Saturday, April 13, 2013

Honolulu court screeners find pet duck in bag

(AP) ? Security screeners at a Honolulu courthouse noticed something moving inside a defendant's bag as it passed through an X-ray machine earlier this week.

After initially refusing to open it, the bag's owner reluctantly revealed that his pet was inside. When he opened the bag, screeners found a live duck and a bottle of beer, Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Toni Schwartz said.

Screeners told Michael Hubbard that his pet and beverage wouldn't be allowed inside Circuit Court, so he left. He returned a short while later and asked that screeners look after his belongings while he went inside for an appointment, Schwartz said, adding that visitors are allowed to leave their things outside at their own risk.

Hubbard went to his appointment, while the duck waited outside. Hawaii News Now reports Hubbard has two felony assault cases pending. He couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.

Schwartz said Hubbard didn't appear intoxicated. "Everything was peaceful," she said.

"We recommend people not bring their pets to court," she said. "Believe it or not this is not an unusual occurrence. A lot of people try to bring their pets to court."

But those pets are usually dogs.

"A duck is unusual," she said. "I don't think we've come across that one before."

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/aa9398e6757a46fa93ed5dea7bd3729e/Article_2013-04-11-US-ODD-Duck-In-Court/id-ecd67fbf795f4aa19617f927e183b99b

American flag Happy 4th of July 4th Of July Desserts fireworks fireworks 4th of July Andy Griffith

Friday, April 12, 2013

Kelly sworn in to replace Jesse Jackson Jr. (The Arizona Republic)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/298354498?client_source=feed&format=rss

stephon marbury the lion king suzanne collins cherry blossom festival nc state erika van pelt pat robertson

Exclusive 'The Heat' Clip Won't Leave You Hanging

Melissa McCarthy and director Paul Feig debut a scene for MTV's Sneak Peek Week, leading up to the 2013 MTV Movie Awards.
By Kevin P. Sullivan


Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock in "The Heat"
Photo: 20th Century Fox

Source: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1705476/the-heat-movie-clip-sneak-peek-week.jhtml

buckeye west side story final four 2012 bridesmaids winning lottery numbers megamillions winner kansas jayhawks

Warner Bros. Having Second Thoughts About David Yates' Tarzan

David Yates' adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs's Tarzan won't be swinging into production this year because Warner Bros. has put the movie on hold, Deadline has learned. The movie is not officially dead, however.

According to sources, they may start the movie up again next year when the obstacles holding production back have been cleared.

What are those obstacles? More often than not, it has something to do with the movie's budget. No numbers were revealed, but it's probably way over the $100 million figure.

Another factor may be related to casting. Deadline has heard that the studio wanted Jamie Foxx for the movie's third lead, but he's already doing The Amazing Spider-Man 2. However, I doubt the studio would shut a movie down just for Foxx.

Getting the cost down will require a rewrite of the script. While sources say Yates is still attached, will he still be onboard with the modified script and revised budget?

The movie was to star Alexander Skarsgard as Tarzan, with Jessica Chastain eyeing the Jane role. Skarsgard is the only actor attached so far, but with this delay, he may have to move on to another project. Stay tuned.

Source: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1927233/news/1927233/

mariana trench transcendental meditation trayvon martin obama care miss universe canada don draper gallagher

Google Wants To Operate .Search As A ?Dotless? Domain, Plans To Open .Cloud, .Blog And .App To Others

dot_google_logoIf it gets it, Google wants to turn .search into a “dotless domain,” the company told ICANN a few days ago. Last year, Google applied to manage the .app, .blog, .cloud and .search generic top-level domain (gTLD) names as part of a major expansion of the domain-name system. ICANN, which is managing this expansion, hasn’t awarded any of the gTLDs yet, and the whole program remains controversial. But in May, Google sent a letter to ICANN?telling the organization that it would soon provide some specific details about its plans for these top-level domain names. Now, Google has done so through its Charleston Road Registry subsidiary (we have embedded the full letter below). At the time, it looked like Google was ready to open up these gTLDs to the public and wasn’t just planning on using them for its own services. In its letter to ICANN, Google now confirms that it is working with “the relevant communities related to .blog and .cloud to develop technical standards relating to the operation of those top-?level domains.” Google’s Plans For A Dotless .Search The most interesting plan here is to use .search to operate a redirect service on the “on the ‘dotless’ .search domain (http://search/) that, combined with a simple technical standard, will allow a consistent query interface across firms that provide search functionality, and will enable users to easily conduct searches with firms that provide the search functionality that they designate as their preference.” Dotless domains (think http://example and email addresses like mail@example) are something ICANN has discussed for a while now and that security experts are not in favor of. Google plans to run http://search/ as a redirect service that “allows for registration by any search website providing a simple query interface.” “The mission of the proposed gTLD, .search, is to provide a domain name space that makes it easier for Internet users to locate and make use of the search functionality of their choice,” Google writes in its amended application. What exactly this will look like in practice remains to be seen, however. It’s definitely a novel use of the domain system, and judging from the amended application, Google will open this functionality up to third-party developers and its direct competitors. Of course, it remains to be seen who will actually get to manage .search. Besides Google, Amazon, dot Now Limited, and Donuts.co have also applied for this gTLD. .Blog, .App

