text:
and the world delivers.
Unverified Baby, Stay For My Voracity
Baby, please don't go. The looming terror hovering over Michigan's basketball season is the potential departure of Manny Harris, and looming terror two is the potential departure of Deshawn Sims. So let's see what Chad Ford has to say in his year-end "naughty and nice" list. Sims checks in on the nice list, (un?)fortunately:
DeShawn Sims, F, Michigan
Sims is a tough player to project. Many scouts question whether he's a 3 or a 4, and much dreaded "tweener" talk is out there. But his production of late has been undeniable. He scored 28 and 12 points in two contests against Duke and an impressive 20 points and 20 rebounds Monday night versus Florida Gulf Coast. If Sims can answer questions about whom he'll guard in the NBA (offensively, he can play both positions well), he could become a late first-round pick.
(The answer to "who can he guard," of course, is NO ONE. Not even Adam Morrison. I talked to Joe Dumars and Jerry West and God about this, I swear.)
"Could become a late first-round pick" sounds like a guy who's likely to return for his senior year in an attempt to guarantee himself that first round cheddar. Ford currently ranks him #46 on his top 100, safely in the return-to-school zone.
Meanwhile, Manny actually checks in below Sims at #48, which seems wildly improbable and totally awesome if it actually represents the opinion of NBA general managers. It might. After all, they continue to trade for Allen Iverson and could well be totally bats. Personally, I don't believe it and am bracing for a departure.
Tempo-free. Excellent chart from Spartans Weblog as we enter the Big Ten basketball season:
Teams to the right are good at offense, teams towards the top are good at defense, and vice versa. These are opposition-adjusted numbers, FWIW, so you can't plead schedule strength: Michigan has by far the best offense in the Big Ten. And, uh, the worst defense.
This comes as little surprise. Michigan's killer weakness in the post results in a lot of faulty man-to-man defending, an over-reliance on the not quite ready for prime time 1-3-1, and poor defensive rebounding. But it affects Michigan's perimeter-oriented offense not at all. Yeah, verily, Michigan is the platonic ideal of the Perimeter Oriented Team, so post guys can get bent. On offense anyway.
BTW: I watched yesterday's Purdue-Illinois game and I'm concerned about UI's skilled, 7'1" center, especially given Michigan's issues with the 1-3-1 of late. The only guys on the team who remotely match up with that guy are redshirting or stupidly at Baylor; I think the Illini are a bad matchup for us. Hopefully Alex Legion takes a zillion stupid shots with 30 seconds on the shot clock. This has a 50-50 chance of happening.
(Note that there's an entire Big Ten Wonk homage blog, a now-annual reprise of the Big Ten Wonk tempo-free aerial (above), and you can see terms like POT pop up on any half-decent blog covering Big Ten Basketball. Wonk is dead, long live Wonk.)
Physician, heal thyself. I read a lot about the decline of newspaper because it's a business interest—and, yes, I relish the day when I get off the freeway and see Drew Sharp holding a sign that says "will annoy for food"—and one of the most common complaints from the old guard is about how darn unreliable those blogs are in comparison to newspapers. This is sort of true, but it's sort of true in the way "average quality" goes down whenever barriers to media contribution are lowered. Any whippersnapper with an e-blog can post whatever they want, sure, but if it's crap the reader will move on, never to return. When there is a panoply of sources the average quality of items written goes down; the average quality of items read goes up.
Anyway, if you're trying to make the case newspapers are more reliable you probably shouldn't do this:
Departed defensive coordinator sworn to not rip Michigan
That's the title of a Mark Snyder post on the Free Press' website that details the verrrry suspicious clause in Scott Shafer's contract that says he can't disparage the university in public and keep his moneys. People contacted for blog post: 0. Disclaimer-type verbiage that would indicate uncertainty about how significant this is, as you would find on many of the "this is speculation!" sort of posts here and elsewhere in the blogosphere: 0. Blog posts that completely blow this out of the water: 1.
Here's MVictors:
Instead of speculating on this I shot a quick note to local attorney Nick Roumel whose firm (Nick Roumel and Associates) handles sports and entertainment contracts. I asked for his take on these terms and in particular, whether this language prohibiting Shafer to "demean or disparage" the football program is unusual.
Roumel responds that the terms sleuthed out by the FIOA experts at the Free Press are "typical for most employment separation agreements"; MVictors then notes that's just one lawyer's opinion—see what I'm saying about proper framing of information?—but that "it's one more attorney than was asked to comment on the Snyder post."
