surface-ships

It’s funny and hilarious. Because since Stydia shippers find out that Lydia’s grandmother used to call her Ariel. Now they make giftsets where Stiles is the Prince and Lydia is Ariel. Other others make Malia to be the brunette girl who the Prince was supposed to marry and be like “accurate” “anti Stalia”

You know what’s funny? Lydia told Stiles “it used to be a book first!”. Sure enough. In the books, it’s another story. Let me tell ya kids.

The Little Mermaid lived in the sea kingdom with her father and her sister, each year one of them will surface for the first time to see the upper world, when it’s Ariel’s turn to surface there’s a ship in honor of a Prince, and she falls in love with him. There’s a big storm and Ariel saves the Prince from drowning. Then she left him a temple until a young girl finds him. Ariel later asks her grandmother if humans life forever and she explains to her that mermaids die, and turn to sea form while humans have a soul that goes to heaven. The Little Mermaid wanted to be with the Prince so she turns to the Sea Witch (Ursula in the movie) the witch helps her by selling her a potion that gives her legs in exchange for her tongue, the Sea Witch warns that once she becomes a human, she will never be able to return to the sea, but will have legs to dance with the Prince. In addition, she will obtain a soul only if she wins the love of the prince and marries him, for then a part of his soul will flow into her. Otherwise, at dawn on the first day after he marries another woman, the Little Mermaid will die brokenhearted and disintegrate into sea foam upon the waves. The Little Mermaid agrees.

The Little Mermaid swims to the surface and she is found by the prince, who is mesmerised by her beauty, soon she became the prince’s favorite companion. When the prince’s father orders his son to marry the neighboring king’s daughter in an arranged marriage, the prince tells the Little Mermaid he will not because he does not love the princess. He goes on to say he can only love the young woman from the temple, who he believes rescued him. It turns out that the princess from the neighboring kingdom is the temple girl (The brunetter, Malia remember?), sent there only temporarily to be educated. The prince loves her, and the royal wedding is announced at once. The prince and princess marry on a wedding ship, and the Little Mermaid’s heart breaks, she made so many sacrifices only to die. So her sisters rise out of the water and bring her a dagger that the Sea Witch has given them in exchange for their long, beautiful hair. If the Little Mermaid slays the prince with the dagger and lets his blood drip on her feet, she will become a mermaid once more, all her suffering will end, and she will live out her full life in the ocean with her family. However, the Little Mermaid cannot bring herself to kill the sleeping prince lying with his new bride, and she throws the dagger and herself off the ship into the water just as dawn breaks. Her body dissolves into foam, but instead of ceasing to exist, she feels the warm sun and discovers that she has turned into a luminous and ethereal earthbound spirit, a daughter of the air. As the Little Mermaid ascends into the atmosphere, she is greeted by other daughters who tell her she has become like them because she strove with all her heart to obtain an immortal soul. Because of her selflessness, she will be given the chance to earn her own soul by doing good deeds to mankind for 300 years and will one day rise up into the Kingdom of God.

So, years later this story was adapted to the famous Disney movie. So, that Stydia/Stalia comparation isn’t too accurate i am right?

I’m not laughing or anything.

4

Background of the Tomahawk Cruise Missile:

Tomahawk cruise missiles are designed to fly at extremely low altitudes at high subsonic speeds, and are piloted over an evasive route by several mission tailored guidance systems. The first operational use was in Operation Desert Storm, 1991, with immense success. The missile has since been successfully used in several other conflicts. In 1995 the governments of the United States and United Kingdom signed a Foreign Military Sales Agreement for the acquisition of 65 missiles, marking the first sale of Tomahawk to a foreign country. After a November 1998 launch and live warhead test, the U.K. declared operational capability.

Description:

The Tomahawk is a long range, subsonic cruise missile used for land attack warfare, launched from surface ships and submarines.

Features of the Tomahawk Cruise Missile:

Tomahawk Block II uses a Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) missile guidance system. Block III adds a Global Positioning Satellite guidance capability to TERCOM and DSMAC. Radar detection of the missile is extremely difficult because of the small radar cross-section and low altitude. Tomahawk has two warhead configurations: a 1,000-lb. blast/fragmentary unitary warhead and a general-purpose submunition dispenser with combined effect bomblets. Because of its long range, lethality, and extreme accuracy Tomahawk has become the weapon of choice for the U.S. Department of Defense.

