2Uniforms Violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution. School Uniforms should be banned because they violate students First Amendment Right to free expression. The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees one the freedom of religion, assembly, and right to petition. Most importantly, it assures a citizen's freedom to expression. Last year, the Biden administration set an ambitious new goal for the USA to deploy 30 gigawatts GW of offshore wind capacity by the year 2030, increasing US offshore capacity more than seven hundred times over. The UK already has 15 GW of offshore wind, more than 300 times as much as the USA and our experience should be a terrible warning to UK’s electricity prices are the highest since records began in 1920 and are now amongst the highest in all Europe. One reason for this is obvious slightly less than half our electricity comes from gas-burning Combined Cycle Gas Turbines CCGTs and gas now costs £90 per megawatt-hour MWh, nearly five times higher than normal. CCGTs are cheap to build around £650m per GW and operate. In normal times they would generate electricity at a total cost of £40 per MWh. That’s now risen to nearly £150/MWh, thanks to Vladimir Putin and his impact on the gas that’s not the whole story. The other reason why British electricity is so expensive is because we have so much wind power particularly, so much offshore wind power. Bad though the current situation is, we would be an even worse state if we had built even more offshore wind, as the British government plans an example, the offshore wind farms Hornsea Two and Moray East were completed in 2022 with capital costs of £ billion per GW and £ more than four times the cost of CCGT capacity. They’re expensive to maintain, which is not surprising since offshore windfarms have all their many generators mounted at the top of 200-metre tall masts far away from land. Estimates of maintenance costs are as high as £200m per GW installed, per annum. The nominal cost of offshore wind generation is £170/MWh – noticeably higher than that for CCGTs, even in these dire times of high gas other factor to bear in mind is that not only is wind capacity extremely expensive to build, wind farms do not deliver anything like their rated capacity over time. This is bad news for the customer, because the higher the capacity factor – that is, the higher the percentage of the rated capacity the powerplant actually delivers over time – the cheaper the energy. In 2022 the UK’s onshore and offshore windfarms operated with a capacity factor of 33 per cent. In 2021 it was only 29 per It gets worse. Like most other renewable generation technologies, wind power is unpredictably intermittent and highly variable. Also, since wind turbines are not synchronously connected to the grid, they provide no “grid inertia” – more on that shortly. Wind turbines cannot be asked to deliver energy when it is required, and their output changes rapidly. These failings must be mitigated and costed, and users have to pay for these costs on top of the price of the 2021 the UK annual grid balancing costs reached £ billion, £150 per household. For context, back in 1995 when we didn’t have much wind power the balancing cost for the grid was a mere £250 million per annum. A large, and growing, contribution to these costs is constraint management, as when a wind farm producing electricity which isn’t wanted – perhaps when it is windy in the middle of the night – is paid not to put that electricity into the problems and costs don’t stop there. Our transmission grid system was originally designed to link generation centres close to sources of fuel coal, gas and load centres such as cities. Now our generation sites are moving further away from load Our grid transmission system has to be expanded to connect the new renewable generators, which is bad enough when they are on a remote hilltop and worse still when they are out at sea. The National Grid estimates that on current plans this work will cost £46 billion – £1,533 per household – to there’s grid inertia. The British grid is termed an island grid, which means that we are solely responsible for controlling the grid frequency between tight limits so that things plugged into the grid will work as expected. Frequency control becomes easier as the inertia of the grid system increases. Grid system inertia is a key measure of how resilient the system is in response to transient changes. Inertia is the sum of the energy stored within the rotating mass of the machines generators and motors connected directly to the system. Low system inertia increases the risk of rapid system changes, which may then lead to disconnection of load or generation and then system instability. Apart from tree-burning biomass stations and hydro generation, renewables plants bring no inertia to the grid as the proportion of renewables rises, system inertia falls and the risk of major problems such as blackouts have attempted to reduce the issue of intermittency by expanding our connections to the European electricity grid – the hope being that the wind will be blowing somewhere else even if it is not blowing here – but we’re still exposed to periods when wind generation across the whole of Europe falls near to nothing. And these connections do not help with inertia and stability either because few of the connections to the continent are synchronous In 1995 the problem of grid frequency