Owned picture goes here.
Meanwhile, the New York Times just published an article in which an Oklahoma commit—five-star DT Jamarcus McFarland—claimed he visited a wild Texas-sponsored coke orgy with naked women "romancing each other" and painted Mack Brown—perhaps the country's most successful recruiter not named Pete Carroll—as a self-centered jerkass more concerned about his flatscreen TVs than this kid and didn't bother to ask Brown for comment. The author of this hit job used to work for Oklahoma's Scout site! McFarland himself admitted the passages in his school paper about the Studio 54 scene were "spiced up" when Scout/Rivals reporters asked him about it, which this Thayer Evans didn't think to do before he published his gullible article in the New York Times(!).
One: though blogs traffic in information far less certain than do mainstream newspapers, they do a much a better job giving you a certainty level for that information and do a much, much better job of swiftly punishing idiots.
Two: your content is as good as the people writing it, and when it comes to sports my money is on nuclear engineers and bored lawyers over journalists who other journalists scorn for playing in the kiddie pool.
Never punt. So there's this insane high school coach in Arkansas who never punts. "Never" as in twice last year, once because they were trying not to run up the score. This insane guy just won the Arkansas state championship. Insane like a fox!
As you might expect, Kevin Kelley—the coach in question—was inspired by one paper in particular:
Kelley had tinkered with eschewing the punting game since winning his first state championship in 2003. He became further emboldened after reading several studies, including "Do Firms Maximize? Evidence from Pro Football," by University of California-Berkeley economics professor David Romer.
The Romer paper put together a statistical model of a football field and concluded that NFL head coaches were way too conservative when it came to going on fourth down, but not even "Do Firms Maximize?" does away with the punt entirely. The only place I've seen that suggested was at Football Outsiders, which published a guest article about eschewing the punt a couple years ago. The idea was so weird that FO took pains to clarify their editorial stance on the matter:
There are many writers at Football Outsiders, and sometimes its hard to convince people that an article on our site represents "the author says X" rather than "Football Outsiders says X." This is extra true for guest columns. This article should not be taken to mean "Football Outsiders says never punt."
That out of the way, the article launches into a discussion of "actual turnover ratio" that counts punts and successful onside kicks and etc etc. It's very dense, and I don't agree some of the lot of assumptions made, but at the very least it's interesting.
My off-the-cuff stance: this strategy works well enough in high school, but that's a land where kickers are often dire and so are defenses. High-level college stuff is much closer to the NFL than high school, and the Romer paper, which suggested you punt on fourth and long yardage, as much better argued. I don't think this applicable past high school.
I guess my Urinal Cakes post makes me a loser.
Seriously, this blog gets better because the content is awesome and the input at every level is (majority of the time) informative. Like a successful team, we all keep each other accountable.
Who am I kidding, we do not make this thing better. It is all Brian.
Disclaimer: I have a dire hatred of punting, born of Lloyd's tendency to punt on fourth and 2 or so from withing 3 yards of the opponent's 40 yard line and get less than 25 yards of field position because it was always a touchback, rather than having Hart grind for the few yards. This is in direct conflict with my desire to see our Beloved Space Emperor win the Heisman.
If you adjusted your offensive playcalling such that four down ball was your default with the occasional punt thrown in when going for it would be truly ludicrous, I think it could work in college. If you go into it knowing you'll go for it on 4th, then running on 3rd and 6 makes more sense if you can reliably get it down to 4th and 1 or 2. You would need at least two of the following factors to your offense though: A great short-yardage back, a good dual-threat QB and/or a very good short yardage passing game comprised of at least two "make them miss in space" wide-receivers.
So wait. The issue isn't that Snyder wrote something untrue, but that he made a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal? I know the decline of the newspaper industry is of great interest here, but I don't think Snyder's story is as big a deal as you're making it.
Well, he suggests that Shafer WOULD be mouthing off, which is speculation, seeing as no coach ever makes a practive of bashing their former employer.
Evan's point below hits it on the head - this is a clause in any contract that a coach would sign, and the press would like to spin it into a story about RR trying to sqash dissent. I mean, have they done a FOIA claim on Marinelli's contract?
Further, he makes an issue about something he doesn't know anything about, without bothering to consult a person who actually does know something about such things. That's lazy.
