Je me retrouve toujours avec le probl?me de l'?crant de d?marrage (fond blanc + logo HTC)....
Quelqu'un a d?j? eu ce probl?me et comment le r?gler? thx.
Source: http://forum.frandroid.com/topic/155455-probleme-passage-de-windows-a-android/
the office Granbury Texas CA Lottery madonna madonna Billboard Music Awards 2013 VA Lottery
T-600 is neither your average puppet nor your average backpack, but this quick little clip from Stan Winston Schools shows that he's pretty impressive for both. Who said puppets had to be cute? [Stan Winston School]
Source: http://gizmodo.com/t-600-is-a-fantastic-backpack-for-exterminating-mankind-621931354
hostess israel AMA BCS Standings 2012 American Music Awards 2012 oregon ducks oregon ducks
"One day this robot came floating through, Sam, and I realized he was missing an arm. He says, "konnichiwa" and we just chuckled and were like, "little dude, where's your arm??" And then about two weeks later...Mike and Yuriy were trying to sort out an engineering mess, and it was getting kind of tense, and this little robot head...comes floating by, kind of tumbling..."kon...ni...chi...wa"...we all just lost it. I have no idea who it was but MAN it just summed up our feelings perfectly..."
Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/qzawXenUGKo/story01.htm
nancy pelosi gop debate republican debate lewis black kirkwood chris brown and rihanna nightline
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](http://www.eurekalert.org/images/back2e.gif){kind=small}
Public release date: 28-Jun-2013
Share ] Contact: David Ruth
david@rice.edu
713-348-6327
Rice University
Americans are more respectful now than ever before when it comes to the religious traditions of their peers, according to findings from the longitudinal Rice University Portraits of American Life Study (PALS). Other findings: Americans are more divided on the legal definition of marriage, favor restrictions on abortion, support pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and are less politically engaged (with the exception of African-Americans).
PALS is a six-year national study tracking religion, morality, politics and other social issues in the U.S. The study included a scientifically gathered random sample of approximately 1,300 adult Americans in 2006 and 2012, interviewing the exact same people in both years.
Study author Michael Emerson, the Allyn and Gladys Cline Professor of Sociology and co-director of Rice's Kinder Institute for Urban Research, highlighted some of the findings.
Religion
When asked about mutual respect for all religions, one-third of PALS participants in 2006 said they respected all religions equally. By 2012, 58 percent said they did.
"A major shift has occurred among Americans in just six years," Emerson said. "We have become far more respecting of the diversity of religions than we were in 2006. Very much unlike in 2006, the majority of Americans no longer single out a religion that they disrespect."
In both years of the study, participants said that the religion they most respected was Judaism, though the percentage naming it declined from 24 percent in 2006 to 15 percent in 2012. No other religion in either year was named by even 10 percent of respondents. Twenty percent of study participants in both 2006 and 2012 identified Islam as the religion they least respected.
Between 2006 and 2012, 15 percent of participants surveyed switched religious traditions, with nearly 40 percent of them identifying as unaffiliated, or no longer identifying with a religious tradition or congregation.
"For a sizable percentage, religious switching means dropping out of religion," Emerson said. "Interestingly, those who dropped out were largely replaced by a nearly equal number of the non-affiliated of 2006, who by 2012 had become part of a religious tradition."
Also of note, only 45 percent of adult Americans attended worship with the same frequency in 2012 as they did in 2006, with 31 percent attending less and 24 percent attending more. Black Protestants, Evangelical Protestants and Catholics were more likely to attend church more than individuals affiliated with other religious traditions.
More than one-third of study participants switched congregations between 2006 and 2012. Two-thirds of these individuals said their switch was due to a residential move, where they were too far away from their former congregation and needed to find another. Seventeen percent said the primary reason they changed congregations was that they grew dissatisfied with their former congregation. Another 13 percent said they became attracted to a new congregation. Twelve percent said they are in a new congregation because they were both equally dissatisfied with their former congregation and attracted to their new congregation.
Of the people who indicated they were "dissatisfied with their former congregation," 58 percent said that a source of their dissatisfaction was clergy, 53 percent said it was political and/or social views of the congregation, 45 percent said theology, 41 percent said poor relationships, 39 percent said liturgy/style, 38 percent said a poor future, 13 percent said location and seven percent said lack of programs.
Eighty-four percent of individuals surveyed indicated that clergy was a factor that drew them to a new congregation. Other factors that attracted individuals to a new congregation included liturgy/style (67 percent), theology (64 percent), programs and a bright future (62 percent), location (49 percent), relationships (42 percent), political/social views (35 percent) and return to childhood religion (15 percent).
Other changes included a declining confidence in clergy and an increased confidence in faith and God's care.
Moral reasoning
Moral discourse is a regular part of political, economic, social and cultural debates. These values are often embedded in private and public discussions ranging from the development and uses of medical technology to the beneficial and responsible use of public funds to the deployment of military drones.
When asked about personal views of morality, nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of African-American respondents said that they base their moral attitudes on "God's law," in contrast to one-third (36 percent) of Caucasian respondents and one-third (35 percent) of Hispanic respondents.
"The racial difference in how moral decisions are made is dramatic," Emerson said. "It has wide-ranging implications for differences in a host of moral, political and social views."
The majority of PALS respondents favored some level of restrictions on abortion. Just 17 percent of PALS respondents said they believe abortion should be legal under "almost all circumstances." The largest number of respondents, 26 percent, said that abortion should be available in "some circumstances," closely followed by 25.5 percent who said that abortion should be available only "in extreme circumstances." Fourteen percent of respondents said that they believe abortion should be legal under "most circumstances," and fourteen percent believe that abortion should not be available under any circumstance. Hispanic women and African-Americans were the most likely to say that abortion should be legal under "only extreme circumstances."