stability required provision of rapidly responding generators capable of changing their combined output at a rate of GW per second in order to deal with fluctuations. With the arrival of so much unpredictable wind power, that figure has now increased almost tenfold to GW per second!Extra services like very rapid response gas generators, required in order to make it possible to connect renewables to the grid, add between £30/MWh and £50/MWh to renewables’ cost. Thus the true cost to the customer of offshore wind generators is actually between £200/MWh and £220/MWh, much more than CCGTs even in these times of ruinously high gas out CCGT production will therefore increase domestic electricity prices it seems that CCGTs will be phased out much sooner than planned. The government has proposed an expansion to 60 GW of offshore wind by 2030 capital expenditure £122 billion and solar to 70 GW by 2035 capital expenditure to 2030 £30 billion.This is extremely unwise we still have no way of storing electricity at scale and the planned transitions of home heating and transport to electrical power are progressing weakly and may yet stall completely. Creating such a large solar generation fleet raises the nightmare scenario of early summer mornings, with little demand and the vast majority of generation being solar with zero inertia massive grid collapses would be all but a certainty. Vast amounts of energy will be generated only to be expensively constrained off and probably wasted, and the scenario of unmet demand – with attendant blackouts – will become UK grid is simply not able to cope with the proposed amounts of we simply cannot afford all this. If we add the costs of an even more extended National Grid, this programme of wind and solar generation expansion will cost £232 billion – more than £8,000 per household this decade – all to be paid for by the suffering energy user. It should be emphasised that these figures do not include the costs of the huge energy storage industry which will also be necessary, whatever that may turn out to be hydrogen or ammonia or something even more dangerous and expensive. Heat pumps and switching to electric vehicles could lift total costs above £1 Americans should look at the British renewables disaster and give thanks that today they have hardly any offshore wind. And they might, looking at the UK, recoil with horror from the plans of the Biden administration especially as most US offshore wind will need to be floating offshore wind rather than built on the seabed, and so even more either nation would like to reduce carbon emissions and/or reduce its dependence on fossil fuels supplied by unsavoury overseas regimes, an immediate measure would be to build new, modern, high efficiency CCGT plant which would immediately cut the need for gas and reduce emissions without requiring vast, expensive alterations to the grid and special measures so that they don’t cause it to collapse. We should also begin building new nuclear plant with some genuine urgency, as that is the only genuine, affordable, practical way to seriously cut emissions and achieve secure energy Capell Aris PhD has spent his career in the electricity generation sector. He is a former Fellow of the Institute of Engineering and Technology Youhave to be careful not to induce any kind of a reaction where you can cause more damage to the skin. Treatment of monkeypox It depends on where it's involved, how extensive the lesions are, and “Should of” is grammatically incorrect in English. The correct phrase is “should have”.Why do people say “should of” if it is incorrect?When people say “should have” in English, it is often contracted to “should’ve”. This “ve” sound is very similar to “of”. For this reason, people think “should of” is the correct many English-speaking countries, English grammar is not a subject that people study in school so it is only to be expected that many people do not know this. I never studied English grammar in school and only studied English literature in English class. When to use should haveWe use should have when we talk about I am late, I should have left I am late, I should of left bus is taking ages! I should have taken the bus is taking ages! I should of taken the of/Have, Would of/Have“Could of” and “Would of” also don’t exist and are grammatically incorrect. The mistake is the same as above where the “ve” sound is could have been a could of been a would have gone out but I was would of gone out but I was use “could have” and “would have” to show alternative hypothetical situations in the past.“Could have” shows alternative possibilities“Would have” explains why alternative past situations took place. Shudda Wudda Cudda“Shudda” is a very informal version of “should have”. The reason people say “shudda” is because when people are speaking quickly and the “ve” contraction sounds like an “a”.This also happens with “would have” and “could have” and there have been a few hit songs with these PostsConor is the main writer here at One Minute English and was an English teacher for 10 years. He is interested in helping people with their English skills and learning about using tools at work. Shouldis a modal verb. After Should you use the base form of the infinitive (= verb without To e.g. Go instead of To Go) Should + Verb (base form of infinitive) e.g. You should go now ( do not say: You should to go now.) SHOULD 1. To give advice, a recommendation or a suggestion