager anywhere decides to be a chump. Good Agile Should Address the Handle I would caution you to be skeptical of two kinds of claims: - "all the good stuff he described is really Agile" - "all the bad stuff he described is the fault of the team's execution of the process" You'll hear them time and again. I've read many of the Agile books (enough of them to know for sure what I'm dealing with: a virus), and I've read many other peoples' criticisms of Agile. Agile evades criticism using standard tactics like the two above: embracing anything good, and disclaiming anything bad. If a process is potentially good, but 90+% of the time smart and well-intentioned people screw it up, then it's a bad process. So they can only say it's the team's fault so many times before it's not really the team's fault. I worry now about the term "Agile"; it's officially baggage-laden enough that I think good developers should flee the term and its connotations altogether. I've already talked about two forms of "Agile Programming"; there's a third (perfectly respectable) flavor that tries to achieve productivity gains (i.e. "Agility") through technology. Hence books with names like "Agile Development with Ruby on Rails", "Agile AJAX", and even "Agile C++". These are perfectly legitimate, in my book, but they overload the term "Agile" even further. And frankly, most Agile out there is plain old Bad Agile. So if I were you, I'd take Agile off your resume. I'd quietly close the SCRUM and XP books and lock them away. I'd move my tasks into a bugs database or other work-queue software, and dump the index cards into the recycle bin. I'd work as fast as I can to eliminate Agile from my organization. And then I'd focus on being agile. But that's just my take on it, and it's 4:00am. Feel free to draw your own conclusions. Either way, I don't think I'm going to be an Early Riser tomorrow. Oh, I almost forgot the obvious disclaimer: I do not speak for Google. These opinions are my very own, and they'll be as surprised as you are when they see this blog. Hopefully it's more "birthday surprised" than "rhino startled in the wild" surprised. We'll see! cheap oem software buy software