Americans also were asked their opinions about the use of genetic engineering. A clear majority (82 percent) of PALS respondents said they believe it is "always," "usually" or "sometimes" wrong to use "genetic engineering to make a smarter baby." Just 16 percent of PALS respondents said that the prenatal use of genetic technology is "never wrong" or that it is "not a moral issue." Ten percent more women than men said that the elective use of genetic engineering is "always wrong."
"When it comes to the issue of genetic engineering of babies, Americans are in remarkable agreement: They are saying 'It is wrong' loudly and clearly," Emerson said.
Marriage
As states and the federal government debate the legal definition of marriage, Americans surveyed for PALS were also divided on the topic. In both 2006 and 2012, a slight majority of respondents (57 percent in 2006, 53 percent in 2012) agreed with the statement "The only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman." Approximately one-third (31 percent in 2006, 33 percent in 2012) of respondents disagreed with the statement, and a small number of respondents (12 percent in 2006, 13 percent in 2012) were undecided about the statement.
Many survey respondents changed their minds on the topic between 2006 and 2012. Sixteen percent of respondents who agreed with the statement in the 2006 study disagreed in 2012. Twenty-eight percent of respondents who disagreed with the statement in 2006 agreed with it in 2012. Among those who in 2006 neither disagreed nor agreed with the statement, almost two-thirds took a different position in 2012 43 percent disagreed and 23 percent agreed.
Between 2006 and 2012, respondents became even more divided on the topic of marriage across various demographics, especially education, religion and age. Respondents without a high school diploma were most likely to agree with the marriage statement (66 percent in 2006, 75 percent in 2012), and respondents with postcollege education were least likely to agree with the statement (44 percent in 2006, 37 percent in 2012). Evangelical Protestants were most likely to agree (72 percent in 2006, 75 percent in 2012), while Jews were least likely to agree (21 percent in 2006, 12 percent in 2012). Respondents older than 50 were most likely to agree with the statement (62 percent in 2006, 63 percent in 2012), and respondents 30 and younger were least likely to agree (47 percent in 2006, 40 percent in 2012).
"The real story on the statement 'The only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman' was despite little overall change, so many individual people changed their minds -- some to agree, others to disagree," Emerson said. "The end result is important: Americans are now more divided on this issue along educational, religious and age lines than they were in 2006."
Political engagement
The average rate of political activity (across nine measures of political participation, such as voting, signing petitions and working for a candidate or party) of PALS respondents decreased from 22 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2012. The study saw a decrease in activity among all ethnic groups except African-American respondents. Individual average political activity for African-Americans in the sample increased from 20 percent in 2006 to 22 percent in 2012, while Caucasian activity fell from 24 to 18 percent, Hispanic activity fell from 15 to 12 percent and Asian activity fell from 14 to 11 percent.
Emerson said the shift in political behavior among African-Americans can be attributed to the "Obama effect" -- members of the ethnic group showed enthusiastic support for the first African-American presidential candidate belonging to a major contemporary political party.
"It seems likely that President Obama's ascendency as the first African-American president of the United States is responsible for the boost in black political participation," Emerson said. "And this does not just mean voting. African-Americans, unlike other Americans, have become more active across a range of political activities."
Immigration
A clear majority 71 percent of Americans favored offering undocumented immigrants a pathway to legal status rather than having them returned to their nation of origin or letting them remain in the U.S. illegally.
These results hold across political and ideological lines (64 percent of Republicans, 78 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents), gender (67 percent of men, 76 percent of women) and race (68 percent of Caucasians, 76 percent of African-Americans, 75 percent of Asians and 81 percent of Hispanics).
"It is stunning, given the divided political rhetoric and media debates, that Americans of all stripes so strongly favor finding a path to legalization over other options," Emerson said. "The overwhelming percentage of Americans preferring the legalization of undocumented immigrants speaks volumes."
About the Portraits of American Life Study
The Portraits of American Life Study is an unprecedented panel study focused on religion and other issues in the U.S., with a particular focus on capturing ethnic and racial diversity. The study included a statistically random sample of approximately 1,300 adult Americans, with more than 600 questions asked in each survey in 2006 and 2012.
"We live in a world of accelerated change with serious implications for our lives," Emerson said. "PALS is designed to understand the impact of change on our lives in real time."
###
This news release can be found online at http://news.rice.edu/.
Follow Rice News and Media Relations via Twitter @RiceUNews.
Related materials:
Portraits of American Life Study: http://kinder.rice.edu/content.aspx?id=2147483718
Portraits of American Life Study video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC-1iCkUdk&feature=youtu.be
Located on a 300-acre forested campus in Houston, Rice University is consistently ranked among the nation's top 20 universities by U.S. News & World Report. Rice has highly respected schools of Architecture, Business, Continuing Studies, Engineering, Humanities, Music, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences and is home to the Baker Institute for Public Policy. With 3,708 undergraduates and 2,374 graduate students, Rice's undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio is 6-to-1. Its residential college system builds close-knit communities and lifelong friendships, just one reason why Rice has been ranked No. 1 for best quality of life multiple times by the Princeton Review and No. 2 for "best value" among private universities by Kiplinger's Personal Finance. To read "What they're saying about Rice," go to http://tinyurl.com/AboutRiceU.
[ | E-mail | Share ] ?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Public release date: 28-Jun-2013 Share ] Contact: David Ruth
david@rice.edu
713-348-6327
Rice University
Americans are more respectful now than ever before when it comes to the religious traditions of their peers, according to findings from the longitudinal Rice University Portraits of American Life Study (PALS). Other findings: Americans are more divided on the legal definition of marriage, favor restrictions on abortion, support pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and are less politically engaged (with the exception of African-Americans).
PALS is a six-year national study tracking religion, morality, politics and other social issues in the U.S. The study included a scientifically gathered random sample of approximately 1,300 adult Americans in 2006 and 2012, interviewing the exact same people in both years.
Study author Michael Emerson, the Allyn and Gladys Cline Professor of Sociology and co-director of Rice's Kinder Institute for Urban Research, highlighted some of the findings.
Religion
When asked about mutual respect for all religions, one-third of PALS participants in 2006 said they respected all religions equally. By 2012, 58 percent said they did.