This is to say that it is the right thing to do or the correct thing. The phrase should have indicates a missed obligation or opportunity in the past. In informal speech, it is contracted to should’ve, not "should of." You should have should’ve called me! You should of called me! I should have should’ve known you were lying. I should of known you were lying. Tom and Pauline are so selfish, they should have should’ve been there for you. Tom and Pauline are so selfish, they should of been there for you. Should have should never be written "should of." However, the latter does exist when should is followed by an expression that begins with of. You should, of course, compare prices. Past You should, of course, have compared prices. He should, of his own will, do the right thing. Past He should, of his own will, have done the right thing. The Bottom Line The erroneous phrase "should of" likely came about from the very similar pronunciation of should’ve. Perhaps I should’ve mentioned this sooner. Related lessons could have vs could of would have vs would of If I would have… Modal verbs
Shouldlyuses the code before the ShouldBe statement to report on errors, which makes diagnosing easier.. Read more about Shouldly and its features at Installation. Shouldly can be found here on NuGet and can be installed by copying and pasting the following command into your Package Manager Console within Visual Studio (Tools > NuGet Package Manager > Package
Would Have, Could Have, Should Have, Must Have – Você muito provavelmente sabe elaborar frases com os verbos modais apresentados no título desse post. Caso você ainda esteja um pouco inseguroa, veja dois tópicos em que damos dicas sensacionais as quais você geralmente não aprende na escola Como usar should em Inglês 5 formas de usar should Como usar Would 5 formas para incrementar a fala Antes de você continuar lendo esse texto, sugerimos que você assista o nosso vídeo abaixo, pois pode ser muito mais esclarecedor. Depois de assisti-lo continue lendo o artigo. Dá o play! Enfim, voltando a ideia desse post, responda você sabe efetuar construções do tipo would have, could have, should have e must have? Para a construção de frases contendo uma das estruturas acima, devemos combinar um dos verbos modais modal verbs apresentados would, could, should, must com have e com o past participle do verbo que queremos usar. Por isso chamamos de past models em Inglês. Veja a sequência a ser adotada Verbo modal + have + past participle O past participle nada mais que é uma das possíveis formas de um verbo. Não se lembra muito bem o que são past participles? Nesse texto —-> clique aqui, você encontra uma lista imensa de past participles. Como usar would have, explicação e exemplos Usamos would have com o objetivo de nos referirmos a alguma oportunidade que perdemos, isto é, a ideia é muito boa, porém não a colocamos em prática no passado por algum motivo. Ex I would have studied more if I knew the test would be that hard. [eu teria estudado mais se soubesse que o teste seria tão difícil assim] Ex I would have killed you If I knew they wouldn’t pay for the rent. [eu teria te matado se eu soubesse que eles não pagariam o aluguel] Ex Thank you Jack. She wouldn’t have seen a doctor if it wasn’t for you. [Obrigado Jack. Ela não teria ido ao médio se não fosse por você] usar should have, explicação e exemplos Podemos usar a combinação should have para expressar algo que deveria ter sido feito no passado, ou seja, não foi feito e hoje além de reconhecemos isso, apontamos o que à época seria o correto. Por exemplo, imagine uma situação na qual um amigo perdeu o ônibus que saia às 2015 da rodoviária. Você quer dizer que ele deveria should ter chegado às 2000. Na língua inglesa, é muito comum usarmos o verbo to be com a palavra there formando be there com o sentido de estar em um local. É muito mais comum do que dizer “chegar”, como fazemos em Português. Na nossa língua é mais idiomático dizemos “você deveria chegar às 2015”, ao passo que, em Inglês, soa melhor optar por “você deveria estar lá às 2015”. Be there praticamente pode ser encarada como chunk em Inglês. Quer saber o que é chunk? Em breve vamos fala sobre chunks importantes em Inglês e se você quer ser avisado quando esse novo texto estiver disponível, curta a nossa página oficial no Facebook. Curtir página do Facebook Existe a possibilidade de usarmos a contraction form entre should e have formando should’ve Ex You should’ve told her about it. Ex Jack should’ve finished his report before Monday. uma música da cantora Taylor Swift chamada Should’ve Said No em que ela faz uso frequente da combinação should have aplicando a contraction form de should e have, ou seja should’ve. Mas o que significa should’ve said no? Significa, basicamente, deveria ter dito não. Veja alguns exemplos de como empregar should have Ex You should have been there at 8 pm. Ex They should have taken the kids school. Ex She should have done her homework. é um milhão de vezes mais habitual ouvirmos should’ve e não should have, apesar de, em hipótese alguma, isso significar que falar as palavras separadamente está errado. Da mesma forma podemos usar a expressão na negativa shouldn’t have Ex We shouldn’t have done that. Ex Jack and Michael shouldn’t have gone there. Ex She shouldn’t have gone home. Ex I should’ve known. língua inglesa, quando queremos lamentar o fato de estarmos desprovidos de uma determina informação no passado considerando