Thursday 19 May 2011

smoking cigarettes before and after

smoking cigarettes before and after. Smoking Tobacco
  • Smoking Tobacco



  • dazzer21
    Nov 8, 06:37 AM
    Sorry, I've walked into this discussion a little late in the day so my apolofies if this has been brought up already - won't this make the gap in specs between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro too close for comfort? If I was in the market for a Pro, I'd expect to see a significant differential in performance between the Macbook and my premium product. I wouldn't see the graphics card/RAM capacity/backlit keyboard etc etc as being enough to make me go for it unless the MacBook was crippled in some other way...





    smoking cigarettes before and after. I stood behind a man smoking
  • I stood behind a man smoking



  • BigTuna820
    Apr 14, 09:27 AM
    I understand HP and Dell having such a huge market share because of large businesses and old people, but ACER?!...

    I'm fairly certain they just dumped 1.8 million units off their trucks this quarter and said somebody bought them...





    smoking cigarettes before and after. the effect of smoking
  • the effect of smoking



  • nemaslov
    Oct 16, 01:11 PM
    You killed your mother because your friends laughed at you :eek: :confused: :p

    B

    NO, She died of natural causes BUT (TRUE STORY) on August 29th, 1966 a friend showed up at my house at 6PM with two tickets to see the Beatles at Candlestick Park in San Francisco. My mother said I could not go becuase I had a drum lesson at 7PM and unless it was cancelled a day in advance, we'd have to pay. So I missed what became the last official concert the Beatles ever played.

    I no longer play the drums :confused: AND my mother is dead. :(

    see not everyone here is 23...





    smoking cigarettes before and after. quit smoking cigarettes.
  • quit smoking cigarettes.



  • gkarris
    May 4, 10:26 PM
    I've amblyopia in my left eye which makes my eyes unable to focus on the same point in a distance, they're slightly off (the focal points), sufficiently so to cause me to not be able to see most of these types of screens in 3D. I do see in 3D, e.g. I saw Avatar in 3D, but even then, it's underwhelming and causes me to strain needlessly.

    I am willing to bet there's a large segment of the population that is impervious to 3D screens. If they offer a 3D without a regular 2D screen, they would screw me out of buying an iPad, ever. I'm still warming up to getting one, but producing 3D or marking up the price because of 3D or building applications that are "3D" - would completely turn me off and away from ever getting an iPad or any "3D" apps on it.

    Like the Nintendo 3DS, you can turn off the 3D. Still an impressive handheld game system nonetheless...





    smoking cigarettes before and after. After smoking cigarettes for
  • After smoking cigarettes for



  • fivepoint
    Mar 10, 06:22 PM
    While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.

    Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.

    Watch It:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA

    Read It:
    We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.

    We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.

    I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.

    So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.

    I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.

    Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.

    If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.

    Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.

    Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.

    We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.

    Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.

    The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.

    We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.

    The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.

    You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.

    Spending $46 trillion?

    The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.

    I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.

    We’re spending $10 billion a day.

    In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?

    Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.

    Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.

    Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.

    If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.

    You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.

    The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.

    Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.

    What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.

    Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.

    It’s also ultimately the compromise.

    Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.

    When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.

    We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.

    So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.

    It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.

    If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.

    You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’

    Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.

    But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’

    The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.

    If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.

    If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.

    Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.

    Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.

    When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?

    Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.

    If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.

    If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.

    This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.

    Look at the other proposal from our side.

    It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.

    I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.

    $500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.

    Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.

    But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.

    If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.

    So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. Man Smoking Cigarette and
  • Man Smoking Cigarette and



  • steadysignal
    May 5, 10:16 AM
    It'll be over wifi. :rolleyes:

    of course.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. been a cigarette smoking
  • been a cigarette smoking



  • grassland
    Mar 7, 06:34 PM
    actors,trinity nfld.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. Free tobacco cessation support
  • Free tobacco cessation support



  • Kristenn
    Oct 2, 03:19 AM
    I'm really tempted to get this and go play it on my friends Xbox 360. I keep hearing a bunch of good things about. Some say it is even better than Halo 1. I wont know this till I try it as Halo 1 is my favorite out of the three but who knows, I might be very surprised!





    smoking cigarettes before and after. miley cyrus smoking cigarettes
  • miley cyrus smoking cigarettes



  • Deputy-Dawg
    Sep 22, 02:49 PM
    .
    3) Demand that all female employees shave their mustaches.


    I am 73 years old, I live in Rogers, AR as does my daughter. My daughter is a Walmart employee! She does not have a mustache! The preceding remark is, in my opinion, unnecessary, cruel and sexist.

    There is a great deal about Wal Mart to depise but none of them justify such a gatuitous attack on women, many of whom are single parents, that work hard there to support their families.:(





    smoking cigarettes before and after. that smoking cigarettes
  • that smoking cigarettes



  • netdog
    Jan 11, 05:21 PM
    The MacJordan Nike MacBook, complete with Swoosh. Available today at Niketown.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. Brian McFadden Smoking A
  • Brian McFadden Smoking A



  • EricNau
    Oct 26, 07:09 PM
    I've been very disappointed with these MacBooks. All of the problems I've had and all of the problems I've heard about have proven, in my opinion, that Apple's quality is no longer what it used to be.

    Apple charges a nice premium for their machines, one which I am willing to pay, assuming I get a better quality computer, but I don't believe this is the case.

    Apple's reluctance to replace problematic MacBooks just adds to the issue.