"A major shift has occurred among Americans in just six years," Emerson said. "We have become far more respecting of the diversity of religions than we were in 2006. Very much unlike in 2006, the majority of Americans no longer single out a religion that they disrespect."
In both years of the study, participants said that the religion they most respected was Judaism, though the percentage naming it declined from 24 percent in 2006 to 15 percent in 2012. No other religion in either year was named by even 10 percent of respondents. Twenty percent of study participants in both 2006 and 2012 identified Islam as the religion they least respected.
Between 2006 and 2012, 15 percent of participants surveyed switched religious traditions, with nearly 40 percent of them identifying as unaffiliated, or no longer identifying with a religious tradition or congregation.
"For a sizable percentage, religious switching means dropping out of religion," Emerson said. "Interestingly, those who dropped out were largely replaced by a nearly equal number of the non-affiliated of 2006, who by 2012 had become part of a religious tradition."
Also of note, only 45 percent of adult Americans attended worship with the same frequency in 2012 as they did in 2006, with 31 percent attending less and 24 percent attending more. Black Protestants, Evangelical Protestants and Catholics were more likely to attend church more than individuals affiliated with other religious traditions.
More than one-third of study participants switched congregations between 2006 and 2012. Two-thirds of these individuals said their switch was due to a residential move, where they were too far away from their former congregation and needed to find another. Seventeen percent said the primary reason they changed congregations was that they grew dissatisfied with their former congregation. Another 13 percent said they became attracted to a new congregation. Twelve percent said they are in a new congregation because they were both equally dissatisfied with their former congregation and attracted to their new congregation.
Of the people who indicated they were "dissatisfied with their former congregation," 58 percent said that a source of their dissatisfaction was clergy, 53 percent said it was political and/or social views of the congregation, 45 percent said theology, 41 percent said poor relationships, 39 percent said liturgy/style, 38 percent said a poor future, 13 percent said location and seven percent said lack of programs.
Eighty-four percent of individuals surveyed indicated that clergy was a factor that drew them to a new congregation. Other factors that attracted individuals to a new congregation included liturgy/style (67 percent), theology (64 percent), programs and a bright future (62 percent), location (49 percent), relationships (42 percent), political/social views (35 percent) and return to childhood religion (15 percent).
Other changes included a declining confidence in clergy and an increased confidence in faith and God's care.
Moral reasoning
Moral discourse is a regular part of political, economic, social and cultural debates. These values are often embedded in private and public discussions ranging from the development and uses of medical technology to the beneficial and responsible use of public funds to the deployment of military drones.
When asked about personal views of morality, nearly two-thirds (62 percent) of African-American respondents said that they base their moral attitudes on "God's law," in contrast to one-third (36 percent) of Caucasian respondents and one-third (35 percent) of Hispanic respondents.
"The racial difference in how moral decisions are made is dramatic," Emerson said. "It has wide-ranging implications for differences in a host of moral, political and social views."
The majority of PALS respondents favored some level of restrictions on abortion. Just 17 percent of PALS respondents said they believe abortion should be legal under "almost all circumstances." The largest number of respondents, 26 percent, said that abortion should be available in "some circumstances," closely followed by 25.5 percent who said that abortion should be available only "in extreme circumstances." Fourteen percent of respondents said that they believe abortion should be legal under "most circumstances," and fourteen percent believe that abortion should not be available under any circumstance. Hispanic women and African-Americans were the most likely to say that abortion should be legal under "only extreme circumstances."
Americans also were asked their opinions about the use of genetic engineering. A clear majority (82 percent) of PALS respondents said they believe it is "always," "usually" or "sometimes" wrong to use "genetic engineering to make a smarter baby." Just 16 percent of PALS respondents said that the prenatal use of genetic technology is "never wrong" or that it is "not a moral issue." Ten percent more women than men said that the elective use of genetic engineering is "always wrong."
"When it comes to the issue of genetic engineering of babies, Americans are in remarkable agreement: They are saying 'It is wrong' loudly and clearly," Emerson said.
Marriage
As states and the federal government debate the legal definition of marriage, Americans surveyed for PALS were also divided on the topic. In both 2006 and 2012, a slight majority of respondents (57 percent in 2006, 53 percent in 2012) agreed with the statement "The only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman." Approximately one-third (31 percent in 2006, 33 percent in 2012) of respondents disagreed with the statement, and a small number of respondents (12 percent in 2006, 13 percent in 2012) were undecided about the statement.
Many survey respondents changed their minds on the topic between 2006 and 2012. Sixteen percent of respondents who agreed with the statement in the 2006 study disagreed in 2012. Twenty-eight percent of respondents who disagreed with the statement in 2006 agreed with it in 2012. Among those who in 2006 neither disagreed nor agreed with the statement, almost two-thirds took a different position in 2012 43 percent disagreed and 23 percent agreed.
Between 2006 and 2012, respondents became even more divided on the topic of marriage across various demographics, especially education, religion and age. Respondents without a high school diploma were most likely to agree with the marriage statement (66 percent in 2006, 75 percent in 2012), and respondents with postcollege education were least likely to agree with the statement (44 percent in 2006, 37 percent in 2012). Evangelical Protestants were most likely to agree (72 percent in 2006, 75 percent in 2012), while Jews were least likely to agree (21 percent in 2006, 12 percent in 2012). Respondents older than 50 were most likely to agree with the statement (62 percent in 2006, 63 percent in 2012), and respondents 30 and younger were least likely to agree (47 percent in 2006, 40 percent in 2012).
"The real story on the statement 'The only legal marriage should be between one man and one woman' was despite little overall change, so many individual people changed their minds -- some to agree, others to disagree," Emerson said. "The end result is important: Americans are now more divided on this issue along educational, religious and age lines than they were in 2006."