que isso surtiu efeito no presente, podemos empregar o verbo to know que contém o sentido de estar ciente de algo. Por isso é muito comum dizemos I should have known . Como usar could have, exemplos e explicação Empregamos could have quando o propósito é levantar uma possibilidade do que poderia ter sido feito em face de circunstâncias no passado. Estamos no presente e analisamos o passado. Ou seja, apontamos uma alternativa de algo que poderia ter sido implementada. Ex You could have talked to your parents but you didn’t. [você poderia ter conversado com os seus pais, mas não conversou] Ex She could have been rapped if the cops didn’t show up on time. [ela poderia ter sido estuprada se os policiais não tivesse chegado a tempo] Ex There couldn’t have been a better way to solve this problem. [não poderia haver uma melhor forma de resolver esse problema] Ex You could have done well in your exam if you’d studied harder. usar must have – exemplos e explicação Podemos empregar a combinação must have + past participle quando a intenção é destacar que uma obrigação, tarefa ou solicitação não foi cumprida. Ex You must have cleaned the tables. [você tinha que ter limpado as mesas] Ex You must have talked to her. You boss demanded that. [você tinha que te conversado com ela. O seu chefe mandou] usar could have, should have, must have para especular, fazer suposições Além dos exemplos que apresentamos acima, também é possível usar essa mesma estrutura com verbos modais could, should, would, may, might, ought to etc em se tratando de especulações, isto é, fazemos suposições quanto a algo, já que não estamos 100% certos. Pelo contrário, muitas vezes não temos certeza nenhuma e realmente se trata de apenas de, como dito, uma mera suposição. Veja Ex It must have been very hard for her. [deve ter sido difícil para ela] Ex The passangers must have heard something. [os passageiros devem ter ouvido algo] Ex She couldn’t have managed without you. [ela não conseguiria sem você] Ex The costumers must have been extremely frightened by the spiders. [os clientes devem ter ficado extremamente assustados com as aranhas] Ex The prisoners must have escaped with someone’s help. [os prisoneiros devem ter fugido com a ajuda de alguém] sugerimos que você assista o vídeo do nosso blog em que explicamos de maneira super interessante como usar should. Dá play! Você também pode empregar outros verbos modais como might e ought to. Iremos escrever um novo texto contendo mais opções e exercícios para você praticar. Para ser avisado quando esse novo texto estiver disponível, curta a página oficial do blog Inglês no Teclado no Facebook. Essa é a melhor forma de você se manter ligado nas nossas dicas de Inglês! Curtir página do Facebook
Itshould be a major focus on the remaining presidential debate, and the questions that are asked of both presidential candidates, as well as candidates for Senate and Congress who, if the
A few learner comments - Thanks! "EnglishClub made our classes so fun and informative" - Heloise, Maria Eduarda and Luciano, Brazil "The Magic site! Cleverly designed, stimulating, easily viewed. Thank you!" - Misha from Belgrade, Learner of English, Serbia "This site is AWESOME." - Jaycel Barona, Learner of English "I am grateful to Josef Essberger for the 7 Secrets. They are informative and sharp." - Andrey Kochanov, Learner of English, Russia "veryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryvery good site!!!!!!" - Andrew, Learner, South Korea "I can no longer differentiate between learning and having fun." - Yarianto, Learner of English, Indonesia "Excellent because complete, very useful and well organized." - Michela Grammatico, Learner of English, Italy "Very helpful...very nice...free of charge!" - Ashraf Saber, Egypt Thediameter of a standard flagstick is 0.5" (some pins taper to ¾" and even 1" above the hole). If you look at the space left for a golf ball, the 2.125" half-hole minus the 0.25" half English grammar practice exercise, intermediate level. In this exercise you will practise the difference between should and should have. Exercise instructions Fill in the gaps in the sentences below using the verb in brackets with either should or should have. There is a grammar explanation at the bottom of the page. questions go herescore goes here Should expressing obligation Structure should + infinitive form of a verb should be, should go, should do, etc. We use should for the present and the future. We use should to give advice to someone and to say that something is a good is weaker than have to and must. You should tell them the shouldn't smoke; it's bad for you. I don't think you should do it. Should have expressing unfulfilled obligation in the past Structure should + not have + past participle of verb We use should have to say that someone didn't do something, but it would have been the correct thing to do it. You should have told them the truth. You shouldn't have gone there – it was a mistake. I don't think you should have done it. We often use should have to express regret about the past, or to say that we made a mistake. I’m sorry for shouting at you – I shouldn’t have raised my voice. Bidensaid he needed to 'make sure' two girls got ice cream following the event Credit: Reuters. As Biden took to the stage in Tulsa, Oklahoma to pay tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, he made a quick detour. "I've got to make one check," Biden said leaving the stage.

