As the previous posters stated, it is both the weather & genetics of the rose that dictates flower life span. If you are looking for roses with long garden & vase life, I've found that "florist" HT's usually fit the bill the best. Some that I have are Tineke & several Kordes Freelander roses, Antique Caramel Freelander being one of my favs. Also another long lasting bloom is Veteran's Honor. Many of these blooms will last for 10-14 days & sometimes more provided you keep them well watered, especially during hot spells. Many of the Freelander roses can be purchased thru Palatine & Pickering.

I have the Roomba 980 which I believe is the newest one. I have 2 dogs that shed like crazy wchich is one reason I love the vacuum. It's keeps the hair from getting out of control. The rollers on my machine do get full of hair but are fairly easy to clean. I think the battery lasts about 60 min and then it has to charge. if I run it everyday than it can do my first floor in one charge if not it has to go back and charge again.

Wow, what a bunch of mis-information in a single comment. I normally would leave it at this, but I don't want people to search the archives and get confused. A plasma TV's temperature is not an indication of lower energy efficiency. Temperature isn't an indicator of energy efficiency, but heat output very much. Any energy consumed by the device has to be released somehow, either as mechanical energy (not applicable for a device that doesn't have a motor), as light energy (a smaller percentage, even for a TV), or as heat (the bulk of the energy). As this is hard to quantify, I looked at watts/h instead. That's the definition of energy efficiency. And with the exception of really small screen sizes, plasma TVs are consistently a lot more wasteful than any modern technology. [ Lots of hand-wavy vague discussions how TVs are complicated. ] If anything, the reverse is probably true. Older TVs had tons and tons of discreet parts, whereas modern TVs are highly integrated and frequently only have a very small number of highly integrated components. This has been a general trend and explains why TVs can be built so much cheaper today. Just to put this into perspective, if you look at the size of a settop box from only about 15-20 years ago, it was the size of a small shoe box, and it probably cost on the order of $100. Today, the equivalent device is the size of a USB stick and costs on the order of $20 -- and it probably does a lot more, too. You'd observe the same thing, if you opened up a modern TV. Very little electronics that are left in there. I have a hard time finding a tear-down of a modern TV, as it simply is so boring that nobody wants to document it. But here is one for a 4 year old model: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Changhong+UD42YC5500UA+4K+42-Inch+LED+LCD+TV+Teardown/64167 Notice how little there is to making a TV. [ Statements equating weight with quality. ] The bulk of the weight of a plasma TV came from the insanely heavy front glass panel that is needed to build all the plasma cells. That simply isn't necessary with LCD or OLED technology and explains both the smaller depth and the much reduced weight. And while weight isn't really an indicator of quality, being lightweight is a real advantage for many consumers. A modern TV can easily be hung on the wall, but a plasma TV is almost impossible to mount that way. That also partially explains why larger format plasma TVs never took off in the market. Nobody would be able to carry a 90" plasma TV without hiring professional movers. [ Then OLED and QLED came along and completely solved that problem by using multiple different layers of TV panels within a single TV panel. ] What a bunch of crock! There is no such thing as multiple layers of panels. A plasma TV had an array of pixels that had alternating colors of phospors in front of each adjacent plasma cell. A LCD (that includes QLED) panel has a white backlight and alternating color filters in front of each adjacent LCD pixel. An OLED display has alternating colors of adjacent organic LEDs. Do you notice a pattern? Exactly! It's all a similar design of differently colored pixels right next to each other. But some of these pixels are more efficient than others. OLED are by far the best approach, but they are costly to manufacture. LCD is cheap to manufacture at scale, is lightweight and very thin, and color quality is close enough when using a good backlight and good color filters. This is where QLED comes into the picture. The idea of FullHD is an illusion. The human eye cannot process the colors that "FullHD" purports to put out onto a TV screen. I really hope that was a typo. FullHD has absolutely nothing to do with colors. But yes, there are difference in color gamut and in dynamic range. Historically, that was one of the areas where plasma had a distinct advantage. It used to have a much better dynamic range than LCD technology, only OLED was equivalent (or better). But OLED didn't really exist as a viable consumer product at that time. Color gamut is the big elephant in the room though. Traditional standard definition TV has a really narrow color range, and that's really noticeable when compared to film. These days, you can get a similar visual experience, if your TV is HDR capable, and if the source material includes the necessary information. In general, this is only available for 4k-enabled systems. So, independent of resolution, 4k does bring important picture improvements. And even if you no longer have 20/20 vision, most people will easily be able to tell the difference between standard and high dynamic range. All of a sudden, details in dark scenes are possible to be made out without washing out bright spots in the same scene. A good starting point to learn more about high dynamic range and color gamut is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-dynamic-range_video Make sure to click on the links though. There is a lot more information hidden on Wikipedia that is relevant to this topic. The human eye can only process at most, 480p It should be self-evident that this statement is obviously incorrect. The human eye doesn't have a fixed resolution in pixels. It does have a limit though as to what the smallest detail is that it can discern. This means, the closer you sit to the screen the more pixel you can discern. But nobody sits a foot away from their screen. In fact, because of our limited field of vision, there are guidelines how far away you should sit given a particular screen size. In practice, many people sit back a little more than the optimal distance. The average distance from the screen in the US is about 9 feet. For people with normal 20/20 vision and with a normal ~50" screen, that means that can easily distinguish between 480 scan lines, 720 scan lines, and even 1080 scan lines. But most of us wouldn't be able to tell the difference of 2160 scan lines in a 4k image. But don't take my word for it. Have a look at this very informative Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