Political engagement
The average rate of political activity (across nine measures of political participation, such as voting, signing petitions and working for a candidate or party) of PALS respondents decreased from 22 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2012. The study saw a decrease in activity among all ethnic groups except African-American respondents. Individual average political activity for African-Americans in the sample increased from 20 percent in 2006 to 22 percent in 2012, while Caucasian activity fell from 24 to 18 percent, Hispanic activity fell from 15 to 12 percent and Asian activity fell from 14 to 11 percent.
Emerson said the shift in political behavior among African-Americans can be attributed to the "Obama effect" -- members of the ethnic group showed enthusiastic support for the first African-American presidential candidate belonging to a major contemporary political party.
"It seems likely that President Obama's ascendency as the first African-American president of the United States is responsible for the boost in black political participation," Emerson said. "And this does not just mean voting. African-Americans, unlike other Americans, have become more active across a range of political activities."
Immigration
A clear majority 71 percent of Americans favored offering undocumented immigrants a pathway to legal status rather than having them returned to their nation of origin or letting them remain in the U.S. illegally.
These results hold across political and ideological lines (64 percent of Republicans, 78 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independents), gender (67 percent of men, 76 percent of women) and race (68 percent of Caucasians, 76 percent of African-Americans, 75 percent of Asians and 81 percent of Hispanics).
"It is stunning, given the divided political rhetoric and media debates, that Americans of all stripes so strongly favor finding a path to legalization over other options," Emerson said. "The overwhelming percentage of Americans preferring the legalization of undocumented immigrants speaks volumes."
About the Portraits of American Life Study
The Portraits of American Life Study is an unprecedented panel study focused on religion and other issues in the U.S., with a particular focus on capturing ethnic and racial diversity. The study included a statistically random sample of approximately 1,300 adult Americans, with more than 600 questions asked in each survey in 2006 and 2012.
"We live in a world of accelerated change with serious implications for our lives," Emerson said. "PALS is designed to understand the impact of change on our lives in real time."
###
This news release can be found online at http://news.rice.edu/.
Follow Rice News and Media Relations via Twitter @RiceUNews.
Related materials:
Portraits of American Life Study: http://kinder.rice.edu/content.aspx?id=2147483718
Portraits of American Life Study video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJC-1iCkUdk&feature=youtu.be
Located on a 300-acre forested campus in Houston, Rice University is consistently ranked among the nation's top 20 universities by U.S. News & World Report. Rice has highly respected schools of Architecture, Business, Continuing Studies, Engineering, Humanities, Music, Natural Sciences and Social Sciences and is home to the Baker Institute for Public Policy. With 3,708 undergraduates and 2,374 graduate students, Rice's undergraduate student-to-faculty ratio is 6-to-1. Its residential college system builds close-knit communities and lifelong friendships, just one reason why Rice has been ranked No. 1 for best quality of life multiple times by the Princeton Review and No. 2 for "best value" among private universities by Kiplinger's Personal Finance. To read "What they're saying about Rice," go to http://tinyurl.com/AboutRiceU.
[ | E-mail | Share ] ?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-06/ru-rur062813.php
big east tournament ashley olsen new apple tv sun flare love hewitt new ipad solar flare
NEW YORK (AP) ? CNN said Wednesday that it is bringing the political debate show "Crossfire" back on the air this fall with Newt Gingrich as one of the combatants.
The former House speaker and Republican presidential candidate will be one of the four regular hosts of the program, taking the conservative side along with commentator S.E. Cupp of The Blaze. Stephanie Cutter, a former campaign spokeswoman for President Barack Obama, and Van Jones, a Yale-educated attorney and advocate for green projects, will speak from the left.
"It just feels like the right time for 'Crossfire' to be coming back," said Sam Feist, CNN's senior vice president and Washington bureau chief. The show will air weekdays but no time slot has been set.
The original aired on CNN from 1982 until 2005, and its alumni list reads like a Washington who's who ? Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Geraldine Ferraro, Lynn Cheney, James Carville, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson among them. It was essentially killed by Jon Stewart.
"The Daily Show" host appeared on "Crossfire" in 2004 and got into a bitter fight with Carlson, with Stewart calling the show "partisan hackery" that did little to advance the cause of democracy. When then-CNN U.S. President Jon Klein cancelled it a few months later, he said he was essentially siding with Stewart.
But with Fox News Channel tilting right and MSNBC leaning left, there really isn't a debate program on cable TV now that is a fair fight, Feist said.
"CNN is really the only network that can have a bipartisan debate show with some level of authenticity," he said.
Each show will have a single topic and feature two of the four regular hosts, joined by two guests who are experts on the particular issue being discussed, Feist said. It will be a studio show without the audience that was used in a later incarnation of "Crossfire," he said.
New CNN chief Jeff Zucker began pushing for the show's resurrection almost since taking over this winter, saying he had long been a fan of it, Feist said.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/cnn-bringing-crossfire-back-air-133912676.html
Tom Cruise ryan reynolds Star Trek: The Original Series Carlton Morgan Freeman Dead Stand Up to Cancer Azarenka
June 27, 2013 ? Two university researchers say environmental restrictions have become unnecessarily restrictive and expensive -- on Mars.
Writing in the journal Nature Geoscience, astrobiologists Alberto Fair?n of Cornell University and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University say the NASA Office of Planetary Protection's "detailed and expensive" efforts to keep Earth microorganisms off Mars are making missions to search for life on the red planet "unviable."
The researchers claim "the protocols and policies of planetary protection are unnecessarily restricting Mars exploration and need to be revised."
The Office of Planetary Protection is like an interplanetary Environmental Protection Agency, with a mission "to minimize the biological contamination that may result from exploring the solar system."
As far as Mars is concerned, say Fair?n and Schulze-Makuch, such efforts are probably in vain since "Earth life has most likely already been transferred to Mars." Meteorite impacts have had 3.8 billion years to spread Earth life forms to Mars. Several Earth spacecraft have visited Mars without undergoing the sterilization procedures now in place.
If organisms transferred to Mars over the eons failed to survive, modern organisms would likely face the same fate. If they did survive, say Fair?n and Schulze-Makuch, "it is too late to protect Mars from terrestrial life, and we can safely relax the planetary protection policies."