Yeah, Snyder's post has its problems. I'm just getting irked by the "blogs wooo! newspapers booo!" content that's creeping more and more into the posts here; it seems to romanticize the blog world a little bit too much for my tastes.
to your problems.
Less blog; more newspaper.
I can't enjoy the Michigan athletic content here but still have a problem with the newspaper industry content and continue to read while voicing my objections? That's good to know.
I'll try to keep the smart ass remarks to myself in the future.
I mean, Blogs definitely have their problems. There are lots of shitty ones. If you're reading them for "coverage", there are even fewer.
However, if you're truly interested in, for isntance, election coverage, I'd defy you to find any major media news outlet that did it better than 538. Or, obviously, if you're interested in Michigan football, the quality and quantity of content here dwarfs anything else you will find.
Good blogs do a really good job of being near fanatical about a very small range of topics. Newspapers can't POSSIBLY match that level of attention. Add in that newspapers employ people like Drew Sharp, Michael Rosenber, Jay Marriotti, Woody Hayes, Skip Bayless, Scoop Jackson, Steven A. Smith, Bill Plaschke, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum - all of whom have an open disdain for what I call "good writing", and it gets worse. There are good newspaper writers - Joe Posnanski at the KC Star comes to mind. But the "featured" columnists - the ones making the largest salaries and getting the featured placements are, by and large, overwrought, intentionally confrontational blowhards.
That's my concern about the whole newspapers vs. blogs argument: I don't think it needs to be one or the other, and I don't think it would necessarily be healthy to have just one or the other with blogs being what they are right now. I like that blogs tend to be fanatic about one specific topic, but I think we need sources of broad coverage of a wide variety of events, too -- maybe not on a national scale, but on a smaller scale for areas and communities.
Was anyone making an "either/or" argument?
Maybe I'm just reading him wrong, but the way Brian tends to talk up blogs and knock newspapers, he seems to lean either/or.
Sgt., I think you read too much into it. I interpret Brian's contempt for traditional MSM to be due to its condescension of blogs despite the fact that it fills voids the newspapers never could/would (eg., mGo UFR analysis, Smart Football theory, EDSBS humor, etc.)
Giving an opponent a deserving kick in the ribs while they're going down is not only human, it's fun (try it!)
this comment,
"If Pulaski has a fourth-and-8 at its own 5-yard line, Kelley said his explosive offense likely will convert a first down at least 50 percent of the time. If it fails to convert, statistical data from the college level shows that an opponent acquiring the ball inside the 10-yard line scores a touchdown 90 percent of the time. If Pulaski punts away (i.e., a 40-yard punt with a 10-yard return) the other team will start with the ball on the 38-yard line and score a touchdown 77 percent of the time. The difference is only 13 percent."
certainly does not translate into the NFL. Teams that start with the ball on their opponents 38 do not score TD's 77% of the time. Not even close. It's not the same stat but the BEST red zone TD percentage (percentage of times you score a TD when you get inside the 20)is 69%. An average team is right around 50%. And thats from 18 yards closer. Giving them the ball on the 5 or the 35 represents a much bigger difference in the NFL, I think. 4th and 8 percentages can't be 50% in the NFL either. Plus, net punting of 30 yards or so in the NFL is crappy and gets, at least, your punter fired. An average team is about 8 yards better and the worst 3 yards better.
Having said that, I still hate punting (and FGs). That's one of the reasons why I like Heinz Field. It's nearly impossible to make wussy long FGs and mid-rangers are no sure thing.
I'm glad you pointed out the weirdness about that article re: Shafer's non-disparagement clause. That is a standard clause in separation agreements. Think about it: you give a guy $1,000 bucks when he leaves, and he turns around and tells everyone you're an idiot. You'd feel like a chump. So you put in a clause that basically says please don't make me look foolish by taking my money and then talking smack about me. I imaging if you did a survey of executive separation agreements, you would see this clause in at least 95%, and the few that don't have it are evidence of lazy lawyering (or at least something unusual that would lead a good lawyer for the employer to agree to take out that clause). There are a variety of ways to negotiate a non-disparagement clause depending on the circumstances, but the language quoted in the Freep is pretty light stuff, which indicates to me Shafer probably doesn't have much desire to say something bad about Michigan. There are no carve-outs in the language quoted by the Freep, which indicates he doesn't fear he'll be forced to say something bad about Michigan, although there might be carve-outs that just aren't in the Freep quote. I'd be interested to see the full clause if anyone has a link to a copy of his full agreement.