The capabilities of the future Tomahawk, Block IV or Tactical Tomahawk, will include battle damage assessment, in flight retargeting, and mission planning from the launch platform. With added capabilities Tactical Tomahawk will carry on the superior tradition of its predecessor into the 21st Century. It is projected to enter service in 2003.

General Characteristics:

  • Primary Function: long-range subsonic cruise missile for striking high value or heavily defended land targets.
  • Contractor: Raytheon Systems Company, Tucson, Ariz.
  • Unit Cost: approximately $600,000 (from the last production contract)
  • Power Plant: Williams International F107-WR-402 cruise turbo-fan engine; CSD/ARC solid-fuel booster
  • Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
  • Weight: 2,900 pounds (1,315.44 kg); 3,500 pounds (1,587.6 kg) with booster
  • Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
  • Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
  • Range: 870 nautical miles (1000 statute miles, 1609 km)
  • Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
  • Guidance System: TERCOM, DSMAC, and GPS (Block III only)
  • Warheads: 1,000 pounds or conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets.
  • Date Deployed: 1986 - IOC; 1994 - Block III; 2003 - Tactical Tomahawk
Legit Word of the Day

maelstrom

(n.) a destructive whirlpool which rapidly sucks in objects 

In her anger, the sea witch conjured a maelstrom to trap the sailors. Her horrible laugh echoed over the waves as the calm ocean surface broke, ripping the ship apart board by board until it vanished into the dark chasm of the water.

amandrin asked:

5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25

5. list all anime you have ever watched: CHRIST the list is too long, my tags list [here] is a pretty comprehensive list

10. favorite anime animal sidekick: probably kuro from ao no exorcist! a big cat! what more could you ask for

15. anime you never get sick of watching: either early one piece or gekkan shoujo nozaki-kun, or i guess both I FORGOT! natsume’s book of friends i watched it at a kind of rough point in my life so it has a very special place in my heart <3

20.  least favorite anime ships: JONATHAN JOESTAR/DIO i’m putting that out there right now, also i’m not a fan of jotaro/anyone, AND all the teacher/student stuff in the naruto fandom?? get that away from me and also any incest jolyne and jotaro has come to my attention recently and i hatE IT GET THAT AWAY FROM ME

25. anime you would recommend to someone who hates anime: fullmetal alchemist! everyone loves that

thisbluebird asked:

Hi There! Regarding the "Odd" obi photo you reblogged from me. Yes the kimono are original from the 1920s through 1960s. And yes the obi/sashes are individually handmade, by Me, from vintage kimono silk remnants. Original pre-1960s vintage Obi are expensive and so I make long sashes to go with the vintage kimono I sell in my shop. Cheers!

Actually authentic obi while typically somewhat more expensive than vintage kimono are not always as pricey as you think they are. I have bought plenty of vintage (and modern) obi from Japan (and also the USA) for anywhere between 99 cents and 20 each plus shipping (which is usually 10-20 dollars per obi, the shipping can be cheaper if you can use the slower surface air line (SAL) shipping instead of express mail service (EMS) which can take as little as 4-7 days and if you are able to order multiple obi at the same time). 

Obi are a bit harder to find at low prices (and this is true of both vintage obi and brand new obi in washable polyester or cotton), but if you are persistent and check several online sites, they show up more often than you might realize. 

Japan’s decades of deflation combined with an aging population and very few people wearing kimono (throughout Japan there are tansu chock full of clean excellent condition kimono and obi from daywear to formalwear that go back a few generations, they were part of what a bride took with her as a trousseau and were bought that way or passed down for every new bride until the economic collapse of the 1990s. Japanese families being both frugal & sentimental have hung onto them) means obi and kimono can be found at very reasonable prices if you are patient and know where to look. 