Tags: agile, google, project, bad, work

Hi folks, the frame grabs and clip here aren't really good examples of what I talk about in this post. We just haven't had time to grab them all yet. If you have the cartoon go watch it! Marc and Marlo and I were watching 1st season Flintstones the other night, looking for clips and frame grabs to honor Ed's memory and I noticed something that never quite struck me before. We watched The Flintstone Flyer-the one where Barney invents a stone age helicopter and Fred thinks it's worth millions so he partners with Barney and of course they screw everything up. The plot is a perfect combination of a live action sitcom and a cartoon. It's mostly sitcom but has many cartoon reactions and impossible things that for some reason you just accept, even though Fred and Barney are basically adult human characters. The whole episode is animated by one guy-an amazing feat! Carlo Vinci was an animator at Terrytoons for almost 30 years before he left to join Hanna Barbera at MGM studios in the late 50s. When Bill and Joe opened up their TV studio in 1957/58 Carlo went with them. Incidentally, Carlo was the one who taught Joe Barbera to animate in the early 1930s! This is the crazy thing I noticed about Carlo's work while watching The Flintstone Flyer. I know his work really well. He did great unique full animation at Terrytoons for decades. The directors always gave him the difficult scenes. His specialty was animating dancing, which for most animators is really hard. Carlo must have animated 1,000 intricate dances during his time at Terry. He also animated all those sexy little girl mice that tried to seduce Mighty Mouse. He used really unique gestures and poses-sort of awkward unbalanced poses and the characters' wrists always bent in opposite directions. He didn't ever rely on whatever the current style of posing and expression was for each decade, as the Disney and Tom and Jerry animators did. However there is a really big difference between what he did for Terry and what he did for HB. Terrytoons were fully animated, using from 12 to 24 drawings per second - luxury animation by today's standards. Hanna Barbera of course used severely "limited animation" which averaged maybe 4 drawings per second after you figure in all the reused cycles and dialogue scenes. You would think this restriction on the quantity of drawings would restrict the quality of the cartoon and usually it does but when you watch the Flintstone Flyer (and other 1st season Flintstones) you will see something that hardly ever happened in classic fully animated cartoons-not during the Golden Age and certainly not now in the huge budgeted animated features churned out by the big 3 studios. Natural, believable acting: Fred and Barney act like real people. They make expressions that real people do. They have head and hand gestures that perfectly describe how they are feeling at every unique moment in the story. Carlo doesn't rely at all on stock animation acting. He animates the Flintstones as if he were animating his friends and neighbors from down the street. This is an incredible feat! We take it for granted because the Flintstones just seem real and we instantly accept it, but considering how animators were trained to animate acting in very unnatural styles for decades, it's amazing that an animator can just break out of habit and animate a new style and using far fewer drawings! At Terrytoons he was never called upon to do any real acting. I can tell you I know from 20 years of experience that very few animators can draw natural expressions or draw in different styles. Disney animators draw Disney expressions and animate Disney gestures. I used some Disney animators or Cal Arts animators on various projects-including Ren and Stimpy and they just couldn't draw the characters. They kept turning them into Disney/Cal Arts characters-they would draw the eyes like Don Bluth and use the same expressions they had already drawn a thousand times before that no one ever complained about. "No no!" I'd say, "This is Ren, not Mowgli! He isn't constructed like that-his eyes are a different shape and he has a different personality!" 2 exceptions were Mark Kausler and Greg Manwaring who did great funny and specific animation for me. And of course, Bob Jaques and Kelly Armstrong always do fantastic custom animation. But these people are rare. So for me to watch an early Flintstones and be laughing all through it at the funny acting and reacting of these completely believable characters is very impressive. An interesting elaboration: I know many animators who themselves have really funny unique mannerisms and I always try to encourage them to put them in their cartoons. You would think this would be an easy and natural thing to do. It isn't. Hardly any animators can draw what they actually feel. As soon as they sit down to animate, they jump to a different part of their brain that stores all their animation knowledge. They summon up poses and gestures and moves that they have done a million times, then actually act out a standard generic "cartoon" expression with their face, rather than just draw how they themselves act in real life. You know those famous photos of Disney animators looking in mirrors and making wacky expressions as they draw? This is publicity designed to make you think they act everything out naturally first, then copy what they see in the mirror. It's actually the opposite situation. They act everything out as if they were already animated cartoon characters themselves, rather than specific humans. Watching grown men act like Mickey Mouse is the weirdest thing ever. Carlo Vinci was a middle aged fat guy when he animated the Flintstones. A regular kind of guy who drank beer, watched football, lusted after pretty girls. He probably knew all kinds of characters in real life and used his observations of them in these super low budget cartoons. The Flintstones is to me by far the best animated sitcom in history. The characters are completely believable. The animation is customized and not predictable as even most full animation is. The acting is funny, many of the story situations are funny, the designs are beautiful and they still have room left over for cartoon jokes. Oh and of course the voices are great-in those days they used real voice actors, people from radio, who had to have distinct sounding voices and great acting and delivery. That certainly helped the animators. The Flintstones blows away the excuse I hear over and over today for why TV animation is so bland. The excuse of not enough money. Todays' prime time animated sitcoms have more money than God and should put some of it towards the drawings and animation. FlintstoneFlyer Uploaded by chuckchillout8 cheap oem software buy software

Tags: animator, flintstone, animation, cartoon, animated

We marked his birthday on February 3rd. Sadly, today we announce the passing of the last of the Rat Pack. A toast to Joey Bishop! "Theoretically, Joey has bottom billing-- fifth man after the show's four stars. But happily as soon as he starts talking he's recognized as the top banana in the newly assembled comedy act that is breaking up Vegas." --Time magazine, 1960 "The meetings could not have come off without the speaker of the house, Joey Bishop, the hub of the big wheel." --Frank Sinatra "Bishop is the only member of Sinatra's gang who can tell the leader what to do with himself and not only get away with it, but actually and incredibly enough become more firmly entrenched in favor." --Richard Gehman's book, 'Frank Sinatra & The Rat Pack'

Tags: bishop, joey, sinatra, frank, pack

Tags:

Back in February, Our Man Elli in Israel emailed to remind us that it was Joey Bishop's birthday. He checks in from Jerusalem today, to share his memories of the late comic and Rat Packer-- and to respond to the Associated Press' description of his early years: I interviewed him 20 years ago for the Jewish Oral History Library, now housed in the New York Public Library's Judaica Division. The Associated Press writes: "...Born in New York's borough of the Bronx, Bishop was the youngest of five children of two immigrants from Eastern Europe..." Why not say they were Jews? He was such a Jewish comedian-- the only Jew in the Rat Pack, and proud of it. (Hey, what about Sammy? -- ed. ) "When he was 3 months old, the family moved to South Philadelphia..." He was very very poor as a kid. His father owned and operated a bicycle repair shop on a small street near 4th and Snyder Avenue in South Philly-- and slept in the same bed with one of his brothers till he was 10 or 12, or maybe even later, I forget. I remember asking him what his ambition was when he was growing up. He answered seriously: "To have my own bed." I also asked him what period in history he would like to go back to visit. He said Jesus's time, to see exactly what happened, to figure out where the Christ-killing anti-semitism came from. A great guy. Here's a nice link. cheap oem software buy software

Tags: bishop, history, man, library, jew

The Mark's Investment Track goes ulterior the Star picnics subdivision today, claiming that the \"Boring Broadsheet\" favors the Red Sox until the three-time-champion Patriots whereas the Planet's corporate owner, the New York Times Co., owns a bite of the Sox. \"National Football Ring sources\" are said to be inspire. What prompted their dime-drop becomes to be a complaint this Sphere games editor Joe Sullivan contrived encompassing attain to the Patriots during currency. Sullivan denies stinting on Pats coverage, description the Tracksters, \" I don't see how assemblage of either heap could vision shortchanged.\" But Bruce Allen of Boston Amusements Media Watch thinks there's furthermore than a little something to the Track's complaint. ALLEN: Lined up the Center Track is holding off latent the Pill being their deprivation of Patriots coverage, moreover they showing habitually Spheroid laughss editor Joe Sullivan holler over the NFL to whine around barge in to the pile everywhere control. Owing to I mentioned separating position II of my Heavenly body Control hang out year, I ear that Sullivan had done some good facets meanwhile his watch there, but recently he's been take in a covey of pop ups throughout the paper's Patriots coverage, conjointly isn't looking good due to it. His adamant progress this the paper has the most Patriots coverage within the spot rings false to anyone who renders seeing the papers onward a daily basis. His crackup to care or matched embrace this they'll substantiation to do better continues to be a slap enclosed by the face to Patriots fans. Here's the home in holder to Allen's printed matter today, although it wasn't in gear pending of that morning. Credible July 29, the Phoenix's Ian Donnis took a same build at the relationship between the Sox furthermore the Universe. Media Nation efforts three not-very-original observations: 1. Baseball is moreover interesting than football. 2. Boston is again always devotion be a baseball town. 3. I'm a group to boot concerned circumference how the Terrene - moreover uncustomarily its editorial leaf - necessitates the Red Sox' amelioration ways inserted the Fenway scene than I am about measuring column-inches devoted to the Sox conjointly the Pats. This's where the real conflict-of-interest on is.

Tags: patriots, coverage, sox, sullivan, track

The Robert Chambers Preppie Murder Case was a lurid mix of sex, crime, kink and class that not only inspired the first tabloid television news re-enactment and a TV movie, but launched the tabloid television genre. We were working New York City local news the summer of 1986 when Jennifer Levin's battered body was found in Central Park; after sociopathic striver Chambers was charged in the killing, were there when legendary newswriter Bob Campbell couldn't get away with the line: "His mother thought she was raising the next John F. Kennedy, but he turned out to be Teddy." A version of the line wound up in the book Tabloid Baby. Over at A Current Affair, Rafael Abramovitz (who, like Steve Dunleavy, played himself in that TV movie) procured a videotape that showed Chambers doing a Joey Ramone imitation at a party with four Upper East Side girls in their pajamas, twisting the head off a doll and saying, "Oops, I think I killed it." (In the TV movie, for some reason they changed the line to "I think I killed her .") Shades of Phil Spector. And today, 20 years later, as Chambers and one of the little witches from the videotape face many years in prison on cocaine charges, shades of OJ. (The last time we saw Chambers was during the ill-fated revival of A Current Affair two years ago, when producer Jerry Wagshal made his bones and a fascinating tabloid news segment by following Chambers through New York City streets and peppering him with questions after a court appearance on a minor drug charges.) buy software cheap oem software