Wow, I just read the Samuelson blog saying this is evidence of RichRod's thin skin. This is patently ridiculous. If I am Michigan and my lawyer does not put a non-disparagement clause in a significant separation agreement, I would get rid of that lawyer. It is standard. If I am Shafer's lawyer and I read the non-disparagement clause, I ask Shafer if he's bothered by it. Shafer says no. I leave it in, it's an easy give unless there is significant negative information that Shafer may be compelled to reveal in a legal or other administrative proceeding, in which case I negotiate carve-outs (which there might be).
I am a lawyer and I am familiar with executive separation agreements. So we have two opinions from lawyers now.
When Romer speaks, all of you should listen and obey. The man knows his shit.
OK, am I the only one who thinks it's stupid when they pipe in music over the PA at Crisler? Especially when it's Apache.
Compared to the basketball pep band, anyway. So I think they use more filler when they are in the house.
Night before last, the "text and vote" was for three AC/DC songs (Back in Black, Shook Me All Night, TNT) and my husband was really disappointed it was a recording, because he would have paid money to hear the alumni band play any of those.
The Alumni Band actually has more of a repertoire than you think.
And it's not like they don't do this when the regular band is there, because they pipe in music then, too.
I think I've heard them four times this year and they play maybe three things other than Victors. Pep band is heavy of the 80s and boy bands, but seems to have a wide variety.
you meant to type "except" instead of "especially".
At the very least, I don't see there's anyway they get the attention they need to get into the first round of the draft UNLESS we make the tournament and win at least one game there.
At that point, I'd obviously not like them to leave but let's just say I'd take that result and be very, very pleased.
Additionally, watching this game, it's very clear that we are probably the worst defensive team in the Big Ten. This is putrid. I'll still take this awful defense combined with an exciting 3-point happy offense in a loss to Wisconsin over an Amaker era 41-38 win over Iowa any day of the week though.
I think that statements of this type are misleading "if it's crap the reader will move on, never to return." This is the journalism equivalent of market-based economics (working very well right now). People read what they agree with, not what necessarily what is well researched or well written. What is more popular, the classics or Stephen King? Fox News or PBS? At least in the classic professional journalism world (periodicals, newspapers, TV, and radio) there is some level of internal quality filtering that blogs do not possess (credentials) although the content itself may or may not be well filtered.
"When there is a panoply of sources the average quality of items written goes down; the average quality of items read goes up." The analog here is the music industry. More uncontrolled content generation has done what to the music industry? What gets listened to more? I think you'll find that the statistical distribution gets narrower or even skewed on the lower side, bringing down the average.
Sorry Brian, but blogs only increase the entropy of the universe. I'm glad that you hold yourself to a higher measure but for every mgoblog there are 100 firelloydcarr.coms. Additionally, quoting source material only serves as corroboration if the sources are considered viable by the status quo. In the scope of sports journalism opinion reporting, sources are almost worthless.
It would be interesting to know whether this type of gag clause was present in termination agreements from the previous administration (Jim Herrmann, etc.)
If the non-disparagement clause wasn't in previous agreements, it's just evidence that UM's lawyers are getting with the program.
Having that clause can be taken as evidence that Shafer didn't have anything bad to say about UM. It's easy to agree to that clause if you don't have anything bad to say. It's harder if you have lots of bad things to say and then you'll worry that you'll accidentally slip up and speak your mind, so you would fight to have the non-disparagement clause eliminated or restricted. The language quoted by the Freep is nothing special, which makes me think it's UM's standard language and Shafer said "whatever, doesn't effect me" and didn't push back on it (same caveat that I haven't seen the entire clause, maybe the rest of it is scary, but if that is the case I am sure the Freep would have published it).
Or are you just a devoted mgoblogger who didn't want to post a dissenting opinion about the blog you frequent?
"Additionally, quoting source material only serves as corroboration if the sources are considered viable by the status quo. In the scope of sports journalism opinion reporting, sources are almost worthless."
Which is why EVERY single article written by the Sports Opinion writers like Drew Sharp, Roseneberg, etc. should begin like this:
"The following story that you are about to read is worthless. It is just my opinion. It is as worthless as your own opinion on the same matter. The difference is, I am paid to give my opinion, whereas you are not.