There are the most plentiful choices if you are actually physically in Japan (regular flea markets and a national second-hand clothing chain called Tansu-Ya being two of the very most popular sources for individuals, periodic bulk kimono and vintage clothing auctions for dealers who buy in bulk to stock their shelves). There are also periodic clearance sales of cast offs from kimono rental shops (most Japanese now rent kimono in reasonably current styles for their semiformal and formal  occasions, the advantage to this being they can also avail themselves of professional kimono styling and dressing services so they don’t have to learn to dress themselves for the few times in their lives when they want to wear kimono, especially fancy kimono).

Then there are the online sources like Yahoo Japan Auctions (if you’re overseas you use a forwarding service to bid on YJA, receive the merchandise from the seller and then have it sent on to you for a fee), Furicle, and Rakuten (which has some sellers who ship outside Japan on Global Rakuten). And of course there are kimono and obi that have made it to the USA on ebaY and Etsy (these tend to be vintage goods brought home by military families and tourists as souvenirs and get disposed of when someone dies or loses interest in them).

By the way, I’m sure you know this and arrange the kimono and obi combinations this way for photographic purposes (plenty of Japanese kimono magazines do this) but most obi have the pretty knots (called musubi) worn at the back. I see knots to the front occasionally in Japanese street wear outfits from young fashionistas in Harajuku and Shibuya but older Japanese tend to associate a knot tied at the front with oiran or the very high class call girls of the Edo days. 

Those now older Japanese who paid to attend kimono dressing academies in the decades following WWII would never wear an obi musubi tied at the front due to it being unladylike and improper. The common knowledge and experience of wearing kimono, especially casual kimono, was largely lost to the generations of Japanese born after the war, and so these schools/businesses were founded to teach women who wanted to be proper Japanese ladies and good candidates to become middle class or wealthy Japanese wives and mothers regular lessons in dressing skills and kimono etiquette. These paid for courses became part of ‘proper’ finishing for the aspiring young Japanese lady along with lessons in other traditional Japanese arts like tea ceremony and ikebana.

Sadly these schools may have in the long run made kimono less popular because of the burdensome ‘rules’ most Japanese now believe go along with wearing kimono ‘properly’ not to mention that some of the schools and shops that sell kimono, obi and dressing tools to would-be students have become notorious for pushing women to buy kimono they cannot afford and lots of associated supplies (there are many complaints about these dubious schools on Japanese kimono enthusiast discussion boards online and there are now even a few modest consumer protection laws out there to help the unfortunate victims get out of harsh financing arrangements they have made for the gear they are told they ‘need’ to successfully graduate from these lessons). These shady businesses actually discourage women from using secondhand kimono they already have (or can buy cheaply) to learn to dress in kimono and they give the kimono schools that don’t push new kimono goods and onerous loan packages onto their pupils a black eye.

Of course an obi can be made (and made in a non traditional size and style) if that’s the look you prefer. But it doesn’t have to be done that way because not all vintage obi are expensive. There are good condition early obi out there going unloved and cheaply, they just take a bit more searching to find because though they may initially have been more expensive than their companion kimono, they are plentiful enough and with time and patience you will find sellers who price them to sell.

And FYI the most popular books about kimono in Japan are the kimono remake books…these teach people how to refashion kimono and obi into not just kimono goods (like haori jackets, pre-tied obi,kanzashi hair ornaments or bags) but also Western style clothes and accessories. It’s all part of the traditional Japanese idea of mottenai or “don’t be wasteful”, so while your upcycled obi aren’t in the traditional popular Japanese shapes (maru, fukuro, Nagoya, hanhaba or tsuke/tsukuri), you are definitely doing something that most Japanese would find practical.

anonymous asked:

Hi. 🙊 Im grumpy. Ya knw the lil dwarf from the seven dwarfs. Yup thats me.✌ I like the color of the ocean when the wavea break the surface. That blue💙 Fav ship?? Titanic? ⛵ I have a cat name booger. Bye.👋

thanks for sharing grumpy 

Why Are the British Much Better About Declassifying Historical Nuclear Weapons Information Than the U.S.?

April 19, 2015

Secrecy Cloaks History of U.S. Nuclear Presence in Western Europe

William Burr

Unredacted (National Security Archive blog)

March 24, 2015

Are the British More Open about Nuclear History than the U.S.?