There are an estimated 55 million women in menopause in the United States today, the majority of whom endure its most debilitating symptoms in silence. It doesn’t have to be so debilitating, and it wouldn’t be if we could end the silence and make even a handful of key policy has long been neglected by the mainstream medical establishment as well as by lawmakers, employers, even the media. All have failed to help women navigate this inevitable life stage. New data from the Mayo Clinic show that the burden extends far beyond the physical and physiological effects and also has huge economic consequences, with an estimated $ billion in lost earnings for menopausal women per was a bit of encouraging news last month The Food and Drug Administration approved a new non-hormonal oral drug to treat vasomotor symptoms of menopause — better known as hot flashes. As many as 80% of women experience hot flashes, with a disproportionate effect on Black women, for whom the symptoms of menopause last longer and are experienced more intensely. Among the profound short- and long-term health consequences of hot flashes are sleep disruption, mood disturbances, brain fog and increased risk for cardiovascular who suffer from hot flashes deserve innovation and investment in a wide array of options, such as this latest market entry, a pill to be sold under the trade name Veozah. We are heartened to see the FDA clear the path for new treatments. But this move also calls for an urgent caveat — and a broader call to is imperative that attempts to promote sales of Veozah do not pit it against or present it as a safer, superior option to estrogen and estrogen-progestin therapy, also known as menopause hormone therapy. A decades-old study misrepresented and overgeneralized the risks of hormone therapy, creating unfounded fears for an entire generation. Simply but emphatically stated Hormone therapy is not only the most effective treatment for hot flashes, but also the most cost-effective one. For symptomatic women who initiate hormone therapy before age 60 or within 10 years of their last period, the North American Menopause Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many other national and international organizations agree that the benefits outweigh the therapy also has long-term health benefits. It prevents osteoporosis, decreases the risk of Type 2 diabetes, and treats the genitourinary syndrome of menopause, symptoms of which include painful sex, urinary urgency and frequent recurrent urinary tract infections. Other than treating hot flashes, additional benefits of Veozah, if any, and the long-term safety profile are is true that not everyone is a candidate for hormone therapy, including those with a personal history of breast or uterine cancer, a history of heart attack or stroke, or an increased risk for developing blood clots. But for millions in need of relief, hormones can and should be a first-line the overblown fears of hormone therapy requires an immediate course correction. We recommend three concrete reforms as a starting the National Institutes of Health must not only clarify current data and retract its prior warnings, but also design and begin a new modern initiative that can assess the long-term benefits of hormone therapy and accurately assess its risks. This is a move that can be directed and funded by Congress Last fall, for the first time, Congress stepped up and introduced the Menopause Research Act of 2022 to initiate this very process; an updated version of the bill will be introduced in the near the FDA must end its outdated requirement to label all estrogen products with a “black box warning.” That mandate is based on widely misinterpreted data in older populations who were using systemic estrogen. It would be reasonable to remove the warning from low-dose vaginal estrogen third, menopause treatments need to be accessible and affordable for everyone — meaning that all private and public health insurance programs must ensure coverage. This mandate applies especially to Veozah, which will cost a hefty $550 for a 30-day supply. Hormone therapy runs $30 to $90 per month.Menopause policy should be about equity — health, economic, age and gender — and enabling people to make truly informed decisions and live their best lives. It requires robust public discourse, thorough and transparent research, and a firm political commitment to prioritize women’s full and fair representation at all ages and life Weiss-Wolf is the executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Network and the author of “Periods Gone Public Taking a Stand for Menstrual Equity.” Sharon Malone is the chief medical advisor of the telehealth company Alloy Women’s Health.