The researchers say spacecraft looking for life on Mars should still be cleaned to some extent to avoid confusing possible Martian organisms with organisms brought from Earth. But sterilization for other missions, like orbiters and geology-oriented explorers, could be scaled back.
"As planetary exploration faces drastic budget cuts globally," they say, "it is critical to avoid unnecessary expenses and reroute the limited taxpayers' money to missions that can have the greatest impact on planetary exploration."
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/strange_science/~3/Cq5BqOQr_ZI/130627102617.htm
super tuesday states shepard fairey is snooki pregnant snooki pregnant gbc hedy lamarr kowloon walled city
MIAMI (AP) ? LeBron James' final jump shot of the NBA Finals for the Miami Heat left him thinking about Michael Jordan.
James told Sports Illustrated for a story released Wednesday that he spent time during this year's title series watching Jordan's iconic, title-clinching shot for the Chicago Bulls against the Utah Jazz in the 1998 finals. So when James made a jumper with 27.9 seconds left in Game 7 of this year's title series against the San Antonio Spurs, his thoughts turned to that Jordan shot.
"I know it wasn't the magnitude of MJ hitting that shot in '98, but I definitely thought about him," James said. "It was an MJ moment."
He then paused for a moment, before adding, "It was an LJ moment."
James is on this week's SI cover, the 20th time he has appeared on the front of the magazine. The image is of him gazing down at the Larry O'Brien Trophy, with his reflection visible off the top of the gold ball.
James is often compared to Jordan, and the debate has raged for years about which NBA superstar is better. James has said many times that it's humbling to be in that conversation, and tweeted back in February, "I'm not MJ, I'm LJ."
He watched Game 6 of the 1998 Bulls-Jazz series in his hotel room in San Antonio during this year's finals, up to the moment where Jordan posed after making the shot that sealed Chicago's sixth championship.
James' jumper against the Spurs came with no pose, but it was enormous for the Heat. It gave Miami a 92-88 lead, and the Spurs didn't score again.
James told the magazine that when he woke up the day after Game 7, he began to realize how much of a physical toll the series took on him, and how many injuries he was playing through.
"I felt all these nicks and bruises and little injuries I didn't know I had," James said. "My back, my hamstring, my ankle, both my elbows, they were all aching. I guess I just didn't pay attention to them."
He also discussed the promises that Heat coach Erik Spoelstra had the team make to one another, in the form of contracts that would remind everyone what they were tasked with during the postseason. James took his pact extremely seriously, using his formal signature ? not his scrawled autograph ? to seal his deal.
"I wrote out LeBron James like it was a check," James said.
The story also gives some detail about Miami's 27-game winning streak, which began on Super Bowl Sunday, a day the Heat spent in Toronto for a day game against the Raptors. The plane Miami uses for its charter flights is not equipped with live television, and the original travel plan for that day had the team scheduled to be in the air during the Baltimore-San Francisco game for the NFL title.
James wanted the team to remain in Toronto for a few hours to see the Super Bowl, and the team arranged to make that happen. It turned out to be one of the most important team-bonding moments of the season, Heat forward Shane Battier said.
"We were always close, but that took it to another level," Battier said. "I believe that night was the impetus for the streak."
James also addresses his future in the SI piece. He told reporters Tuesday that he will not start really thinking about the chance to be a free agent in the summer of 2014 until next season ends, and reiterated that stance with the magazine.
"I'm a totally different person on the court, off the court and everywhere in between," James said. "I know it will come up, but it's not going to come up until it's at that point."
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/james-sports-illustrated-cover-20th-time-134511996.html
Joe Weider Florida Gulf Coast Golf Channel Andy Enfield La Salle University Denny Hamlin My Chemical Romance
Sony's rumored to be unveiling two new point-and-shoots later this month, but a pair of leaked press shots at least spoil how both cameras are going to look. First up, the RX100MII, rumored to pack an updated 20-megapixel sensor and Zeiss lens as well as tilt-screen and WiFi connectivity, has a relatively simple face dominated by that aforementioned Carl Zeiss glass. Meanwhile, the RX1R, a refresh of Sony's full-frame RX1, arrives with a new focus settings dial and hot-shoe fitting all visible in its initial press shot reveal. We're sure Sony will fill us in on all the remaining details soon.
Via: Sony Alpha Rumors
Source: Digital Camera Info (Japanese)
Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/_JZUzDfNt1Y/
dallas mavericks washington capitals amare stoudemire tallest building in the world the pitch brandon inge freedom tower
Seeing Game of Thrones play out on Facebook
     |
Democratic National Convention 2012 myocardial infarction What Is Labor Day jersey shore Pasquale Rotella Michael Clark Duncan courtney stodden
The stakes are high.
We each get one life and one body to live it in. It is vitally important to take good care of it.
One of the growing trends in fitness is the emergence of minimalist workouts: strategic, high-intensity workouts that intentionally utilize a variety of muscles in a short time span. Fortunately, there is various research that validates their claims of effectiveness. Recently published studies seem to indicate that 12-minutes/week of high-intensity exercise may have the same physiological benefits as sustained endurance exercise.
Now, it is important to note the researchers understand ?their 12-minute program is only a suggestion for how people can make a kick-start for better fitness.? And research has yet to determine the long-term benefits of the shrinking doses of exercise.
But a minimalist exercise routine is far better than no exercise routine.
And if you are looking for a short exercise routine to kick-start your personal fitness, they are a great place to start. Here then, are a number of minimalist workout programs. I encourage you to discover one that provides the motivation and opportunity to kick-start your fitness.
1. The 4-Minute Workout | New York Times. This short, but strenuous workout can effectively be practiced anywhere. After warming up, the aim of the workout is to raise your heart rate to 90 percent of its maximal rate for one four-minute interval followed by a brief cool-down. This can be accomplished through running sprints, climbing steps, bicycling, swimming, or even walking briskly. The 4-minute workout should be completed three times a week.