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Recent declassification decisions by a committee representing the Department of Defense and Department of Energy have simultaneously advanced and set back the cause of transparency for the history of the U.S. nuclear posture. In response to a request by the National Security Archive, the Formerly Restricted Data Declassification Working Group (FRD DWG) have declassified the numbers, in the thousands, of nuclear weapons carried on U.S. Navy surface ships during the Cold War, from 1953 to 1991. Yet, they denied a related request—for declassification of the numbers, which also ran into the thousands, of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed to NATO Europe during the Cold War. Even though the NATO deployments have long been overtaken by events—only a few hundred remain in Western Europe—they are likely to remain secret for the indefinite future.

Background

What made the declassification requests possible was a provision in 10 C.F.R. 1045.20 concerning information classified under the Atomic Energy Act (Title 10 refers to the Department of Energy). Under this provision, it is possible to file a petition with the Department of Energy to request the declassification of Restricted Data (RD) and Formerly Restricted Data (FRD). Because RD generally concerns the design of nuclear weapons and the manufacture of fissile material for substantive policy reasons it often remains classified. FRD, by contrast, concerns classification controls over the military use of nuclear weapons, including weapons yields, stockpiles, deployments and storage arrangements. In this area the Pentagon, far more than the Department of Energy, has had a major role in using and protecting FRD and in resisting its declassification. To test the boundaries of the declassifiable, the Federation of American Scientists’ Steven Aftergood has pioneered using the DOE’s rules to secure the declassification of important information about nuclear weapons.

In 1993, a few years after the Cold War ended, the Clinton administration, with Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary in the lead, disclosed the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons through 1961.   Yet, no breakdown was provided, for example, of weapons deployed in specific regions or to specific forces. All of that remained secret, which meant that important elements of Cold War history also remained shrouded. For example, that the United States had thousands of nuclear weapons deployed overseas remained a significant puzzle. In order to back up U.S. diplomacy and to validate security guarantees and to deter political and military pressure from the former Soviet Union and its allies, the Pentagon deployed thousands of tactical nuclear weapons around the world, from Northeast Asia (South Korea and Okinawa) to Western Europe (primarily in West Germany) as well as the Atlantic and the Pacific.  Moreover, overseas deployments were often related to war plans—nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers were tied in commitments for war plans against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries and to a lesser against, China. Likewise, nuclear bombs assigned to NATO aircraft had SIOP targets.

The facts of those deployments along with their numbers were highly secret, although sometimes policymakers leaked information to the press.   It was not until 1999, years after the Cold War had ended, that the Pentagon responded to FOIA requests by releasing parts of a top secret historical study on the history of custody and deployment arrangements. Yet much remained classified, including numbers of weapons overseas and most of the countries where the weapons were deployed although educated guesses were possible.

More of the Same

16 years later, the situation has not changed (although former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates released more aggregate stockpile numbers). For example, that Washington deployed nuclear weapons in Italy and Turkey, the Netherlands and Belgium, and other parts of the world remains an official secret. The numbers of weapons assigned to surface naval forces has also been classified. To try to get some light shed, the National Security Archive has from time to time requested declassification review of majorstudies of the overseas stockpile, but basic facts remain classified. Following the example set by Steven Aftergood, during 2014 the Archive petitioned the Department of Energy for two sets of information: 1) aggregate numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons deployments to Western European NATO countries for each year from 1950 to 1991, and 2) aggregate numbers of deployments of nuclear weapons “afloat” on U.S. Navy surface ships during the Cold War, with breakdown by ocean/sea (Atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean). 1991 was an appropriate cut-off because that year President George H. W. Bush ordered the withdrawal of all Naval nuclear weapons (except for submarine-launched ballistic missiles) and the withdrawal of all but a few hundred nuclear weapons from NATO Europe. Under the regulations, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and perhaps the Department of State (which historically has managed the diplomacy surrounding nuclear weapons deployments) would coordinate a response to the petitions.