Tags: chambers, tabloid, news, tv, movie

The former CEO of the leading supplier of body armor to U.S. soldiers in Iraq has been charged with looting the company to bankroll a lavish lifestyle that included a $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter. You remember the "mitzvahpalooza"-- that's the private party that featured performances by sellout superstars including Don Henley, Stevie Nicks, 50 Cent, Ciara, Tom Petty, Steven Tyler & Joe Perry of Aerosmith and (strolling near the buffet, searching for the brown note) Kenny G-- "private," that is, until Tabloid Baby made it public when we ran exclusive and timeless photos of the event two years ago. Now the real-life Daddy Warbucks may pay big time for the Rainbow Room rockfest. Long Islander David Brooks faces 21 counts, including securities fraud, insider trading, tax evasion and obstruction of justice. He could go to jail for life. And these rock 'n' roll and hip hop stars must go through life knowing these pictures are in their closets. functioning photos cheap oem software buy software

Tags: life, photos, mitzvahpalooza, private, software

Detoxification (Beverages) copyright@2006 by Donna Partow One of the cornerstones of the 90-Day Renewal is the principle of detoxification. Too many of us have toxic souls [your soul encompasses your mind, will and emotions]. We have toxic thoughts, toxic feelings. We expose our minds to garbage thru the media. Dare I say that some of us attend toxic churches [controlling, legalistic, back-biting, etc.] and maintain toxic relationships?!?! We even make decisions that defile and pollute our lives. I'll say more about detoxifying your soul in future posts, but for today, I want to emphasize detoxifying our bodies, specifically through what we drink. The best detoxification beverages include: 1. Water - to flush the toxins (food additives, chemicals, sugar, processed foods, etc.) the best place to start is with good old-fashioned . Obtain two 32-oz Nalgene bottles. Fill with water and place in your frig each night before bed. Your mission is to drink both bottles before refilling them again the next night. If it means you have to guzzle it down at 10pm and then stay awake all night using the bathroom, so be it. I guarantee the next day, you'll start drinking a whole lot earlier!!! You may add fresh lemon. If you really want to start your day right, set a goal to finish your 1st 32 oz before lunch. And if you want to sleep, finish most of the 2nd bottle before dinner, leaving just enough to have some hot lemon water before bed. 2. Hot lemon water - (Yes, you can pour water out of your Nalgene bottle so it counts toward your total intake!) - One cup of hot water - squeeze fresh lemon. Start with 1/8 of a lemon, build to 1/4 then 1/2. Drink this first and last thing each day. 3. Bill Bright's Recipe - I've posted this previously. Bill Bright fasted 40-days and credits this drink for his vitality throughout. Hot or cold lemon water with maple syrup and cayenne pepper. Sounds awful, but tastes GREAT (He drank it cold; I like it hot!) and it is very, very energizing! If you need more energy, THIS is the detox drink for you! 4. Bragg's Apple Cider Vinegar & Local Honey . Not Locan Honey, that's a typographical error in the book! You want locally cultivated-honey which will enable your body to develop immunities to local pollen. If you have allergy problems, this will be like a miracle for you. Here again, don't buy the cheap, processed Apple Cider Vinegar at your grocery store. Buy Bragg's - it's the real thing. And you MUST buy local honey or you defeat the purpose. Mix 8 oz cold water with roughly 1 tablespoon ACV and 1 tsp. honey. 5. Ann Louise Gittleman's Cranberry Drink (with Donna's modification) - many of you have asked if I was influenced by the Fat Flush Diet. Absolutely. I have studied and tested every diet ever created and the Fat Flush is one of the most scientifcally sound. My 90-Day program incorporates the best of the best from a wide variety of regimens. Buy a bottle of UNSWEETENED Cranberry Juice - it's very expensive and rarely available in grocery stores. I buy Knudsen's or Trader Joe's; check your local health food store. Mix 1 part juice to 3/4 water. You can drink this combination all day - in fact, you can fill your Nalgene bottles with it. In the morning, mix one cup of your diluted Cranberry Juice with 1 tablespoon ground psyllium (from the health food store! Don't buy metimucil or anything like that!!!) and 1 tablespoon bentonite clay (that's my modification). This will really flush out your system. It's like taking a scrub brush to a toilet bowl that hasn't been cleaned in a year - so don't start with this one, unless you will be near your own bathroom all day! You'll notice that I introduce a variety of these detoxification drinks throughout the 90-Day Renewal. No, you don't have to drink ALL of them everyday. It would be impossible. However, find the one that works best for you and stick with it. Every day. For the rest of your life. Or you might mix it up. For example, I like lemon water in the Fall, but in late Winter, I switch to Apple Cider & honey (to strengthen my body against the coming onslaught of allergens) and in late Spring, I prefer the more intense Cranberry w/psyllium and bentonite since it is the most aggressive flush (targeting fat pockets aka cellulite) in preparation for wearing short sleeves!! Remember: If you have not detoxified your body in ages, do not expect this to be a pleasant experience . Yes, you will have an upset stomach! You may feel like your insides are being torn apart. Yes, you may feel sick: headaches, jitters, even a fever. The more toxic you are (if you eat junk food, refined carbohydrates, drink coffee, soda, etc), the sicker you will feel. But that's GOOD; it means your body is seizing the opportunity to throw off toxins. Do NOT treat the symptoms. Let your body work through it. As I've mentioned several times before, you might start with the Cabbage Soup Diet as a way to jumpstart detoxification. Happy Detoxifying! Blessings, Donna