2. The Scientific 7-Minute Workout | New York Times. This 7-minute workout employs 12 body weight exercises but results in the latest mandates for high-intensity effort. Each exercise is performed for 30 seconds with a 10 second rest in-between each. You can find the 12 specific exercises listed above or download the app.
3. Couch to 5k | Cool Running. The goal of the Couch to 5K Training Program is to help beginning runners achieve a goal of running their first 5K within two months. The 9-week program combines walking and jogging for 20-30 minutes three times a week. Again, you can find the program details listed above or download the app.
4. Exercise Bliss?| Fitness Reloaded. Exercise Bliss makes exercise a lasting habit in just 5 minutes a day, 5 times a week. It is free to join and the routines are delivered directly to your inbox. As an added bonus, this minimalist workout offers more than simple exercise programs, it also focuses on helping people build the fitness habit for life.
5. Beginner Body Weight Workout?| Nerd Fitness. The Beginner?s Body Weight Workout is a basic workout that can be completed in your house, apartment, or at a park. The routine is a bit longer than some of the others on this list, but if you are looking for more of a challenge, you will enjoy it. Leo Babauta of Zen Habits offers a similar formula.
6. Geek-to-Freak | Tim Ferriss. For a more advanced workout, the Geek-to-Freak Minimalist Workout popularized in The 4-Hour Body is the first minimalist exercise routine I followed. And I found it to be very effective. I could complete an entire workout in 40-minutes, two times a week at my local gym. You can find the specific exercises here, but should read this introduction to the philosophy first.
7. 10-Minute Yoga | Steve Ross. There are numerous opportunities online to be introduced to the world of yoga in 10 minute intervals. While stretching the body and exercising muscles, yoga can also improve breathing, balance, and the handling of stress. Again, you can find numerous instructors online, but I find the video linked here to be easy-to-follow and challenging. I highly recommend it.
As you know, our physical health is important. It forms the foundation for our well-being. And we ought to take great care of the body we have been given. I do hope one or two of the minimalist workouts listed above will resonate with you and help kick-start your fitness.
Disclaimer: Consult your doctor before beginning any exercise routine.
Source: http://www.becomingminimalist.com/minimalist-workout/
Sebastien De La Cruz farrah abraham national weather service superman man of steel superman man of steel amy adams kanye west
President Barack Obama will be giving a climate-change speech on Tuesday
We don?t yet know the content of Barack Obama?s climate-change policy speech set for Tuesday, but the centerpiece is sure to be Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants. Curbs on existing plant emissions have been in the making since 2007, when the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide. The Bush administration, naturally, dragged its feet across the board on this subject. By contrast, the Obama administration has acted fairly aggressively under Clean Air Act authority to regulate new power plants and to raise emissions standards for cars and trucks. But regulation of existing plants is a much bigger deal, both ecologically and economically. And the issue is a potent reminder that, politically unrealistic as it may be, Congress ought to step up to the plate and pass a climate bill.
In the real world, we know that whatever Obama says, Republicans will denounce it as job-killing overreach. But if they could take a deep breath and consider the national interest for a moment, they?d see that the best cure for the very real flaws in EPA regulation is comprehensive climate legislation featuring cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.
Back in the winter of 2008?09, environmentalists and members of the Obama transition team never would have imagined aggressive use of Clean Air Act regulation as the centerpiece of their climate-change policy?for the very good reason that it?s a bad way to make climate-change policy. The idea, instead, was that the threat of EPA regulation would bring stakeholders to the table and lay the groundwork for a comprehensive bill. The exact same logic pertains today.
The basic problem with the EPA approach is that any new rules that will have a meaningful environmental impact?rules that would require existing coal-fired plants to shut down or curtail their operations?are going to have large financial costs. And those costs will not be borne evenly. Some parts of the country have a much more coal-based power grid than others and will see disproportionately higher prices. Manufacturing firms that use a lot of electricity face the risk that pollution will be essentially ?outsourced? to less regulated countries. Most of all, higher electricity prices affect different households very differently.
According to the Consumer Expenditure Survey, the poorest one-fifth of households spends about half as much per year on electricity as the richest one-fifth of households. But that richest one-fifth earns about 15 times more money and spends four to five times as much on an annual basis. For regulations to have a big impact they?ll need to shut down some of the dirtiest plants and at least temporarily increase electricity prices?a move that will have a much harsher impact on the poor, the Southeast, and the Midwest than on prosperous people on the low-carbon West Coast.
The good news is that a sensible climate-change policy can curb emissions while blunting the negative impact on poor people and carbon-intensive regions. According to government regulators, the aggregate ?social cost? of carbon emissions?the best guess as to the price of the currently unpriced negative environmental impacts?is about $36 per ton of CO2. Addressing that social cost with a $36-per-ton tax or a similarly priced CO2 cap-and-trade system would impose large costs on coal and oil producers and ratepayers in coal-intensive areas. But it would also generate a large pot of revenue. That revenue could, in turn, be used to offset the negative impacts. Low-income households could benefit from lower taxes, a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit, or a special ?carbon dividend? of some kind. Coal-heavy regions of the United States could receive targeted investments in energy efficiency or clean energy generation. With taxes pegged to the scale of environmental impacts, curbing pollution becomes a win-win for the economy.
But the EPA can?t impose a tax or auction pollution permits. The only way it can cushion the blow of tough regulations is to make the regulations less ambitious, aiming for lower emissions reduction or a slower pace of reductions. Yet that would be a mistake?allowing air pollution to continue unabated is much worse for the economic long-term than the short-term pain of higher electricity prices.