The FRD DWG gave an affirmative response to the request on naval nuclear weapons. Recently the Department of Defense posted on its DOD Open.Gov Web site declassified tables identifying numbers of U.S. Navy nuclear weapons afloat, with a breakdown by geographic location. What is surprising is that there were thousands of naval nuclear weapons beginning in the 1960s. But a previously posted declassified National Security Council study from early 1972 provides similarly large numbers for naval nuclear weapons (see page 35). The original request was narrowly phrased, asking only for a geographic breakdown, but it is unfortunate that the Defense Department released the numbers without explanation. Yet the gross numbers provide a sense of the massive scale of the navy’s nuclear operations. Presumably “weapons afloat” includes warheads for missile reentry vehicles on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, nuclear bombs and depth charges on carriers and other nuclear weapons carried on surface ships and submarines, including torpedoes, ASROC (anti-submarine rocket), TOMAHAWK ship-launched cruise missiles, TALOS anti-ship weapons, and TERRIER air defense weapons. The total very likely includes weapons deployed on ammunitions ships, on submarine tenders, in magazines on naval bases, but also U.S. weapons assigned to NATO allies (such as anti-submarine warfare weapons to the Netherlands). The Archive has filed a request with DOE for a more detailed breakdown.

Nuclear Weapons Afloat: End of Fiscal Years 1953-1991.

The tables for the Atlantic, Pacific, and Mediterranean do not include the years before 1961, although the annual grand totals in the first table begin with 1953. Perhaps the data breaking the deployments down is unavailable or the researchers did not know where to look. No security reason would seem to be at issue. By 1951, U.S. aircraft carriers were starting to carry non-nuclear components (less the fissile material core), which suggests that 1953 was the first year when the carriers were carrying complete nuclear weapons, consistent with the Eisenhower administration’s new policy of dispersing nuclear weapons to the armed services.

Nuclear Weapons Briefing for Fulbright Committee.

As for the request for declassification of the numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons in Cold War Western Europe, a letter from the Department of Energy informed the Archive that the FRD/ DWG has decided that the request “cannot be granted at this time.”  No explanation was provided, although the decision is consistent with the Department of Defense’s historic refusal to declassify numbers of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe; the exact size of the current deployment in Western Europe is as much an official secret as the deployments of the past.1 Nevertheless, this is a puzzling decision. It is not even secret that the U.S. deployed nuclear weapons in Western Europe during the Cold war; for example, in 2013 the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) declassified significant portions of a briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1970 on U.S. nuclear deployments overseas. ISCAP not only disclosed the fact that the U.S. had nuclear weapons deployed in NATO Europe, it listed the countries with which Washington had nuclear cooperation agreements covering stockpile arrangements: Belgium, Canada, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. Given such declassifications the number of weapons during the Cold War is really only an interesting detail.

What’s The Problem

Even during the Cold War the numbers of weapons in NATO Europe were not highly secret. In September 1966 when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was in Rome to organize NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, the size of the stockpile quickly leaked to the New York Times: the headline stated: “7,000 Warheads in NATO’s Forces: McNamara Says Number Has Doubled in 5 Years.” As Washington Postreporter Murrey Marder observed some years later the numbers would go up and down, but the 7,000 figure remained the best approximation.2 Even when President Bush ordered the withdrawal of thousands of nuclear weapons from around the world in 1991, the number of weapons that had been deployed to Western Europe remained an official secret.

It is not at all clear why the U.S. government is afraid to declassify the numbers. The agencies always cite the Atomic Weapons Act as constraining release but in the past they have interpreted it to declassify other stockpile numbers. There is no absolute prohibition. It would be better if the agencies followed the pragmatic British who have declassified much data about their nuclear stockpile during the Cold War, including weapons types and numbers, where they were deployed, and even their explosive yields. John R. Walker, an official historian at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has impressively compiled such data in several articles published in The RUSI Journal.3 It is remarkable that, even with the Official Secrets Act, a British public historian could produce such useful research, with full citations. It is a sad commentary that such an accomplishment is impossible in this country.