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/FKMWUqsfce4/

april 20 secret service prostitution 4 20 george zimmerman sheree whitfield weather dallas pat summitt

Gun control bill clears first hurdle in Senate

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., right, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., finish a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 10, 2013, announcing that they have reached a compromise on background checks for gun buyers in the aftermath of the horrific Connecticut school shootings in December 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., right, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., finish a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 10, 2013, announcing that they have reached a compromise on background checks for gun buyers in the aftermath of the horrific Connecticut school shootings in December 2012. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Gun control supporters won the first Senate showdown Thursday over how to respond to the December carnage in Newtown, Conn., defeating an effort by conservatives to derail a package of firearms restrictions before debate could even start.

The 68-31 roll call gave an early burst of momentum to efforts by President Barack Obama and lawmakers to push fresh gun curbs through Congress. The National Rifle Association, along with many Republicans and some moderate Democrats, say the proposals go too far, and the road to congressional approval of major restrictions remains rocky.

The vote came four months after a gunman killed 20 first-graders and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, spurring Obama and legislators to address firearms violence. Congress hasn't approved sweeping gun restrictions since enacting an assault weapons ban 19 years ago, a prohibition that lawmakers failed to renew a decade later.

On Thursday, 50 Democrats, 16 Republicans and 2 independents opposed the conservative effort, while 29 Republicans and 2 Democrats supported it. Gun control supporters needed 60 votes to block the conservatives.

The vote opened the door to begin an emotion-laden debate on the legislation, which would subject more firearms buyers to federal background checks, strengthen laws against illicit gun trafficking and increase school safety aid. Advocates say the measures would make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get weapons.

Opponents argue that the restrictions would violate the Constitution's right to bear arms and would be ignored by criminals. Despite their defeat, conservatives were threatening to invoke a procedural rule forcing the Senate to wait 30 hours before it could begin considering amendments.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2013-04-11-Gun%20Control-Congress/id-3a6276a079974aaa822dcd3713a01f65

trump presidential debate debate marco scutaro Russell Means Taylor Swift Red Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 2

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Boundaries/Transparency in Non-marriage relationships


General Relationship Discussion Although anyone can post anywhere on Talk About Marriage, this section is for people interested in general relationship and marriage advice.


Old Today, 02:57 PM ? #1 (permalink)

Forum Supporter

?

Join Date: Dec 2011

Posts: 1,522


OK I have a question for my favorite relationship community.

I feel pretty solid on boundaries and transparency in marriages. You're committed for life, certain things are not acceptable. For me that looks like no texts to other men, no GNOs to the bar, full transparency with phones, emails, passwords etc.

I don't feel like this is something that you just "flip on." ie, I don't expect that a woman goes on vegas trips with her single girlfriends on her bachelorette party, and then never again after she's married. I feel like there should be a progression towards this as the relationship advances.

My question is, how does this look?

I am now in month six of a relationship, and this weekend was kind of pivotal. It kind of forced me to rethink some of the communication I've been having with the opposite sex.

The girl had some behaviors when we were casually dating that would be issues to me if we were married. Meaning she did a lot of GNOs to the bar, a handful of guy friends, trips to see guy friends. I completely understand that, seeing as how she was single for 8 years and I wouldn't expect anyone I was casually dating to alter their life. As we became exclusive she dialed back a lot of that stuff. She didn't go on a few road trips with guys to go to concerts, she didn't go on a vacation with her single girlfriend. She still does GNOs on occasion, and she still has some guy friends she talks to. I was pretty much OK with that up until this weekend.

We exchanged the L word, and after meeting some of these guys this weekend, I feel like I'm at the point where I don't think one on one communication is really wise.