Whenyou set up a new PC running Windows 10 or Windows 11, you have a choice of four types of user accounts, from the old-school local account to the newest, Azure Active Directory.

It wasn’t all that surprising when the Penguins dropped the news five days ago that Kyle Dubas joined the organization. What did raise a few eyebrows, though, was that Dubas was named president of hockey operations as opposed to general Dubas is assumed to have full power over any incoming general manager, he is expected to hire someone for the role after the NHL Draft and the July free agency What’s the point?Dubas does need to make some hires. No question. He’s full of energy, enthusiasm and brainpower, but he still needs a staff. And a day off every now and then. But he doesn’t need a general associate general manager? assistant GM or two? DEEPERMirtle Get ready for a Maple Leafs-Penguins rivalry — on and off the iceWhen Jim Rutherford was at the height of his power with the Penguins many years ago, he was surrounded by some of the finest minds in hockey. Billy Guerin. Tom Fitzgerald. Jason Botterill. Jason Karmanos. All were assistant GMs under Rutherford and made a sizable impact on the Penguins’ back-to-back however, had final say. He ran the show. He was the boss. You know why? Because he was the general hired as general manager — even if they happen to be a Dubas disciple — is going to rightfully desire a GM’s Penguins aren’t paying Dubas all of that money to share the what transpired in Toronto, I imagine Dubas is extra sensitive to this situation. While we don’t know everything about the struggle between Dubas and Maple Leafs president Brendan Shanahan, we know enough. We know their visions weren’t the same, that team construction was sometimes compromised because the former player didn’t always see eye to eye with the young phenom tabbed to guide the Leafs to the promised no circumstances should Dubas want to be in a situation like that. And surely he doesn’ front offices need a hierarchy. It was an enormous problem for the Penguins over the past couple of years. Ron Hextall didn’t really answer to anyone, nor did he communicate with anyone. High-ranking team officials, to this day, aren’t sure what former team president Brian Burke’s duties were. I’m not so sure he actually had duties, other than being Brian Burke. Fenway Sports Group was in the infancy stages of owning a hockey team and trusted veterans like Hextall and Burke to run the show seamlessly, and they were result was a trickle-down effect that badly disrupted what had been a well-oiled Penguins made the right hire. Dubas’ days in Toronto and before show he’s different. He understands roster construction and has the communication skills to be a very effective team president. It all checks out. Listen to him for about five minutes and you’ll understand why FSG gave him full he has it. Let’s not complicate if this is about the title and nothing else, it’s important. The best part of getting a job promotion is, usually, the additional money. But the title matters, too. Power comes with it. It pads a resume the Penguins and Dubas need to be careful general managers still matter. They deal with agents. They deal with the salary cap. They oversee the development of players at the AHL level and beyond. They help identify young talent around the hockey world. They deal extensively with not minimizing their importance, and the Penguins need to surround Dubas with complementary people to help him this is about Dubas. Only one person should dictate the Penguins’ direction, and only one person should use his personal touch to deal with opposing team executives. Making someone else the general manager comes with June 2015, the Penguins wanted Phil Kessel. Toronto was without a general manager after Dave Nonis’ dismissal. Lou Lamoriello wouldn’t be hired for another month. Then-29-year-old Dubas was one of two Maple Leafs interim general then 66 and long known as one of the league’s most aggressive GMs, was getting a little antsy. He wanted to make a big deal. The Penguins had talks with Colorado about Ryan O’Reilly and with Chicago about Brandon Saad, but both conversations broke down. Kessel had become Rutherford’s objective. So, the 66-year-old contacted the and Rutherford worked out the structure of the deal in Rutherford’s Fort Lauderdale hotel suite during NHL Draft weekend in South had to be a daunting experience for Dubas. But if you ask Rutherford about it, he’ll tell you Dubas wasn’t nervous. He’ll tell you he was frighteningly smart, ahead of his trade got everyone can do what Dubas did. You have to be likable, but you also can’t cave. It’s a fine line. Hextall never mastered it. Rutherford, in terms of dealing with other teams, is the king. Many hockey executives have told me his greatest weapon is his charm, that other GMs love doing business with him because, simply put, they like him. They all like Dubas, too. He has that gene. But they respect him, which is even more important. Any nonsense you hear from Toronto about Dubas being unable to win the Stanley Cup for the Leafs is met with eye rolls from people around the NHL. They know how good he you really want anyone else representing the Penguins in crucial moments? Do you want someone else doing the talking when the Penguins are trying to land an impactful player this summer?Nah, I didn’t think is a pivotal time. Dubas will produce a plan for their short- and long-term success because that’s what he does. He should be the one executing that plan in every needs to hire assistants, people to handle the dirty work, people who can elevate their stock simply by working with a general manager?No thanks. The Penguins already have a very good one.Photo Nick Iwanyshyn / The Canadian Press via AP

