kirupa
07-29 12:29 PM
Hi John - this may help you out: http://www.kirupa.com/blend_wpf/custom_wpf_windows.htm
The rounded corners in that tutorial came from Windows itself :)
Cheers,
Kirupa
The rounded corners in that tutorial came from Windows itself :)
Cheers,
Kirupa
wallpaper hairstyles for round faces
hirs
07-23 06:08 AM
Another one - hope you like it...
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
http://www.xn--hrlin-gra.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shirt_peacekids_haerlin.jpg
Steve Mitchell
February 12th, 2004, 10:38 PM
The Four Thirds system is gaining support. Olympus and Kodak now have company. Get the story here (http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=185&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0).
2011 hair hot round face and thin
sankap
07-10 06:58 PM
This was posted and widely discussed here the night before the print edition published...
more...
gc_rip
06-14 01:15 AM
While filing I-485 do I have to choose which I-140 and PD to be used. Need your advise which one should I use,
1. I-140 approved with details as: PERM LC (EB3, PD Dec 2006).
2. I-140 pending (just filed) with details regular LC (EB3, PD Nov 2004).
Choices are:
A. Just file 485 with 140 with earlier PD(option2 ), and let both 140 and 485 continue.
B. File 485 with approved 140
C. Convert pending 140 into premium, and file 485. Is the extra $1000 justified for this?
Thanks in advance.
1. I-140 approved with details as: PERM LC (EB3, PD Dec 2006).
2. I-140 pending (just filed) with details regular LC (EB3, PD Nov 2004).
Choices are:
A. Just file 485 with 140 with earlier PD(option2 ), and let both 140 and 485 continue.
B. File 485 with approved 140
C. Convert pending 140 into premium, and file 485. Is the extra $1000 justified for this?
Thanks in advance.
Macaca
11-11 08:15 AM
Extreme Politics (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/books/review/Brinkley-t.html) By ALAN BRINKLEY | New York Times, November 11, 2007
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
Alan Brinkley is the Allan Nevins professor of history and the provost at Columbia University.
Few people would dispute that the politics of Washington are as polarized today as they have been in decades. The question Ronald Brownstein poses in this provocative book is whether what he calls “extreme partisanship” is simply a result of the tactics of recent party leaders, or whether it is an enduring product of a systemic change in the structure and behavior of the political world. Brownstein, formerly the chief political correspondent for The Los Angeles Times and now the political director of the Atlantic Media Company, gives considerable credence to both explanations. But the most important part of “The Second Civil War” — and the most debatable — is his claim that the current political climate is the logical, perhaps even inevitable, result of a structural change that stretched over a generation.
A half-century ago, Brownstein says, the two parties looked very different from how they appear today. The Democratic Party was a motley combination of the conservative white South; workers in the industrial North as well as African-Americans and other minorities; and cosmopolitan liberals in the major cities of the East and West Coasts. Republicans dominated the suburbs, the business world, the farm belt and traditional elites. But the constituencies of both parties were sufficiently diverse, both demographically and ideologically, to mute the differences between them. There were enough liberals in the Republican Party, and enough conservatives among the Democrats, to require continual negotiation and compromise and to permit either party to help shape policy and to be competitive in most elections. Brownstein calls this “the Age of Bargaining,” and while he concedes that this era helped prevent bold decisions (like confronting racial discrimination), he clearly prefers it to the fractious world that followed.
The turbulent politics of the 1960s and ’70s introduced newly ideological perspectives to the two major parties and inaugurated what Brownstein calls “the great sorting out” — a movement of politicians and voters into two ideological camps, one dominated by an intensified conservatism and the other by an aggressive liberalism. By the end of the 1970s, he argues, the Republican Party was no longer a broad coalition but a party dominated by its most conservative voices; the Democratic Party had become a more consistently liberal force, and had similarly banished many of its dissenting voices. Some scholars and critics of American politics in the 1950s had called for exactly such a change, insisting that clear ideological differences would give voters a real choice and thus a greater role in the democratic process. But to Brownstein, the “sorting out” was a catastrophe that led directly to the meanspirited, take-no-prisoners partisanship of today.
There is considerable truth in this story. But the transformation of American politics that he describes was the product of more extensive forces than he allows and has been, at least so far, less profound than he claims. Brownstein correctly cites the Democrats’ embrace of the civil rights movement as a catalyst for partisan change — moving the white South solidly into the Republican Party and shifting it farther to the right, while pushing the Democrats farther to the left. But he offers few other explanations for “the great sorting out” beyond the preferences and behavior of party leaders. A more persuasive explanation would have to include other large social changes: the enormous shift of population into the Sun Belt over the last several decades; the new immigration and the dramatic increase it created in ethnic minorities within the electorate; the escalation of economic inequality, beginning in the 1970s, which raised the expectations of the wealthy and the anxiety of lower-middle-class and working-class people (an anxiety conservatives used to gain support for lowering taxes and attacking government); the end of the cold war and the emergence of a much less stable international system; and perhaps most of all, the movement of much of the political center out of the party system altogether and into the largest single category of voters — independents. Voters may not have changed their ideology very much. Most evidence suggests that a majority of Americans remain relatively moderate and pragmatic. But many have lost interest, and confidence, in the political system and the government, leaving the most fervent party loyalists with greatly increased influence on the choice of candidates and policies.