I am too lazy to find a source to corroborate my opinion, or perhaps I just have such a stupid opinion, that I couldn't actually find someone to corroborate it."
If quoting sources is worthless to them, then why do they always quote "un-named sources"?
Also: "At least in the classic professional journalism world (periodicals, newspapers, TV, and radio) there is some level of internal quality filtering that blogs do not possess (credentials)...".
This is all the more reason for them to be producing better content than a blog. They are supposedly "more qualified", and have better access. Sadly, this doesn't mean that they have good content. Frankly, they SHOULD be held to a higher standard. Brian could be a homeless, drug addicted, World of Warcraft playing high school dropout, but you know what? The content is great. This is why people come back. If it wasn't, people would move on.
And if this is true: "People read what they agree with, not what necessarily what is well researched or well written."
Then why are you on here?
Zoltan's talents rotting on the sideline? I shudder.
in his Page 2 article from a few years pack.
Mentions Romer as well. Interesting read.
Now they think Rich Rod has thin skin.
Any mom and pop shop with any degree of legal counsel has confidentiality clauses, noncompetes, and/or nondisparagment language written into their contracts. This type of article displays only ignorance or lack of integrity.
I can believe that rating for Manny. He's a great college player, but at the next level, he won't be tall enough to play SF like he is now - he's got to be a PG or SG. His ballhandling skills aren't good enough to be a PG, so the 2 it is. But at that position, you want a really good outside shooter, and he isn't that. He's a good slasher, but you can't get by in the pros on that alone unless you have unreal, MJ-like athleticism, and he doesn't. He needs to improve his jumper and his handle before he'll be a first-round pick - and if he doesn't project to be a first-rounder, he shouldn't leave. (Second-rounders and undrafted rookies get way less money and nothing guaranteed beyond the first year.)
If I was Manny I would think that if Beilien can help me improve my game this much in a year, I should give him another and I might be a lottery pick. Hopefully he feels the same way.
I have been really impressed with the improvement in Manny and Sims. I think it should give reason to kids in HS with similar talent to consider coming to UM.
Couple of sundry points:
1. Even on a bad defensive team, I thought Sims stood out yesterday. He did not seem to be able to stop any penetration and was late in getting his hand in the face of shooters. I hope his torpor is a symptom of having a cold rather than being bad at defense.
2. Did you guys see that the Arkansas coach goes for the onside kick 75% of the time? Statistically, it seems likely onside kicks are under-utilized in the college game (ostensibly the same reasons as punting too much: coaches are deterred from high-risk, high-reward strategies). Do y'all know of any evidence-based reviews of onside kick strategy?
I don't know of any quantitative studies, but I think "always onside kick" (or even "usually") is probably a much higher-risk strategy than "never punt". I don't know what the percentages are in high school or college, but the success rate on onside kicks in the NFL is usually in the 15-25% range. Surprise onside kicks have significantly higher success rates - maybe up around 50% - but if you're doing it every time, it's not really a surprise. You can probably improve on the usual success rate given that your kicker and hands team get a lot more practice at it, but I'd be very surprised if it comes anywhere near 50%. The difference in field position is significant enough that I suspect you'd have to be up around 1 in 3 just to break even, and I have a hard time imagining anyone getting much beyond that success rate.
An estimate of the break-even point would be where [avg points for opp from regular kickoff field position] = [avg points for opp from failed onside field position] * (1 - success rate) - [avg points for you from successful onside field position] * success rate. (This ignores the effects of field position if the team ends up punting or turning the ball over, so it's not fully accurate, but it's a start). Using numbers from http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/2008/1/6/203748/5887 (the beginning of an interesting series of stat-wonk fanposts there), the approximate point numbers (taking the 25 for regular kickoffs and 40 for onside kicks) are 2.0, 3.5, and 2.6, respectively.
This actually suggests the break-even point is lower than I had expected: at 25%, there's a very slight advantage to the onside kick. If you have a high-power offense that is more likely to score than average, or if your defense is either really good (such that the opponent isn't likely to score even from the 40) or really awful (such that giving up a TD is likely even after a normal kickoff), the odds shift further in favor of an onside kick. In high school, where kickoffs usually don't go as far anyway, that also will bring down the gap between a regular kickoff and failed onside, making the onside more attractive.
Evan's covered it thoroughly, and 3ballcharlie covered it right. If that clause was not originally in his contract or a later separation agreement considering the value, they're morons.