Couldwould Should spelling? The Right Way to Spell Would of, Should of, and Could of So would of is would have, could of is could have, should of is should have, will of is will have, and might of is might have: I would of come earlier, but I got stuck at work. He would have stayed if he'd known you were coming. Hey! How are you doing? Quando falamos sobre verbos modais sempre temos aquela insegurança de qual utilizar, em que momento e quando utilizar. Então, o assunto do artigo de hoje é o COULD HAVE x SHOULD HAVE quais suas diferenças, quando e como utilizar esses modal verbs em verbos COULD e SHOULD, são chamados em inglês de modal verbs verbos modais, os verbos modais, e são utilizados como auxiliares de um outro verbo principal em uma formas com "have" são como criamos a estrutura para usá-los no passado. A estrutura éverbo modal + "have" + verbo principal na forma do ParticípioUsamos COULD HAVE para indicar algo que poderia ter acontecido no passado, mas não aconteceu. Ele também pode indicar possibilidade ou habilidade, ou algo que você "poderia ter feito".Já SHOULD HAVE pode ser usado para indicar algo no sentido de dever ou obrigação, que "deveríamos ter feito".The use of COULD HAVE in English - O uso de COULD HAVE em inglêsCOULD em inglês, significa poderia. Em casos muito informais, "could have" pode ser pronunciado como coulda'. So, it's time to look at some examples with "could have"I could have done a better juice. Eu poderia ter feito um suco melhor.It could have been faster. Poderia ter sido mais rápido.You could not/couldn't have done this. Você não poderia ter feito isso.I could not/couldn't have used a worse way to solve this problem. Eu não poderia ter usado um jeito pior para resolver esse problema.What could I have laughed at? Do que eu poderia ter rido?What motive could he have had? Que motivo ele poderia ter tido?The use of SHOULD HAVE in English - O uso de SHOULD HAVE em inglêsO verbo SHOULD em inglês significa deveria. Em casos muito informais, "should have" pode ser pronunciado como shoulda'. Pode ser usado para recomendações, obrigações, sugestões, dicas, opiniões e expectativas. Vejamos em que contextos podemos utilizar "should/should have"I should have left 10 minutes ago. Eu deveria ter saído 10 minutos atrás.You should have quit drinking alcohol. Você deveria ter parado de beber álcool.They shouldn't have told him anything. Eles não deveriam ter dito nada a ele.Should I have talked to my mother? Eu deveria ter falado com a minha mãe?Listen and Practice - Ouça e pratique!Chegou o momento de ouvir os termos aprendidos e praticar o seu listening. Por isso, selecionamos alguns hits em inglês que você pode gostar de ouvirRed Hot Chili Peppers - I Could Have Lied"I could have lied I'm such a foolMy eyes could never never neverKeep their coolShowed her and I told her how"Jim Diamond - I Should Have Known Better"I should have known betterto lie with one as beautiful as you."Sempre que pensamos que algo é complicado, pensamos em desistir. Mas, após um esforço, vemos que nem tudo é tão difícil quanto parece, assim como os verbos modais. Se gostou desse e quer aprender ainda mais, confira essa próxima leitura Inglês informal - Entenda a contração de palavras. Have a nice day and stay safe, bye!Aproveite e faça nosso teste de nível de inglês. Ou baixe nossa apostila que te ensina como aprender inglês de maneira eficiente!Quer realmente aprender outras línguas, como inglês e espanhol? Conheça os nossos cursos que reforçam o aprendizado de inglês e espanhol. .
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/873
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/790
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/764
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/373
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/773
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/734
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/363
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/353
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/173
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/201
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/662
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/980
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/714
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/785
  • 9plr39os6h.pages.dev/120

    • should should be should have