Sentences with phrase «better clues as»

«These mice may give us much better clues as to how these drugs are acting,» he said.

It's the best clue as to when U.S. consumption and investment will pull back sharply, and when the river of foreign capital will dry up.

The context of Genesis 1:26 - 27 gives us the best clues as to what is meant by «image» and it probably refers to the things that set us apart from animals — our intellect, emotions, will, authority to rule over creation, desire for relationships, and other non-physical attributes and characteristics.

Using online dating agency sites search facilities can save so much time when looking for a new partner, because the profiles give you a good clue as to whether to bother contacting people or not.

A company's credit rating is a good clue as to its overall health.

How the receptionist handles your call is a good clue as to how well the practice is run.

A quick inspection of your pet's mouth can give some good clues as to what might be going on.

However, knowing when to save can be a bit tedious as you are never given a good clue as to when you should save.

These were a far better clue as to what was really in store.

The fact that there were no high rises, condos, south beach hotels, 3000 years ago is a pretty good clue as to why, or what a catastrophe might be considered in relating that time to our current time pertaining to direct costs.

Not exact matches

New study shows how the Internet is taking hold when it comes to local information, offering clues as to how marketing dollars might be better spent.

Going back to the idea of egg freezing, I think it's fair to assume neither Facebook nor Apple will have a clue which employees are using the benefit, which is just as well given how personal the decision is.

In the process they got some clues as to why people become trolls, and why trolls are so very, very good at making their victims feel very, very bad.

Americans spend a ton of money on diet and exercise — health clubs alone take in over $ 75 billion a year in revenue — in spite of the fact that most of us have no clue as to which nutrition and exercise plans are actually best for us.

But good traders need to take a proper approach to investing and have a solid understanding of the game, not to mention a healthy respect for markets, as much as they need an ap that offers clues on what the pulse of market sentiment will be in the short - term future.

It is now paying extra attention to key indicators, such as the monthly jobs survey, for clues as to whether these extraordinarily good times will continue.

But words can be a clue to character, as well - especially when the words are as provocative as the ones Harper has written and spoken over the years.

If you need help in this area, read 7 Signs of a Shareholder Friendly Management, which will give you some clues as to whether you're dealing with a good team of executives who have your best interests at heart.

[01:10] Introduction [02:45] James welcomes Tony to the podcast [03:35] Tony's leap year birthday [04:15] Unshakeable delivers the specific facts you need to know [04:45] What James learned from Unshakeable [05:25] Most people panic when the stock market drops [05:45] Getting rid of your fear of investing [06:15] Last January was the worst opening, but it was a correction [06:45] You are losing money when you sell on corrections [06:55] Bear markets come every 5 years on average [07:10] The greatest opportunity for a millennial [07:40] Waiting for corrections to invest [08:05] Warren Buffet's advice for investors [08:55] If you miss the top 10 trading days a year... [09:25] Three different investor scenarios over a 20 year period [10:40] The best trading days come after the worst [11:45] Investing in the current world [12:05] What Clinton and Bush think of the current situation [12:45] The office is far bigger than the occupant [13:35] Information helps reduce fear [14:25] James's story of the billionaire upset over another's wealth [14:45] What money really is [15:05] The story of Adolphe Merkle [16:05] The story of Chuck Feeney [16:55] The importance of the right mindset [17:15] What fuels Tony [19:15] Find something you care about more than yourself [20:25] Make your mission to surround yourself with the right people [21:25] Suffering made Tony hungry for more [23:25] By feeding his mind, Tony found strength [24:15] Great ideas don't interrupt you, you have to pursue them [25:05] Never - ending hunger is what matters [25:25] Richard Branson is the epitome of hunger and drive [25:40] Hunger is the common denominator [26:30] What you can do starting right now [26:55] Success leaves clues [28:10] What it means to take massive action [28:30] Taking action commits you to following through [29:40] If you do nothing you'll learn nothing [30:20] There must be an emotional purpose behind what you're doing [30:40] How does Tony ignite creativity in his own life [32:00] «How is not as important as «why» [32:40] What and why unleash the psyche [33:25] Breaking the habit of focusing on «how» [35:50] Deep Practice [35:10] Your desired outcome will determine your action [36:00] The difference between «what» and «why» [37:00] Learning how to chunk and group [37:40] Don't mistake movement for achievement [38:30] Tony doesn't negotiate with his mind [39:30] Change your thoughts and change your biochemistry [40:00] The bad habit of being stressed [40:40] Beautiful and suffering states [41:50] The most important decision is to live in a beautiful state no matter what [42:40] Consciously decide to take yourself out of suffering [43:40] Focus on appreciation, joy and love [44:30] Step out of suffering and find the solution [45:00] Dealing with mercury poisoning [45:40] Tony's process for stepping out of suffering [46:10] Stop identifying with thoughts — they aren't yours [47:40] Trade your expectations for appreciation [50:00] The key to life — gratitude [51:40] What is freedom for you?

Well, in a strong trend, we need to pay more attention to the closing prices than any other price, because that closing price is likely to be a clue as to what will happen next (reading the price action).

If the approach to se «xuality is flawed, just maybe it's a clue that the approach to a few other things may just be flawed, as well.

They not only have no clue as to how our government works or what it takes to change laws, they wouldn't know a good president from a hole in the ground if they didn't first ask their pastor or fox news pundit their opinion.