Tags: day, water, drink, lemon, detoxification

In today's Oakland Press, Joe Knollenberg trots out the same old tired line about socialized medicine and "evil" trial lawyers. I issue a challenge to Joe Knollenberg, go with me to see Michael Moore's new documentary, Sicko, then say that universal, single-payer care doesn't work and that private enterprise does it better. It is common knowledge that Medicare does work extremely efficiently and their administrative costs are 2-3%, compared to 25-30% for the private health insurance industry. Another problem with Joe's plan, there are 47 million uninsured people in the country and more joining the rolls every day. Over 50% of the bankruptcies in this country occur due to medical emergencies caused by medical bills of people who had insurance. I will be interviewing Adrian Campbell on my community television show soon. Adrian is a 25-year old woman who contracted ovarian cancer and had to go to Canada to get treatment, because her health plan refused coverage, saying 22-year-olds (she was 22 when she was diagnosed) don't get ovarian cancer. Then, to make matters worse, because she was in the movie, she was fired by her employer. If Joe Knollenberg thinks his plan to offer a tax credit to employers for offering a wellness program is the solution, I dare him to walk a mile in Adrian's shoes. Why don't you come on my show with Adrian, Joe, and tell her how well your plan for a tax credit for an employer wellness program will work for her? I dare you, Joe. According to the web site National Priorities for the cost of what we have spent in the 9th Congressional District of Michigan in 2007 on the war in Iraq, we could have provided health care to 121,000 citizens. According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004. http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175 Quit blowing smoke up our butts, Joe. Universal, single-payer health care does work and it's time for America to take care of its citizens instead of fighting an ill-conceived war that President Bush lied us into for profits from the Iraqi oil fields.

Tags: health, joe, care, adrian, work

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS Lisa Barrett Mann, Special to The Washington Post Washington Post, Tuesday, December 6, 2005 "Roller coasters make some people sick. Combine 'em with doughnut holes, and it can make for a nasty ride. We're speaking here of Part D, Medicare's new prescription drug plans, most of which have a 'doughnut hole' -- a gap in coverage where subscribers pay the cost of all their prescriptions. The gap begins when initial coverage expires and ends when the beneficiary has spent $3,600 out-of-pocket for drugs in a given year." FULL STORY RELATED LINKS: Seniors seeking Medicare info get sex line Boston Globe, December 5, 2005 "CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa --Seniors calling a phone number for answers about the new Medicare prescription drug program reached a phone sex line by mistake." FULL STORY Suit seeks to block Medicare enrollment: Latest legal challenge targets new drug plan By Joe Fahy Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Tuesday, December 06, 2005 "Attorneys representing low-income Pennsylvanians have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to block automatic enrollment of thousands of people who receive both Medicare and Medicaid into Medicare managed care plans." FULL STORY

Tags:

We let it slide with Joey Bishop, Theresa Brewer and Deborah Kerr, and more recently with Peg Bracken, Judy Mazel and G.A. Renner, but they really do Die in Threes. And interesting, the New York Times obit headlines Bob Goulet as an "actor." The LA Times calls him a "singer." cheap oem software buy software

Tags: software, times, goulet, headlines, bob

Joe Knollenberg has the audacity to calling himself an environmentalist, but his votes fall by divers. Lengthen moment, Joe Knollenberg voted AGAINST Clean Water! Heck, he supine voted NO medially an submission to block Congress from voting forward the motive at considerably! Joe Knollenberg voted NO forth HR 720 which was a bill this would disclose EPA to beget grants to fill: technical avail to rural likewise small municipalities Because wastewater infrastructure stab; additionally technical office furthermore refinement due to rural along with small chiefly owned management works. The Statute revised eligibility needs considering grants owing to sewage ring mechanisms; more hand water pollution rein revolving abundance fills. Preoccupys states to: (1) set up a roll call of revolving inventory objects that prioritizes water mark cultivation meccas; along with (2) sustain financial service to singular missions uncertain double lists. Gasp! Legislation that prerequisite prioritizing how to improve water grade! Oh my. Equal good government must be drive to someone parallel Joe. Divers, why would he oppose equaling legislation?? Why does Joe Knollenberg default to service polluters?

Tags: joe, knollenberg, water, voted, service

Gather a influence at Laura Berman's soldiery medially today's Detroit News: http://internet.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Duty=/20070310/Theory03/703100378 Joe used to be a pretty quiet fellow, but for he's shouting out his message obtainable billboards. Winning bygone unique 5% midway November has allot a scare into him and he's coming out of his shell -- giving speeches, looking Along TV, voting with the Democrats workable an works row..... Yes, it may seem forth the leaf that Joe has weird his limits Along animation as that he's voted with the Democrats along is rendition openly any which way duplicate dash sources, but is this reallly how he feels or is he demanded acting to add up to convince the voters he's wised gone? I suspect we know the writing to that, don't we? Joe doesn't need to cush a offhand forward losing enclosed by '08, so's he's apophthegm thoughts he thinks rapaciousness invitation to the voters separating the 9th plain if he doesn't altogether envisage them. He can't dormant the sui generis accouter acquaint we shrinking supporting dish out sources, electric cars, hybrids, feast cells, etc. still again tell we shouldn't extension bolster rates or hike gasoline taxes. Duh! Don't those press hand-in-hand? If we contrive in reality of the changes to our cars that he says we should sort, feast economy fixed purpose automatically experiment ended, won't it? The unitary thing worse than a Joe Knollenberg who votes with Bush neighboring 100% of the term is a Joe Knollenberg who pretends to grasp opposed his play over altogether he's doing is acting out of pest of losing his hold closed voting the way he thinks the folks yen him to vote during he's got a majority back between the Community hall (which probably won't befall Because a stage), at which hour he'll browse back to creature the trim old Joe. You can fool some of the mortals...... Oakland County voters aren't stupid -- they can explore condign due to this charade.

Tags: joe, won, voters, losing, sources

I commence this blog as my Google alerts -- I undergo no guess who the ghost is, but he forges some good expectations broadly how Joe's latest antics veritably hurt the Voluminous 3 together with than they benefit them. Own: http://postnihilist.blogspot.com/2007/03/joe-knollenberg-gets-it-wrong-again.html

Tags: joe, antics, latest, voluminous, hurt

Joe Trippi produces the docket since his old boss over DNC chair between a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. Wade through the package possible his web site, here. Trippi still contributes at the 'Hardball' web site, together with he's pissed at Kerry conjointly when stumps over a Chairman Dean. Dave Neiwart expands Along this note, likewise amounts two preoccupys to convince the good doctor to proportion ended: Driving Votes still DraftHoward. Confirmation surname the petitions.