I third the opinion Synder's work is a non-story in the legal sense. (UM Law grad, MI barred and practicing corporate attorney.)
NO PUNT... BUT: Most coaches punt too often, especially on the offensive end of the field. But 4th & long just doesn't seem to pay off, save Madden (and Brett Favre against Philly).


text:
There were no whispers or stutters. Doc Rivers did not slur the "S" in the word "soft" when he called out the Celtics after a pathetic 95-83 loss to the Brooklyn Nets Wednesday night. It was something he has been thinking for weeks, a weapon that he was waiting to unleash at the perfect moment.
No grown man wants to be called "soft." In a way, it's like telling your wife that she has gained weight — there is no taking those words back, regardless of how many years pass. The word "soft" will be deeply embedded in the memory of the Boston players — players who pride themselves on their toughness, who strut on the court wearing Celtic green knowing (or at least they used to) that the opposing team was intimidated.
The Nets proved Wednesday that they are hardly daunted by the Celtics, that they have the kind of veterans and brashness to turn the game into a rout. The Celtics are often erratic at home, strangely unable to make TD Garden a difficult place to play for opponents.
Over the past several seasons, the Celtics have lost their edge at home. An agent once mentioned to me that opposing teams no longer view "at Boston" on the schedule as an automatic loss, especially when the Celtics 1. notoriously start slow and 2. lack an enforcer.
While his eagerness to defend a teammate is commendable, Rajon Rondo absolutely, positively, and certainly cannot be your enforcer. And because he took it upon himself to defend Kevin Garnett by taking on a player 8 inches taller and 75 pounds heavier, he will serve a two-game suspension and do nothing to dispel the assertion that the Celtics are soft.
When Andray Blatche, much-maligned for his lack of passion and intensity, is allowed to rule the paint, that's soft. And Rondo, despite his talent and fearlessness, can't be considered your toughest player. He's a guard. Toughness has to come from establishing an interior defensive presence, blocking out on rebounds, giving hard fouls, and playing physical but not dirty.
"Well, we don't work on toughness, we work on smartness," Rivers said. "We work on being prepared, playing with the force.
"Listen, the toughness thing, all that stuff, you know how I feel about it — that's so overblown. You can't be tough anyway. I don't know who is tough anymore.
"Having said that, we have to be better. I have to prepare them better. They have to come ready. They have to come with the right intentions, the right focus. So, there's a lot of things we can do to improve our team. And it's a long season to do it, but you can't wait for it. You've got to do it now."
Rivers should have nothing to do with the players erasing the "soft" perception. As he pointed out Wednesday night, he can't be dressed in a tailored suit with Celtics clover cufflinks and tell the players to be more intense and passionate. He can't show old game tapes from the 1980s as examples of how to be physical.
It has to come from within, and players such as Rondo, Garnett, and Paul Pierce should be embarrassed to be associated with anything soft. But those three aren't the ones Rivers is worried about. The Celtics need players such as Courtney Lee and Jeff Green to break out of their unassuming personalities and understand the urgency of the situation.
Just as there is a difference between a Jaguar and a Patriot or a Diamondback and a Red Sox, there is a difference between a Grizzly and a Celtic.
Rivers had to upgrade his coaching game after being fired in Orlando, while Garnett, Pierce, and Rondo each had to play at a higher level once the Big Three came together in 2007.
But the rest of the roster has been lagging, and Rivers was speaking directly about it being wildly inconsistent.
"I keep hearing we could [be consistent] from all of you guys. But we haven't," Rivers said. "But I do believe we can. I've seen it.
"I saw it in the Oklahoma game. The Brooklyn exhibition game, we showed up. It was like the opposite. We showed up to prove a point. It's in us.
"But what I don't know about our team is, are we one of those teams that can't be consistent enough to do it? If we are one of those teams, then we do have to make changes, because we have to be consistent."
Rivers freely acknowledges he hasn't figured out this team, and that's not necessarily a bad sign, but it needs to be addressed. During the early years of the Big Three, he didn't have to use the media to challenge his players, but Wednesday night he pulled out that silver bullet.
This is not unprecedented in sports. New York Giants coach Tom Coughlin called his defense the "S-word" after it was pushed around the field four weeks ago by the Pittsburgh Steelers. After another rough outing against the Cincinnati Bengals and a bye week, the Giants returned to whip the streaking Green Bay Packers.