The right solution here is still what it was when Obama was first elected. Republicans ought to suck it up and recognize that a real legislative framework for tackling climate change is better than an ad hoc, executive-branch response. All the interests, regions, and industries harmed by a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system are going to be harmed even more by an all-regulation effort?you get the costs of reduced fossil-fuel use without the revenue that can mitigate those costs. The upside to sticking with the Clean Air Act framework is that it gives Republicans an issue: People will feel pain if electricity becomes more expensive, and they can point the finger at Obama and the Democrats. But while this sort of partisan war may have made some sense in the president?s first term, by now it?s surely time to give up the ghost. The kind of electoral total victory it would require to partially repeal the Clean Air Act is extraordinarily unlikely. There are serious problems with the path of unleashing the EPA on existing power plants, and if the GOP actually cares about making the situation better, they?ll do what they should have done years ago and come to the table with a serious alternative proposal.
best picture nominees 2012 academy awards 2012 albert nobbs a star is born oscar nominees oscar nominations 2012 kombucha tea
Here's some good news for anyone who considers Australia a haven from pernicious surveillance laws. The antipodean government has decided to postpone plans to force phone and internet companies to retain two years' worth of personal data after a scrutiny committee demanded changes. While it's not a total win for privacy fans, the legislation will now be re-examined after elections scheduled for September 14th -- with the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus saying that the government will now "await further advice," before amending the prospective law.
Filed under: Internet
Source: Reuters
Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/xape3PL9-SY/
womens final four josh hutcherson google april fools office space shell houston open mega millions winners anthony davis
President Obama is ready to take one more shot at global warming with the last, least-popular, and messiest tool he?s got left: regulations administered by the politically besieged Environmental Protection Agency.
It won?t be popular, it might not work, and it could jeopardize his pick to head EPA. But the reality is that, three years after Congress killed a cap-and-trade bill, Obama is running out of time. If he doesn?t finalize EPA rules controlling greenhouse-gas emissions before he leaves the White House, a Republican president, or a GOP-controlled Senate, could undo the rules?and his environmental legacy.
?He is serious about making it a second-term priority,? Heather Zichal, Obama?s top energy and climate adviser, said at an event last week. ?He knows this is a legacy issue.?
The effort amounts to both a marathon and a sprint, in which Obama must simultaneously navigate political, legal, and policy hurdles that could halt his efforts if he fails to map out a clear way forward.
At issue is a pair of regulations controlling greenhouse-gas emissions from new and existing power plants, the latter of which account for nearly 40 percent of the country?s heat-trapping emissions. EPA proposed rules for new plants last spring but missed its April deadline to finalize them. The agency has also put on ice parallel rules targeting almost 600 existing coal-fired power plants. The rules covering existing plants could have the greatest impact, both on cutting carbon emissions and raising the cost of electricity, because coal is the cheapest, most prevalent, and dirtiest way to produce electricity.
In a speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday, Obama will outline a timeline for EPA to move forward regulating carbon emissions at new and existing power plants.
?The time will go very quickly because regulations don?t move quickly through the process,? said Joe Kruger, who served as deputy associate director for energy and climate change at the White House Council on Environmental Quality during Obama?s first term. ?It will be a bit of a time crunch to get it done by the end of the Obama second term.?
Kruger, who now directs energy and environmental policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, predicted the administration will succeed because Obama is putting his own political capital into the issue. ?They will figure out one way or another how to get it done,? he said.
Yet the president will face his first political hurdle immediately. The Senate has not yet confirmed Obama?s nominee to head EPA?Gina McCarthy, the agency?s assistant administrator for air quality. Obama?s announcement Tuesday is likely to further inflame what has already been an incendiary confirmation process for McCarthy.
?The Obama administration may conclude that the policy priority of moving forward on [greenhouse-gas] emissions reductions outweighs the political gain of confirming McCarthy in a timely manner,? according to analysis published Monday by ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based nonpartisan consulting firm.
The fact is that McCarthy could execute Obama?s directive from her current post at EPA. And under the agency?s organizational plan, acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe could remain in his post indefinitely.
The second political hurdle is the 2014 midterm elections. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is already targeting vulnerable Democrats up for reelection, including Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. ?Landrieu Ushers in Obama?s Climate Change Agenda,? said one NRSC statement released Monday.
The administration must thread its regulatory process carefully through the midterms, and not just to avoid endangering Democrats. If Republicans were to win back the Senate, it could create yet another hurdle for Obama?s agenda: Senate Republicans are expected to invoke the Congressional Review Act to undo the rules.
The act, used successfully only once since its creation in 1996, allows senators to bypass the majority leader and force a vote requiring only 51 votes to pass a resolution nullifying regulations finalized within 60 days. It was used twice in the last session of Congress to try to undo EPA rules, and was unsuccessful both times.
The White House is reportedly worried such an effort could succeed against EPA?s climate rules.
Obama is ?concerned about whether or not he has enough support in the Senate to defend vetoes of environmental regulations,? said Michael Kieschnick, CEO and cofounder of CREDO, a cell-phone service provider heavily involved in advocating for action on climate change. Kieschnick has attended private fundraisers with Obama in recent months where the president addressed climate change.
An industry source aware of the White House strategy says EPA may seek to finalize rules for new and existing power plants at the same time, thus allowing only one Senate vote under the Congressional Review Act.
?Given the uncertainty of the 2014 elections in the Senate, the White House would prefer to be in a position where only one veto would be necessary,? said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Obama has so far vetoed just two pieces of legislation, compared with the 12 bills vetoed by George W. Bush and 36 by Bill Clinton.
Amid these political obstacles, Obama must also navigate significant legal and policy challenges, which will inevitably come along with a regulation whose wide-reaching scope surpasses any other EPA rule, according to experts.
?Two years is about the minimal time it would take to go from soup to nuts on a rule like this,? said Roger Martella, who was EPA general counsel under Bush. ?These rules don?t come out of the clear blue sky and involve lengthy internal deliberations before the public even gets a first peak at them.?
Once EPA is done writing the rules, a flood of lawsuits is likely to pour in from both sides of the issue. Litigation also takes time, and some analysts say Obama will want to be in the White House while the challenges wind through the courts. ?We reason the Obama administration wants to defend its power plant GHG ... rule(s) against legal challenges rather than leaving it to another, potentially less simpatico administration,? states the analysis by ClearView Energy Partners.