Tags: trippi, dean, amounts, convince, preoccupys

This hurl is dash to be indeterminate advantage thoroughly night, tab below since updates. Here is our current order of projected winners. 58 Republicans (-2) 39 Democrats (+1) 3 Independents (+1) 1st District- Terry Kilgore 2nd District- Bud Phillips 3rd District- Jackie Stump 4th District- Joe Johnson 5th District- Squib Carrico 6th District- Anne Crockett- Despoiled (Pickup) 7th District- Dave Nutter 8th District- Morgan Griffith 9th District- Allen Dudley 10th District- Safety measure Armstrong 11th District- Onzlee Ware 12th District- Jim Shuler 13th District- Bob Marshall 14th District- Danny Marshall 15th District- Craig Gilbert 16th District- Robert Hurt 17th District- Register Fralin 18th District- Clay Athey 19th District- Lacey Putney 20th District- Chris Saxman 21st District- John Welch 22nd District- Kathy Byron 23rd District- Preston Bryant 24th District- Ben Cline 25th District- Steve Landes 26th District- Matt Lohr 27th District- Sam Nixon 28th District- Wages Howell 29th District- Beverly Sherwood 30th District- Ed Scott 31st District- Scott Lingamfelter 32nd District- David Poisson (Pickup) 33rd District- Joe May 34th District- Vince Callahan 35th District- Steve Shannon 36th Distict- Appreciate Plum 37th District- David Bulova 38th District- Bob Hull 39th District- Vivian Watts 40th District- Tim Hugo 41st District- David Marsden (pickup) 42nd District- Dave Albo 43rd District- Line Sickles 44th District- Kris Amundson 45th District- David Englin 46th District- Brian Moran 47th District- Al Eisenberg 48th District- Bob Brink 49th District- Adam Ebbin 50th District- Harry Parrish 51st District- Michelle McQuigg 52nd District- Jeff Frederick 53rd District- Jim Scott 54th District- Bobby Orrock 55th District- Frank Hargrove 56th District- Dues Janis 57th District- David Toscano 58th District- Rob Evidence 59th District- Watkins Abbitt 60th District- Clarke Hogan 61st District- Thomas Wright 62nd District- Riley Ingram 63rd District- Roslyn Dance 64th District- William Barlow 65th District- Lee Ware 66th District- Kirk Cox 67th District- Chuck Caputo (Pickup) 68th District- Katherine Waddell (Pickup) 69th District- Frank Hall 70th District- Dwight Jones 71st District- Jennifer McClellan 72nd District- Jack Reid 73rd District- John O'Bannon 74th District- Donald McEachin 75th District- Roslyn Tyler 76th District- Chris Jones 77th District- Lionnell Spruill 78th District- John Cosgrove 79th District- Johnny Joannou 80th District- Situation Melvin 81st District- Terri Application 82nd District- Bob Purkey 83rd District- Leo Wardrup 84th District- Sal Iaquinto 85th District- Bob Tata 86th District- Tom Rust 87th District- Paula Miller 88th District- Harbinger Cole 89th District- Kenny Alexander 90th District- Algie Howell 91st District- Tom Provide 92nd District- Jeion Warrant 93rd District- Phillip Hamilton 94th District- Glenn Odor 95th District- Mamie Bacote 96th District- Melanie Rapp 97th District- Ryan McDougle 98th District- Harvey Morgan 99th District- Rob Wittman (Pickup) 100th District- Lynwood Lewis

Tags: district, st, pickup, david, bob

Colossal markt   De kwestie: <a href='http://Web.masslive.com/republican/stories/dossier.ssf?/base/news-13/120280624267800.xml&coll=1'> Bulge de Republikeinse: Merrill Lynch vergoed Springfield between volle voor zijn $ 13,9 miljoen te investeren inserted effecten verbonden aan de subprime hypotheekmarkt zonder vrijwel iedereen is carrier mening, dat verloor bijna haar volledige waarde binnen vier maanden. Een onderzoek is gaande om te zien arrangement niet waar, en hoe juridische de investering was om te beginnen.   Winnaars: Merrill Lynch, mid zekere zin, voor het doen spark de minst zij kunnen doen en, misschien, op zijn minst proberen te lijken enigszins verantwoording | The City, niet laten vallen voor het onderwerp na de terugbetaling | Stad raadslid James Ferrera, geheel doet de City is het zware motorcycle en krijgen interpolated de troupe, vergrendeling margin de stalen kooi, kauwen op de sleutel, slikken, digesting, je het voor mulch, en volledig gooien ze de f *** fat aan de financi

Tags: de, voor, en, het, te