The Celtic players shouldn't complain about Rivers or blame the officials, back-to-back games, injuries, the schedule, or anything else among the plethora of tired excuses.
The Celtics have been called out by their coach, the one who has protected them fiercely over the past two months.
Remember when the Celtics recorded one offensive rebound against the Spurs nine days ago and Rivers remarked that rebounding wasn't all that critical?
Well, this is him Thursday:
"I mean, we're getting mauled on the rebounds every night, so if I'm another coach, I have to tell my team, 'Guys, they're not very physical. They're not blocking out. They're not putting bodies on anybody. You can attack this team.' And until we stop the attack, then they're going to keep doing it."
So Rivers, essentially, has finally stopped protecting his players. They are being left to fend for themselves, and the ones who falter may be subject to removal or demotion.
It's a calculated move, one that had to be made before the Celtics sink further.
Now we'll see how they respond to his tactic.Gary Washburn can be reached at email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter at @gwashNBAGlobe

subset: commoncrawl


text:
New Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho is desperate to land a big name striker this summer and has moved for Brazil international Hulk with a £35million bid after missing out on Radamel Falcao.
Stamford Bridge owner Roman Abramovich is ready to back Mourinho in his second spell in charge and has sanctioned a £35million bid for the Zenit St Petersburg striker, according to the Mirror.
The report claims Mourinho was keen on taking Atletico Madrid striker Falcao to Chelsea, but the Colombian opted to join big-spending Ligue 1 club AS Monaco last week in a surprise move.
That disappointment has led Mourinho to turn to Hulk, who, the report claims, was very close to joining Chelsea last summer in a £40million deal before opting for the Russian side.
Zenit are reportedly ready to consider offers for the 26-year-old after a fractious year with the club, in which he fell out with coach Luciano Spaletti, was booed by home fans and sparked unrest in the dressing room due to his sizeable wages.
Hulk is a powerful forward who can play in any position across the front and, were he to complete a move to Chelsea, would join fellow Brazil internationals Oscar, David Luiz and Ramires in west London.
Do YOU want to write for GiveMeSport? Get started today by signing-up and submitting an article HERE: https://www.givemesport.com/writeforgms


text:
"Styles changed and we saw it coming," Lenny Hogendorn said on June 27, just days after closing Toledo Cleaners - a business operated by his wife, Lois, and himself for nearly 32 years. Their dry cleaners located at 108 South Main was the last one of it's kind in Tama County.
For those needing dry cleaning, Wilkerson Hardware has added a pick up location at the store at 129 East High St. in Toledo for Niehouse Cleaners of Marshalltown.
"Men used to buy nice suits, wore them to church or meetings every week," Lenny said. "You would dry clean a nice coat - wear it eight to 10 years. Now, people buy a coat every two years."
Article Photos
Toledo Cleaners owner Lenny hogendorn stands beside drycleaning equipment in the shop on June 27. The long-time Toledo business closed due to changing clothing trends on June 21.
Chronicle photos/John Speer
As a result, "We knew this was coming for quite a while," Lenny said. "There's not enough business to sell (it) to someone to make a living."
Lenny mentions the business has enjoyed many good customers over the years. He said they even developed a following of Iowa State Troopers who brought their uniforms from as far away as Cedar Rapids and Williamsburg to be dry cleaned. (It was also noted some of the troopers shared Lenny's interest in the Iowa Hawkeyes and this may also have been a bit of a motivation.)
The long-time business people had already prepared for the closing. Lois went to work at the Meskwaki Bingo Casino Hotel five years ago. Now Lenny is beginning a new job as a custodian at South Tama High School.
He said the plant equipment still works well but is mostly obsolete and he expects he'll have to sell some of it for scrap metal price. There's a boiler, the dry cleaning machine itself, a "pants topper" and "legger," utility press and other commercial equipment.
The 2,400 sq. ft. building will be converted into duplex apartments. Originally built as United Food Market about 1960, it housed the Farm and City Store for a number of years. It was vacant for two years until the Hogendorns relocated from their South Broadway location 15 years ago.
The Hogendorns were married on Aug. 1, 1981, and bought Toledo Cleaners from R. Dale (Poody) and Mary Bratton on Sept. 1 of that year. (See Photo From the Past Page 5.)
Lois grew up in the dry cleaning business at Sigourney Cleaners, which was owned and operated by her parents, Galen and Bonnie Bower, now of Toledo.