Brownstein skillfully and convincingly recounts the process by which the conservative movement gained control of the Republican Party and its Congressional delegation. He is especially deft at identifying the institutional and procedural tools that the most conservative wing of the party used after 2000 both to vanquish Republican moderates and to limit the ability of the Democratic minority to participate meaningfully in the legislative process. He is less successful (and somewhat halfhearted) in making the case for a comparable ideological homogeneity among the Democrats, as becomes clear in the book’s opening passage. Brownstein appropriately cites the former House Republican leader Tom DeLay’s farewell speech in 2006 as a sign of his party’s recent strategy. DeLay ridiculed those who complained about “bitter, divisive partisan rancor.” Partisanship, he stated, “is not a symptom of democracy’s weakness but of its health and its strength.”
But making the same argument about a similar dogmatism and zealotry among Democrats is a considerable stretch. To make this case, Brownstein cites not an elected official (let alone a Congressional leader), but the readers of the Daily Kos, a popular left-wing/libertarian Web site that promotes what Brownstein calls “a scorched-earth opposition to the G.O.P.” According to him, “DeLay and the Democratic Internet activists ... each sought to reconfigure their political party to the same specifications — as a warrior party that would commit to opposing the other side with every conceivable means at its disposal.” The Kos is a significant force, and some leading Democrats have attended its yearly conventions. But few party leaders share the most extreme views of Kos supporters, and even fewer embrace their “passionate partisanship.” Many Democrats might wish that their party leaders would emulate the aggressively partisan style of the Republican right. But it would be hard to argue that they have come even remotely close to the ideological purity of their conservative counterparts. More often, they have seemed cowed and timorous in the face of Republican discipline, and have over time themselves moved increasingly rightward; their recapture of Congress has so far appeared to have emboldened them only modestly.
There is no definitive answer to the question of whether the current level of polarization is the inevitable result of long-term systemic changes, or whether it is a transitory product of a particular political moment. But much of this so-called age of extreme partisanship has looked very much like Brownstein’s “Age of Bargaining.” Ronald Reagan, the great hero of the right and a much more effective spokesman for its views than President Bush, certainly oversaw a significant shift in the ideology and policy of the Republican Party. But through much of his presidency, both he and the Congressional Republicans displayed considerable pragmatism, engaged in negotiation with their opponents and accepted many compromises. Bill Clinton, bedeviled though he was by partisan fury, was a master of compromise and negotiation — and of co-opting and transforming the views of his adversaries. Only under George W. Bush — through a combination of his control of both houses of Congress, his own inflexibility and the post-9/11 climate — did extreme partisanship manage to dominate the agenda. Given the apparent failure of this project, it seems unlikely that a new president, whether Democrat or Republican, will be able to recreate the dispiriting political world of the last seven years.
Division of the U.S. Didn’t Occur Overnight (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/books/13kaku.html) By MICHIKO KAKUTANI | New York Times, November 13, 2007
THE SECOND CIVIL WAR How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America By Ronald Brownstein, The Penguin Press. $27.95
more...
imh1b
04-26 09:51 AM
How many are new greencard applications this year? Low/high?
2010 Hairstyle For Round Face Thick
keni
March 29th, 2005, 09:06 AM
Has found very interesting Taiwan site: www.taiwan-electronics.itgo.com (http://www.taiwan-electronics.itgo.com/)
There it is told, that it is possible to receive the free-of-charge sample of digital camera NIKON-COOLPIX 8700.
There can be it poor-quality Chinese production?
How you think, it is the truth or not?
Who be knows this company?
There it is told, that it is possible to receive the free-of-charge sample of digital camera NIKON-COOLPIX 8700.
There can be it poor-quality Chinese production?
How you think, it is the truth or not?
Who be knows this company?
more...
raysaikat
03-05 11:06 AM
Hi,
My visa expires in May 2009. I applied for OPT and starting date will be from June 1st 2009. I want to go to India in the last quarter of 2009. How do I get a valid visa. Should I get a new F1 Visa? Please help me..
OPT is a part of F1, it is not a new status. Technically you can get a VISA stamp for your F1 during OPT, and many do get, but you need to prove "no intent to immigrate" during your VISA interview and that's harder to do when you are on OPT and working for some company.
My visa expires in May 2009. I applied for OPT and starting date will be from June 1st 2009. I want to go to India in the last quarter of 2009. How do I get a valid visa. Should I get a new F1 Visa? Please help me..
OPT is a part of F1, it is not a new status. Technically you can get a VISA stamp for your F1 during OPT, and many do get, but you need to prove "no intent to immigrate" during your VISA interview and that's harder to do when you are on OPT and working for some company.
hair Hairstyles for Thick Hair
kaki
02-13 12:38 PM
Is minor(5 yr old) on AP, 485 pending eligible to get/apply SSN?. If so what are the documents required?
more...