Depends on what he sprayed. Here is a reponse I wrote recently tgat asked somewhat of the same question. Glyphosate (Round Up) has absolutely no residual soil activity. The chemical binds so extremely tightly to soil particles that it cannot be taken up by the roots of plants. It ONLY affects plants through contact with the leaves and non-woody stems. I have dozens of feet of broccoli, onions, cabbage, lettuce, and potatoes currently growing that can attest to that. I use glyphosate on all my beds prior to planting, and I use the higher rate, a 2% solution for my backpack sprayer, to try and kill any perennial weeds (namely bindweed that has a nasty habit of showing up after any kind of cultivation). If the herbicide that drifted onto your plants was glyposate, any that also landed on your soil simply cannot effect any plants grown in that soil. Glyphosate actually remains in the soil for quite some time. Again, as it is bound so extremely tightly to the soil particles, it is pretty much insoluble and barely moves through the soil profile. Soil texture does play a small role in this however. Coarser textured soils cannot "hold" as much glyphosate as finer textured ones, but that is easily alleviated by using a lower rate. The "rate" that may have arrived via drift would be fairly low and wouldn't have a problem binding even to beach sand. 2, 4-d on the other has shown some residual soil activity in both soybeans and corn. It is recommended (and I think is now on the label) that you wait 7-14 days after applications of this herbicide to plant. Bear in mind a couple things with this. First, this is referring to fields that are directly sprayed with the recommended rate/acre of 2, 4-d. It is not a little bit of drift. The total amount of herbicide in this case would be well below that rate. Secondly it is talking about planting seeds, not larger transplants. So there MIGHT be some potential for 2, 4-d to effect plants subsequently planted in your soil, but I think that it is pretty unlikely. Dicamba on the other hand does have a more significant residual activity and can be translocated through the roots. It is commonly mixed with 2, 4-d. However, Dicamba is usually used a pretty high rate, especially if it is being used to target re-emergence of weeds. It is not usually used at these higher rates in the stuff folks buy at the Home Depot and again, the rate of herbicide drift is already significantly reduced. Imazapyr and imazapic have long residual soil activity and can both be translocated through the roots. These are mixed with glyphosate in products like Ground Clear. Now, unless you ask your neighbor what was sprayed you can't say for sure what was used, but these are about the most commonly used herbicides by the average homeowner. If yellowing leaves, and eventual death of your prior plants were the only effects, it would point to glyphosate or a glyphosate/imazapic or imazpyr mix, as glyphosate is an an amino acid inhibitor and the other two are enzyme inhibitors none of which cause the curling and cupping like 2, 4-d and dicamba which basically overload the plant with auxin and it grows itself to death. Many brands of Aminopyralid, like Milestone, is not registered for used even in agriculture, only in rangeland, conservation areas (such as CRP field) and utility/railroad rights of way. I'm not even sure if the Bureau of Land Management has approved it's use on their lands (if they have its only been in the past couple of years). I use it regularly at the Wildlife Refuge I work at, it has been approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, its about the best herbicide on the market for thistles and knapweed.