- Submited:2010-05-29 10:00:01
- File Size:2499465
- File Format:2
- Category:Eva Longoria
- Number of rates:0
- Click on the stars to give your rate
Relates News And Gossip
That's a nicely made answer to a challenging question
Kudos! What a neat way of thinking about it.
Fell out of bed feeling down. This has
ightened my day!
I'd be interested in seenig a photo of what you tried and thought was successful. I AM Asian, but am fortunate to have a large area between
ow and lash, and my eyelid fold is pretty high. But I do not think faking a crease looks good on me.I do think what helps is getting the occasional makeover. One that I remember had me telling the MUA I was tired of looking tired. After she did my eyes with eyeliner that was thicker at the highest part of my lash line and winged up and out, and winged shadow that corresponded, plus did a good job of concealing my undereye shadows, I did look more awake! It was tasteful, too - how could Laura Mercier NOT be? In thinking about your concern, I recall that my husband's niece has no crease, but has a fresh look. She does cover a large part of her lid with a dark liner, then blends a neutral shadow up and out from that. Like me, she does NOT line the lower lid, so the eye does not look "closed in".Hope this gives you some ideas. Let us know how it goes.
I didn't know where to find this info then kaboom it was here.
Dag nabbit good stuff you whippersnappers!
-16- hro001I must have misinterpreted your use of the word 'advocacy' and your saying that your due diligence only went back as far as AR4. Apologies.-17-I'm not an expert on Working Group III, but a quick scan of the AR4 Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary doesn't suggest a significantly more frequent mention of trading as compared to taxes. But even if there were an imbalance in the underlying chapters, the reason doesn't have to be exclusively an inherent IPCC bias. There's long been an imbalance between the treatment by IPCC of mitigation and adaptation. To a large extent that reflected the interests of (most) governments, but also that there was (and still is) much less literature on adaptation than on mitigation. In any case, testing the hypothesis and explaining any findings would be an interesting exercise to do!As for the IPCC mantra, it's 'policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive'. The policy relevance is ensured, among other things, by having governments agree on the outlines of the reports.
Very interesting analyses, both Eva's and yours. Having been part of the ADAM project myself, I'd like to add two observations.First, the project was funded by the EU's Research DG (Directorate-General). While expected policy impact was a criterion when evaluating the project proposal, the purpose of the project was to do (policy-relevant) scientific research, not to give policy advice. To ensure policy relevance we always invited representatives of other EU DGs, including those responsible for designing and implementing climate policy. I remember how one of these people, after a series of scientific presentations at an annual meeting of ADAM, compared ADAM with a group of people travelling through space for three years cut off from any contact with earth, trying to come up with a solution to the problems the earth faced when they left. When they returned three years later they presented the perfect solution to the problems of three years ago, but unfortunately it had become irrelevant to the problems of today.Second, ADAM was about both adaptation and mitigation, but for the first two years of the project the EU policy practitioners with whom we interacted had very little interest in adaptation. Then suddenly the political context changed and they became very interested in adaptation. They turned to ADAM to look for any interim results, but found they weren't as policy-relevant as they had hoped. There was no acknowledgement that their previous lack of interest in interacting with the ADAM adaptation researchers could be one of the reasons.I think the lessons from ADAM aren't only about the inherent tensions between scientific research and policy advice, as you and Eva describe them. What struck me was the mismatch in expectations between researchers and stakeholders, and in the notion of ownership of the project. As far as DG Environment was concerned ADAM initially didn't deliver useful results, that is, arguments that could support their policies. Of course, as a scientific project ADAM wasn't designed to do that in the first place, but it was then pushed to move into that direction. In the end it did deliver some policy-relevant results, but this was at the expense of overall project coherence.So while Eva and you make some very good points in your analyses, you should recognise that ADAM was designed and funded as a research project, to run for three years at some distance from day-to.day policy. Policy people in another p
Oct23 You’ve actually created some exceptional points here. I specifically appreciate the best way you’ve been capable to stick so much thought in a relatively short post (comparitively) which creates it an thoughtful publish with your subject. Many people feel, you’ve presented individual in a very quite thorough yet concise manner, that is genuinely useful when somebody wants to obtain the facts without spending too a lot time searching online and sifting out your noise to discover the answers to their questions. It’s my job to get so frustrated with so plentiful while in the outcomes inside major SE’s just because they normally appear to mostly be filled with filler content that oftentimes isn’t extremely sensible. Should you not mind Let me add this post and your webpage to my delicious favorites in order to share it with my family. I appear forward to approaching back in read your future posts also.
I went to City Center at the beginning of January. Pretty much stayed around the area, just to get to know it. It is a pain with a car. But as far as dining, I enjoyed a meal early evening before it became a night club at the restaurant by the Desperate Housewife chick Eva Longoria outside the shopping area. (the crab cake, soups and sauces for steaks and fish were good)At Aria, I dined at Julian Serrano and it was a bunch of small, tapas plates for lunch. I ate many items but remember liking the Spanish Chicken Croquetas and Creamy Risotto. The menu was endless!Another meal was at Jean Georges Steakhouse for dinner, (steaks were very good, and calamari was a great appetizer) Although I think I would have rather gone to Maestro’s.American Fish was excellent, Grilled, Poached or Baked fish, Michael Mina could do no wrong. It was also nice that it wasn’t too busy.I also loved the Lemongrass Thai food for a casual lunch. There were five of us, and we all ordered different items and shared everything. Very tasty. (I think mine was a spicy prawn dish, but everyone’s was great. We let the waitress choose a few too.Overall, each of the restaurants at CityCenter were good. I have dined at a lot (A LOT) of places in Las Vegas and haven’t always enjoyed every dining experience. I couldn’t complain about any of them at the City Center. (oh and I was with a bunch of foodies and they liked all the restaurants too)Happy Dining!I am sorry, I should have added that the art work and fountains are amazing and impressive. If you can, get a little
ochure from a concierge about the art and fountains and wander around to find the various pieces. I went home and looked up info about the artists online, but wished while I was there the
ochures had more info about them. Fountains are also included in the shopping area. It was pretty quiet there. I didn’t get a spa treatment and was annoyed that I wasn’t able to see inside Aria’s spa. (as a guest – you would think) So if you have the time, get a treatment, I hear the place is nice (I personally love Caesar’s and the Mirage).References : Was this answer helpful?