OLDMONK
07-11 10:03 AM
and out of these 40k left over approvals 10-25% of cases could have been potential substitutions. It will help but in a miniscule way.
hot Thin and straight hair will
rskreddy
04-21 09:19 AM
Hi,
I have a valid Visa from Employer A till May 2012. I moved to a new Employer B in Feb 2010 and my H1B was approved till Jan 2013.
I am planning to Visit India in June 2010. Can i come back to US, New Jersey with my Old Employer Visa and New Employer I797.
Thanks for your help.
I have a valid Visa from Employer A till May 2012. I moved to a new Employer B in Feb 2010 and my H1B was approved till Jan 2013.
I am planning to Visit India in June 2010. Can i come back to US, New Jersey with my Old Employer Visa and New Employer I797.
Thanks for your help.
more...
house hair Haircuts Men Thick Hair
mrajatish
11-07 10:55 AM
Conference Dial-in Number: (712) 432-1630
Host Access Code: 502270*
Participant Access Code: 502270#
Host Access Code: 502270*
Participant Access Code: 502270#
tattoo Photo of Hairstyle Round Face
GMKrishna
09-23 05:16 PM
Thank you very much! This is of great help for further analysis.
more...
pictures girls. Short Hairstyles
jonty_11
07-19 02:43 PM
has been discussed b4. This can be doneonline...but not w/o recipt for 485
here is link
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f3fe194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1 RCRD
here is link
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f3fe194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCR D&vgnextchannel=9059d9808bcbd010VgnVCM100000d1f1d6a1 RCRD
dresses 2010 short hair styles for
andycool
01-07 11:11 AM
A friend of mine (Indian) is married to an Indonesian. Both are on H1B and have approved I-140s. Can my friend apply for a cross changeability? Does it have to happen when my friends spouse's pd becomes current? or can it be done earlier?
Yes he can use Cross changeability.
It can be done when they file I 485 .
Thanks
Yes he can use Cross changeability.
It can be done when they file I 485 .
Thanks
more...
makeup Thick Hair and Round Faces
kirupa
02-14 04:48 AM
Program is the name of your main application's class itself. What I am doing is creating an instance of my application and using the two methods that live inside that class.
:)
:)
girlfriend Hairstyles For Thin Hair Round
bdt5897
09-29 05:25 PM
I am a US Citizen and just married an immigrant. Her situation is interesting. Upon arrival to the U.S. she was detained and an I275 was filled out but not submitted. Apparently, her visa had been expired due to an overstay in the distant past. The result of the detention was a Paroled status stamped on her pasport. No I-94
We met shortly after her entry and are currently maried. We want to self-file the I485/I130 papers but don't know how to proceed without an I94 number. If we submit an I102 will she get an I94 replacement or will they reduse based upon her Paroled status, whcih she has overstayed?
Please Help...
We met shortly after her entry and are currently maried. We want to self-file the I485/I130 papers but don't know how to proceed without an I94 number. If we submit an I102 will she get an I94 replacement or will they reduse based upon her Paroled status, whcih she has overstayed?
Please Help...
hairstyles Image of Hairstyle Round Face
bond65
10-04 01:45 PM
My wife recently got her H4 extension approved. She got her I-797 approval form. While going for H4 stamping, Is she required to carry my original H1B I-797 also?
Thanks!!
Thanks!!
abcdefg
08-10 06:14 PM
Hi folks,
My company filed for I-485 on July 2nd and I am yet to get a receipt for the same. I understand that usually it takes 1-3 months to get FP request after filing I-485 but in these circumstances, what should be the expectation for receiving FP request?
The reason for asking is because my wife is tired of waiting to do a job and is planning to go to India and work there until she gets EAD. If she leaves now and we get a FP request in her absence, what are my options?
1) Can I delay the FP appointment?
2) Can I go alone and have myself finger-printed (assuming that wife doesn't want to come back to US, that is, not interested in GC anymore)?
3) How does it impact EAD/AP which have not been filed yet but will be filed after getting the I-485 filing receipt.
Thank you in advance for your responses.
My company filed for I-485 on July 2nd and I am yet to get a receipt for the same. I understand that usually it takes 1-3 months to get FP request after filing I-485 but in these circumstances, what should be the expectation for receiving FP request?
The reason for asking is because my wife is tired of waiting to do a job and is planning to go to India and work there until she gets EAD. If she leaves now and we get a FP request in her absence, what are my options?
1) Can I delay the FP appointment?
2) Can I go alone and have myself finger-printed (assuming that wife doesn't want to come back to US, that is, not interested in GC anymore)?
3) How does it impact EAD/AP which have not been filed yet but will be filed after getting the I-485 filing receipt.
Thank you in advance for your responses.
justcurious
06-19 03:56 PM
Hi
I got my 140 approved.Is there any deadline date like with in 90 days i have to apply for 485 or else it will expire.I am single so i dont want to get in to any trouble by applying for 485.
Please suggest me what i have to do.
Thanks
curious
I got my 140 approved.Is there any deadline date like with in 90 days i have to apply for 485 or else it will expire.I am single so i dont want to get in to any trouble by applying for 485.
Please suggest me what i have to do.
Thanks
curious
No comments:
Post a Comment