We chatted about it today, I mentioned how I felt, and mentioned as well that I also have girls that I talk to that is probably not appropriate. We both came to the same conclusion, we think we should discuss it further but neither of us is ready to say we're not going to communicate with opposite sex friends yet. I also think it would be a little much after 6 months to ask someone to not go drinking with their same-sex friends anymore, even though I think it's a risky behavior.

So what is your take on this? I know not everyone is anti-GNO, for those of you that are, when is an appropriate time for that to stop? When is it appropriate for private communication to stop with opposite sex friends? How do you transition to all of these boundaries gracefully? And if you're not married, is it appropriate to ask for someone else's phone/email/web passwords?


Last edited by COguy; Today at 04:02 PM.

COguy is online now ? Reply With Quote
Old Today, 04:37 PM ? #6 (permalink)

Member

?

Join Date: Apr 2013

Posts: 38


Quote:

OK I have a question for my favorite relationship community.

I feel pretty solid on boundaries and transparency in marriages. You're committed for life, certain things are not acceptable. For me that looks like no texts to other men, no GNOs to the bar, full transparency with phones, emails, passwords etc.

I don't feel like this is something that you just "flip on." ie, I don't expect that a woman goes on vegas trips with her single girlfriends on her bachelorette party, and then never again after she's married. I feel like there should be a progression towards this as the relationship advances.

My question is, how does this look?

I am now in month six of a relationship, and this weekend was kind of pivotal. It kind of forced me to rethink some of the communication I've been having with the opposite sex.

The girl had some behaviors when we were casually dating that would be issues to me if we were married. Meaning she did a lot of GNOs to the bar, a handful of guy friends, trips to see guy friends. I completely understand that, seeing as how she was single for 8 years and I wouldn't expect anyone I was casually dating to alter their life. As we became exclusive she dialed back a lot of that stuff. She didn't go on a few road trips with guys to go to concerts, she didn't go on a vacation with her single girlfriend. She still does GNOs on occasion, and she still has some guy friends she talks to. I was pretty much OK with that up until this weekend.

We exchanged the L word, and after meeting some of these guys this weekend, I feel like I'm at the point where I don't think one on one communication is really wise.

We chatted about it today, I mentioned how I felt, and mentioned as well that I also have girls that I talk to that is probably not appropriate. We both came to the same conclusion, we think we should discuss it further but neither of us is ready to say we're not going to communicate with opposite sex friends yet. I also think it would be a little much after 6 months to ask someone to not go drinking with their same-sex friends anymore, even though I think it's a risky behavior.

So what is your take on this? I know not everyone is anti-GNO, for those of you that are, when is an appropriate time for that to stop? When is it appropriate for private communication to stop with opposite sex friends? How do you transition to all of these boundaries gracefully? And if you're not married, is it appropriate to ask for someone else's phone/email/web passwords?

Married or not a person is entitled to their privacy. As a woman, I may have private conversations with my friends about any number of things that are private. The same goes for my husband. My husband and I don't have anything blocked so it would be easy to pry. But we don't because we trust each other, and respect the other persons privacy.

There are compromises on both parts in every successful relationship. I feel it's unfair to ask a person to drop friends, or things he/she may enjoy. Trust and respect are essential to any relationship.

It'd be a good idea for you to figure out why you want to be so controlling.

Sussieq is offline ? Reply With Quote
Old Today, 08:34 PM ? #13 (permalink)

Forum Supporter

?

Join Date: Dec 2011

Posts: 1,522


Quote:

I am not against GNO. I'm also not with the idea of cutting off half the world to benefit one person. I do have some male friends. If we are going to meet, my husband is invited. If we talk on the phone, my husband is informed. If he chooses to not go or has a concern, I listen and make a decision. We have only had one instance where it became a concern because the guy was being disrespectful about my husband, and I told him not to contact me again after my husband shared his thoughts.

Kathy your response really surprises me, I've always respected your advice and viewed it as insightful. As a married person, I would in no way be OK with opposite sex one on one meetings. GNO to meat markets I'm not comfortable with. I guess I've heard too many stories and seen too much, I'm just not open to those kind of arrangements. I'm interested to see why you think that is OK though.

I'm not opposed to HAVING opposite sex friends I suppose, just anything that would create private conversations or one on one activities.

COguy is online now ? Reply With Quote





Find a Therapist:





Source: http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/71161-boundaries-transparency-non-marriage-relationships.html

current time a thousand words my sisters keeper kirby sarah palin cbi the shins