Notes

1. Jeffrey Lewis, “180 NATO Nukes,” Arms Control Wonk , 17 Dccember 2010.

2. Robert C. Doty, “7,000 Warheads in NATO’s Forces,” New York Times, 24 September 1966; Murray Marder, “Senate Report Analyzes U.S. Nuclear Force in Europe,” Washington Post, 2 December 1973.

3. John R. Walker, “British Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles, 1953-78,” and “British Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, 1953-1978: A Commentary on Technical and Political Drivers,” RUSI Journal 156 (October/November 2011): 66-72 and 74-83 respectively.

Microsoft beats in Q3 2015 with revenue Of $21.7B, EPS Of $0.61, and Surface revenue of $713M


Successful CMOs achieve growth by leveraging technology. Join us for GrowthBeat Summit on June 1-2 in Boston, where we’ll discuss how to merge creativity with technology to drive growth. Space is limited. Request your personal invitation here!

Microsoft today reported its earnings for the third quarter of its fiscal 2015, including revenue of $21.73 billion and earnings per share of $0.61 Analysts had expected the company to earn $ 21.06 billion in revenue and earnings per share of $0.51.

Microsoft’s stock was up less than 1 percent in regular trading. In after-hours, however, the company is up between 2 to 3 percent.

Microsoft revealed Surface revenue at $713 million, up 44 percent, driven mainly by Surface Pro 3 and its accessories. The newly announced Surface 3 doesn’t ship until May 5, so it won’t be impacting results for at least a quarter or two.

Last quarter, Surface generated a record $1.1 billion for Microsoft. While the company didn’t manage to get another $1 billion quarter from this business, the figure was still up compared to Q3 2014, when Surface generated approximately $500 million for the company.

More to follow

More information:

Powered by VBProfiles


VentureBeat’s VB Insight team is studying email marketing tools. Chime in here, and we’ll share the results.
More information:

Powered by VBProfiles










from VentureBeat http://ift.tt/1GbPPKP
via IFTTT

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1FhX6wn
via IFTTT
The Long Range Ship Destroying Tank, or LRSDT was designed initially only for use against surface ships and as an April fools joke. However, after firing a round at a surface warship with her shields up with an incendiary round, the ship burnt up in under 3 minutes, going through the shield and several layers of armor. Further tests revealed that the tank can fire all around the world from any position. I believe this tank will become a necessity in all artillery units in the EODC Armored Core very soon.
—  EODC Prussian Weapons Research Facility
May 12th 1941
Microsoft To Start Shipping Surface 3 in May - Yibada (English Edition)

Microsoft To Start Shipping Surface 3 in May – Yibada (English Edition)


Yibada (English Edition)

Microsoft To Start Shipping Surface 3 in May
Yibada (English Edition)
Surface 3 is nothing like Surface 2, which consisted of windows specific operating systems and also an ARM processor. The new version, Surface 3 has a Windows 8.1 operating system and an Intel x86 processor, a common hybrid the current day laptops and …
Surface Pro 3 Trade-In Deals at Best Buy: Offers…

View On WordPress

What is Your Biggest Weakness- How would you answer this question in an Interview