Who on God's good earth has a clue as to what that means (songwriter included)?

Well, if we translate the Greek word baptizma in Matthew 28:19 - 20, we get a clue as to what Jesus might have actually been teaching... and this leads to the one crazy suggestion about Matthew 28:19 - 20 that might help solve this particular baptism debate.

Telling people they are sinning for being LGBT or for having an abortion or using birth control or trying to impose your specific set of beliefs upon others in the public square is not a good thing and certainly doesn't show that you have a clue as to the meaning of the word respect.

3 And smaller numbers seek, or are influenced by, experiences of clairvoyance, telepathy, precognition, and other extrasensory perceptions that provide clues to their views of the personal as well as the cosmic mind.4

If Jesus is what the gospel proclaims him to be — that One in whom the love and light and life of God possessed completely a genuine human life, possessed it so fully that we may say of him, as Mr. Basil Willey has well phrased it, that «the life of God is seen in him in human life» — then we can preach Jesus Christ as decisive, as definitive, as the norm for the God - man relationship and the clue to whatever else God may be purposing and accomplishing in this vast and mysterious creation.

And we still don't have any clue as to what a better system would be.

since God made homosexuals, and all these heterosexuals keep producing gay kids and we have evidence of homosexuality occurring in another animals as well as neuroscience and social sciences since 1963 stating that being gay isn't a disease but a natural orientation and since the writers of the bible would have no clue that it could be an orientation (just as they could have no idea that the world isn't flat, not up on pillars, nor is it surrounded by water, nor was the earth created from a leviathan carcass) thus it is permissible and subject to the same statutes heterosexuals are.

«God» is as good an answer as any, because frankly, our best minds, Hawking's included, don't have a clue.

He has no clue as to what love means, and she deserves better than that.

This history is at best only a clue to what the text says; the text is not supposed to be used as a clue to this history, for then the text would only be indirectly related to the meaning of the Christian faith.

When Archbishop Antonio Mennini was appointed as papal nuncio in London, observers of the affairs of the English Church had a good look at his record, for clues to what his policy would be in one of the most important areas of a nuncio's work: making recommendations to the Congregation for Bishops and the Holy Father on who to appoint to dioceses which become vacant.

The final clue in this epic journey is the word Tolkien invented to describe what he saw as a good quality in a fairy - story — and that word was eucatastrophe, this being the notion that there is a «sudden joyous «turn»» in the story, where everything is going well, «giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy», whilst not denying the «existence of dyscatastrophe — of sorrow and failure».

Yeahright... since you are pretending to know scripture, I'll give you a clue... it is in many more places than Lev, and the description of it as a sin in the New Testament as well... just say you don't agree — its much easier and then you don't look so dumb

'''ll give you a clue... it is in many more places than Lev, and the description of it as a sin in the New Testament as well... just say you don't agree — its much easier and then you don't look so dumb»

Suffice it to say that the conceptuality which I accept — and accept because it seems to do justice to deep analysis of human experience and observation, as well as to the knowledge we now have of the way «things go» in the world — lays stress on the dynamic «event» character of that world; on the inter-relationships which exist in what is a societal universe, on the inadequacy of «substance» thinking to describe such a universe of «becoming» and «belonging», on the place of decisions in freedom by the creatures with the consequences which such decisions bring about, and on the central importance of persuasion rather than coercive force as a clue to the «going» of things in that universe.

He's built the Millennium Falcon (Han Solo's ship), 2 different Tie Fighters (small Empire fighter ships) and receive another ship (I have no clue as to the name or if it's good guy or bad guy).

I had to look that up as well... had no clue!

So it makes sense that my hunger, the best clue to my hunger needs, would vary as well.

No point in saying «We need to buy Schneiderlin» right now — we have no clue if Coq will suddenly become as good as a Schneid or Wanyama or anyone else!

But they didn't because despite what people say about how good Gazidis is as CEO he does not have a clue how a football club is run.

You could look at the Telegraph's list of the best January transfers ever in the PL since the introduction of the transfer window in 2002 - 03 to get a small clue as to how difficult it is to buy a decent forward in the Jan window.

Wenger same ol same ol tactically clueless as well as the instructions he gives to the players as they had no clue what to do going forward 80 % of the time.

At least we have a good excuse as we have too much whining fans who hasn't got a clue how to set up a team, as you say, calling sir arsene doesn't make your uninformed opinion any less uninformed.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

I would like to listen more to your theory of everything but I tend to prefer the following small clues and hints as better grounded in the reality.

Players scores Chech 8.5 top saves when needed Monreal 7 good steady game as always Mert 6 did ok The boss 6 looked tired Bel 7.5 good game needs work on crossing Walcot 5 did less than iwobi Cmpbell 7.5 worked hard, in front of ox and walcott anyway Flamini 7 steady Ox 4 poor all game not a clue how he gets a game Ramsey 5 very selfish player, if barca pay 50m take it and sigh Barkley for 35 Giroud 6.5 missed very good chance and doesn't hold the ball up at important times but had an ok performance Iwobi 7 did more than walcott in 15 mins Chambers not on long enough

He has no clue how to pick his best side, playing left backs as CB, RWB on the left and a striker with almost 40 goals last season on the left wing.

Giroud as good player — anyone who says different or uses terms like «donkey» hasn't a clue about football.