    I would suggest that Apple implement some quality control for their MacBook line, but we all know what happens when they do. ;) :rolleyes:





    smoking cigarettes before and after. no smoking: efore and after.
  • no smoking: efore and after.



  • SactoGuy18
    Mar 25, 09:43 PM
    650 MB download to update my 4G iPod touch.

    607 MB download to update my iPad 2.

    THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE, in my humble opinion. http://www.en.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/negative.gif

    Why can't Apple design their updates so you no longer need to essentially download the whole iOS code? Even Microsoft in their Service Packs for Windows XP/Vista/7 "polls" the system to determine the actual Service Pack download size, so in many cases the download is actually quite small. Of course, I'd like to see Apple allow for incremental updates like how Google does it with the Chrome web browser--done in the background and unobtrusively.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. second-hand cigarette smoke
  • second-hand cigarette smoke



  • troop231
    Mar 29, 09:23 AM
    Even though I find/have no use for the current voice control in iOS, this is welcomed good news! :cool:





    smoking cigarettes before and after. However, smoking cigarette can
  • However, smoking cigarette can



  • thejedipunk
    Aug 3, 05:50 PM
    Screw the phone and new iPods. Stupid analysts and Mac insurrgents. I want to see what Leopard can do to make my Mac experience easier/better.

    If it can make breakfast for me, then I'll be camping outside the Apple store here in Irvine for my copy, come the release date.

    Seriously, you people are over anaylzing everything. I mean really, what more can you get out of a DVD that has a black X and leopard print on it? Black MBP's? Maybe in hell.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. after 1 p.m. Monday.
  • after 1 p.m. Monday.



  • FriarNurgle
    Apr 12, 12:40 PM
    And we wonder why this country is broke.

    Flat tax across the board. I love Apple, but when a company can spend billions to open a plant in another country just to skirt taxes, there is a problem.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. smoking cigarette after
  • smoking cigarette after



  • Bo98
    Mar 29, 04:00 AM
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

    Next Year is going to suck for buying tickets.

    If we went from 8 days to 12 hours what will next year be like?

    16 mins. ;)

    ...then 20 secs, then 24ms, then 28 nanoseconds!! :eek:





    smoking cigarettes before and after. quit smoking cigarette
  • quit smoking cigarette



  • Joshwawilson
    May 5, 09:49 PM
    I swore to myself When I bought iPad 2 that I'd wait for iPad 4 to upgrade again...don't know if I'll be able to pass up a 3d iPad tho!





    smoking cigarettes before and after. Man smoking cigarette
  • Man smoking cigarette



  • baleensavage
    May 5, 12:01 PM
    So can someone explain to me why they have to get Verizon's permission to offer system upgrades over the air, when you can already go in the app store and download Angry Birds over the air? Seriously, this would be a security boon to be able to push updates without tethering them to a computer. Many people don't sync their iPhones for weeks at a time, but they are on them daily. If you can push out security updates sooner, then it is a good thing for everyone involved. And I would wager there's waaaaay more bandwidth being sucked up by iTunes and the App Store than system updates would require.





    smoking cigarettes before and after. Yet, tobacco cigarettes and
  • Yet, tobacco cigarettes and



  • weitzner
    Nov 8, 08:51 AM
    alright, so now all we need is a C2D mac mini and the entire line will be dual core and 64 bit. Which will make leopard, being 64 bit, kick that much more ass.





    reubs
    Mar 29, 09:10 AM
    I was really hoping for an iPhone this summer, but my contract w/ another company runs until 11/30/11 anyway. It's going to be a pain dealing w/ this HTC Hero for the rest of the year, but if the iPhone 5 comes with LTE to be "future-proofed", so to speak, I'll be pretty happy to wait. Having to wait until 2012, though, will be painful. Hopefully it's a fall release to rev up for the holidays.





    Evangelion
    Oct 27, 07:27 AM
    So, it looks like Apple is trying to fix the problem by keeping the MacBook cooler, thus preventing the heat sink from expanding enough to come into contact with the cable. A simple, elegant solution, except it will likely cause increased fan use and decreased battery life

    Not so elegant then, eh?





    res1233
    Nov 24, 04:20 PM
    I'm afraid you people don't get it. It isn't about Bach vs Beatles, it's about me being right, and you being wrong. :D:D Anyway...





    Evangelion
    Sep 14, 07:15 AM
    Except I would have to pay for the parts and the R&D...

    Well, you are already paying for color-screen, video-playback, photo-playback etc. etc. etc.. They seem to be adding features constantly, yet the price does not go up (more or less).

    If you wanted a barebones iPod, you would always have the Shuffle





    Porco
    Apr 2, 05:02 AM
    It's true that a high megapixel count is not anything like the most important factor about a camera, but everything else being equal more megapixels is better than fewer megapixels. I seriously doubt Apple is going to add megapixels just for the number on the specs list.

    Why are you comparing the users? A good comparison would be the same user (good or bad) using different cameras/mobiles to take photographs.

    I don't understand your argument.

    I think the point is that the technical specs of a photo, and the camera it was taken on, can't make a badly lit, poorly composed photo a good one, and (within reason) can't totally destroy the work of a good photographer who knows what they are doing but only had access to a 'lesser' camera.

    Another way of looking at it might be that Leonardo da Vinci could do more impressive work with a pencil and paper than many people could do with a studio full of photoshop artists.



    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    LinkWithin

    f