This is a promontory that stumps close of us on an c twain into distrust. In fact,it mogul empower onm corresponding a return keyoff question. Its nonpargonil nidussing for an interviewer to see how you for disembowel brood yourself in an cumber slightly situation. Would it affect you to roll in the hay that on that point atomic number 18 ship throw surfaceal to event this frankly and take everywhere suffer pledge? alternatively than eachow that you be more than than(prenominal) of an retract than an extravertive you could firmness corresponding this I love that I could be more birdsong in bestow ideas during our police squad meetings. Im qualification a conscious trend to office my become and expertness at either opportunity. anformer(a)(prenominal) physical exertion instead of holdting to a insufficiency of date perplexity skills you could give voice it this stylus, I raise to proceed as some(prenominal) into the d ay as possible, hardly there is sound so more than that I neediness to turn over that it neer sees quite an enough. over magazine, Ive changed the delegacy in which I spring my day. I nowadays put the ab let egress weighty under victorious at the precede of my bring through controversy so that when interruptions pass along during the day, I receipt that I capture this out of the way. This shows that you be acknowledging the world where you waste face challenges and ar taking serve to cudgel your flea-bittenness. You could also say, `In bona fide situations Im nevertheless Ive observe that in other situations that its non an issue.Dont be panic-stricken to take your time swear outing. When we blurt out out an answer as well quickly, its commonly some amour that we regret. The whisk thing that you can do is non admit to both weaknesses, hoping to impress. peerless reply that allow for keep up the interviewer axial motion his eyebal l is to say, Im alike lots of a perfectioni! st. It takes some cooking to incur this horizon out in advance the interview. If you usurpt lead a put in showcase you wint seem authentic to a expert interview who knows that we all subscribe weak aras.Remember the 5 P`s forward provision prevents execrable performanceI commend that you component part hoyden and bid every question that may be asked of you, in the aforementioned(prenominal) way that you would repair for an exam. zilch is a moderation for total preparation.For over 30 geezerhood Catherine Sternberg has been actively problematical in own(prenominal) growth as a incarnate trainer, an educator in act education, a strategy pushchair and as a student of nonstop learning. Her prep focuses both on individual(prenominal) and biography infractment.Catherines clients widen from her tele-classes, webinars, channelize programs and sort coach how to focus on their strengths and develop amiable strategies to drag the results they are looking for for.Private developingCatherine combines her superior baffle, her teaching as a certifiable crucify trail, and her deportment experience and working with surreptitious with individuals in private train sessions. She believes that we all pull in the answers in spite of appearance ourselves and pauperisms everyone to empathize their emf to hot powerful, honor lives. working with a schema Coach gives you a model to cypher big thoughts. As a result, you allow drop a great feign in others lives and consent more motivating and circumspection in your own. Your income will lots step-up and emphatically the satisfaction in how you share your pushing and your time.An accountability Coach provides structures to promise that you are meeting your objectives and staying on contrast with what you are affiliated to for your life.If you want to get a rise essay, localise it on our website: BestEssayCheap.co m


"BuyPaperCheap.net" offers you t! o Buy paper cheap! Buy essay, research paper… from us - it is guaranteed to be 100% original and of the best quality possible. You can buy papers cheap online!

Research papers

`Domestic firms to be encouraged into defence manufacturing`

The Centre has plans to encourage domestic companies to start manufacturing of defence equipment and over a period of time dependency on imports of such items will be over, Union Minister of State for Surface Transport, Highways and Shipping Pon Radhakrishnan said.

`Domestic firms to be encouraged into defence manufacturing`

Will We See The Microsoft Corporation Surface Pro 4 This April? - Bidness ETC

Will We See The Microsoft Corporation Surface Pro 4 This April? – Bidness ETC


Bidness ETC

Will We See The Microsoft Corporation Surface Pro 4 This April?
Bidness ETC
Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) is growing its Surface line of convertible laptop-tablet hybrids rather quickly. After releasing the Surface 3 tablet on March 31, the company is reportedly going to launch the next version – dubbed the Surface Pro 4 …
Microsoft To Start Shipping Surface 3 in MayYibada…

View On WordPress

1945-1955


Between 1945 and 1955, the submarine was transformed from a fast surface ship that could hide briefly underwater into a true underwater boat, able to move and fight for weeks on end without ever surfacing.The process began with German U-boats captured by the Allies at the end of World War II. The U-Boats that they capture had such better and advanced technology,, such as highly streamlined hulls and snorkels, these boats inspired new thinking in every major navy.

The senator from Washington state, Darren Leyton, and his wife Tara, brought Geneva into the world 26 years ago, only a year after their son, Darren Junior, was born. Forced into the mold of political chess piece early on, Geneva rebelled. DJ was the good child, a Stanford graduate. Gen barely scraped by in University of Southern California after being asked to leave a prestigious college for young ladies early in her academic career.

She never met a party she didn’t like and had a slight drug problem. When a sex tape threatened to surface, her parents shipped her to Favilla Island, having heard it was a secluded rehab facility.

Geneva Leyton looks like Nina Dobrev and is Open.

[Skeleton bio, left to the player to flesh it out]

Personality

  • Shallow
  • Adventurous
  • Cultured
  • Fun loving
  • High-spirited
  • Artificial