In the end, the calendar might be the biggest hurdle of all.
?Part of the challenge is how much can they do in a limited amount of time,? said Jody Freeman, who worked on energy and climate issues in the White House during Obama?s first term. ?This plan is a race against time. We?re already six months into a second term.?
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-plans-marathon-sprint-climate-change-221143418.html
What Is Good Friday Monsanto Protection Act Jenna Wolfe Jarome Iginla Jessica Brown Findlay keith urban Dorothy Hamill
WASHINGTON (AP) ? A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday decided to make it harder for Americans to sue businesses for retaliation and discrimination, leading a justice to call for Congress to overturn the court's actions.
The court's conservatives, in two 5-4 decisions, ruled that a person must be able to hire and fire someone to be considered a supervisor in discrimination lawsuits, making it harder to blame a business for a co-worker's racism or sexism. The court then decided to limit how juries can decide retaliation lawsuits, saying victims must prove employers would not have taken action against them but for their intention to retaliate.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote both dissents for the court's liberal wing, and in a rare move, read them aloud in the courtroom. She said the high court had "corralled Title VII," a law designed to stop discrimination in the nation's workplaces.
"Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended," said Ginsburg, who then called on Congress to change the law to overturn the court.
In the first case, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center wanted a discrimination lawsuit won by Dr. Naiel Nassar thrown out. Nassar, after complaining of harassment, left in 2006 for another job at Parkland Hospital, but the hospital withdrew its job offer after one of his former medical center supervisors opposed it. Nassar sued, saying the medical center retaliated against him for his discrimination complaints by encouraging Parkland to take away his job offer. A jury awarded him more than $3 million in damages.
The medical center appealed, saying the judge told the jury it only had to find that retaliation was a motivating factor in the supervisor's actions, called mixed-motive. Instead, it said, the judge should have told the jury it had to find that discriminatory action wouldn't have happened "but-for" the supervisor's desire to retaliate for liability to attach.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, agreed with the lower court and the university, saying people "must establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer." But he didn't rule completely for the medical center, sending the case back to the lower courts after saying a decision on the resolution of the case "is better suited by courts closer to the facts of this case."
Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Legal Center, cheered the decision.
"If courts were allowed to label employees with little managerial authority as 'supervisors,' that would have substantially increased the number of frivolous lawsuits brought against small businesses and would have done little, if anything, to reduce harassment," she said. "For small businesses, the increased possibility of liability and ensuing costs would have been devastating. We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's decision."
In the second case, Maetta Vance, who was a catering specialist at Ball State University, accused a co-worker, Shaundra Davis, of racial harassment and retaliation in 2005. Vance sued the school under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying the university was liable since Davis was her supervisor. But a federal judge threw out her lawsuit, saying that since Davis could not fire Vance, she was only a co-worker, and since the university had taken corrective action, it was not liable for Davis' actions. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and Vance appealed to the Supreme Court.
But Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, said for the university to be liable, Davis must have had the authority to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" Vance.
"We hold that an employee is a 'supervisor' for purpose of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim," Alito said. "Because there is no evidence that BSU empowered Davis to take any tangible employment actions against Vance, the judgment of the Seventh Circuit is affirmed."
Alito shook his head as Ginsburg read her dissent of his opinion. "The court's disregard for the realities of the workplace means that many victims of workplace harassment will have no effective remedy," she said.
Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron said the court made the wrong decision.
"Deferring to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, the Supreme Court majority has imposed a heavier burden for victims of workplace harassment and discrimination seeking justice in our courts," she said. "This decision makes it far easier for employers to evade responsibility for discrimination and harassment in the workplace."
Alito, Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted together in those cases.
Ginsburg, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented together both times.
Ginsburg said she hopes Congress intervenes in both cases. For example, President Barack Obama in 2009 signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which effectively overturned a Supreme Court decision that had strictly limited workers' ability to file lawsuits over pay inequity.
"Today, the ball again lies in Congress' court to correct this court's wayward interpretations of Title VII," she said.
Ginsburg's call was soon joined by other organizations.
"The rulings are a step backwards in our efforts to ensure equal economic opportunity and to fulfill the promise of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," said Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. "We call on Congress to once again take action to correct the court's flawed and narrow interpretations of Title VII, just as Congress has done repeatedly in the past."
___
The cases are Vance v. Ball State University, 11-556 and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 12-484.
Follow Jesse J. Holland at http://www.twitter.com/jessejholland
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/court-makes-harder-sue-businesses-154005838.html
ny lottery Ohio Lottery Colorado Lottery Pa Lottery Ebates lotto Illinois Lottery
?
Cooking is more than just following a recipe. The key is to know the right ways to prep, to use your ingredients, to clean up and how to prevent things from going wrong. Click through to check out some of our best cooking tips, and share your own in the comments!
Related: 8 Common Cooking Myths (Slideshow)
Read more: Appetizers & Snacks, Basics, Diet & Nutrition, Drinks, Eating for Health, Eco-friendly tips, Entrees, Food, Green, Green Kitchen Tips, Health, Raw, Side Dishes, Soups & Salads, Vegan, Vegetarian, cooking tips, slideshow
Katie is a freelance writer focused on pets, food and women?s issues. A Chicago native and longtime resident of the Pacific Northwest, Katie now lives in Oakland, California.
'; $("#Care2CommentContainer").prepend(newComment); } function loadCommentPage(page, numPerPage, itemID) { var sPath = '/greenliving/16-incredible-cooking-tips-slideshow.html'; var charForQueryString = (sPath.indexOf("?") != -1) ? "&" : "?"; var servlet = charForQueryString + 'Care2CommentPageAJAX=1&page='+page+'&commentsPerPage='+numPerPage+'&itemID='+itemID; var p = $('
Loading...
Source: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/16-incredible-cooking-tips-slideshow.html
Kim Kardashian baby name Erik Spoelstra college board bill russell michael jordan stephen colbert Exodus International