Lenny's parents owned and operated The North English Record newspaper. Although he had no dry cleaning experience, Lois is quoted in a 1981 Toledo Chronicle article about their purchase, saying "He'll learn."
Lenny says a reflection on today's small business climate could be in the price Toledo Cleaners recently paid for cleaning fluid. When they began over 32 years ago, it was priced at just over one dollar a gallon. This year he paid $9.18 per gallon. And there was a $35 "invoice charge" attached to the order.
Some garments were still awaiting pick up at the cleaners last week. If you have items to claim call 641-751-8371.


text:
Southern Border Program Office
The Southern Border Program Office oversees Land Ports of Entry in GSA Regions 7 and 9 (CA, AZ, NM, TX) and provides GSA Management, partners and stakeholders with project specific and other programmatic information as requested. Representatives for the Southern Border Program Office also participate in partnerships and conferences affecting the Southern Border the Joint Working Committee, Border Governors, DOS Bridges and Border Crossings Conference.
Southern Border Contact
Ramon Riesgo, Subject Matter Expert
880 Front St. Room: 4236
San Diego, CA 92101-8897
Office: (619) 557-5092
Cell: 619) 208-0248


text:
The Apple Pie Tradition
When leaves change color each Fall, I'm instantly transported back in time. Making the world's best oatmeal cookies with my mom as a little girl was so much fun, and she always let me lick the bowl! To this day the smell of cinnamon and vanilla make … Read More
Tagged apple, apple pie, baking, cooking, dessert, fall, granny smith apples, pie, pie plate, pies, recipie, son, three year old Leave a comment


text:
MILLEDGEVILLE, Ga. – The Georgia College baseball team and head coach Tom Carty are happy to host the program's annual Miracle League Day, coming up Wednesday, April 3 at 6 p.m. when the Bobcats host Toccoa Falls College.
With the slogan of "Every Child Deserves a Chance to Play Baseball" The Miracle League provides children with mental and/or physical challenges an opportunity to play baseball as a team member in an organized league. The league utilizes an ADA approved synthetic rubber turf field that allows all children with special needs an opportunity to play on a "level"-playing surface. The Miracle League allows these children an opportunity to finally play baseball for the first time in their lives.
Nine-year-old Dy'Lon Rayford will be back to throw a ceremonial first pitch for the fourth season, and may be joined by other Miracle Leaguers. The Bobcat baseball crew will also be taking donations to support the foundation.
Each year, Bobcat baseball has also served as Miracle League "Buddies" assisting Rayford and others in a game that they have grown to love so much. The Bobcats look to keep this growing relationship going with the Miracle League, as they will work as Buddies for a game Friday, April 26.
The Georgia College Department of Athletics, two-time winners of the PBC Commissioner's Cup, sponsors 11 varsity athletic programs at the NCAA Division II level. As a Division II program, Bobcat Athletics prides itself on balancing the life of the student-athlete, evidenced by the teams' multiple appearances in post-season competition as well as documented academic success and community-service involvement. Sign up at www.twitter.com/BobcatSports and www.facebook.com/gcbobcats for up-to-the-minute reports, and visit www.GCBobcats.com for more information, and to nominate your favorite former Bobcats and Colonials to the GC Athletics Hall of Fame.


text:
Because buying an MMORPG without having played it is a baffling and awful idea, publisher Trion Worlds has launched a three-day trial for the PC edition of the TV tie-in MMO Defiance.
Go sign up to get into the trial, but do be aware that your 72 hours will start as soon as you've registered so you'll want to do that at a time when you can start downloading and playing. Yes, it is a bit unfortunate.
As you'd expect, any characters and progress you make, or microtransaction stuff you buy, will carry over into the full game if you take a shine to it and buy a copy.
Though the first season of the Defiance show on Syfy has ended, the MMO keeps on rolling. As part of its crossing-over, it's hosting a contest to put one player's character into the show.


text:
|This item is eligible for
|Manufacturer: Vigo Industries #VG6012PBMT36
|Please note that this item is on backorder.
|Update your bathroom with this unique Vigo, stylish and totally frameless rectangular shape shower enclosure. Single water deflector redirects water toward the inside of the shower. Side clear seals keep the door watertight. Full-length magnetic catch allowing the door adjustment and waterproof protection. Clear PVC side gasket installs vertically onto door to ensure a water-tight seal between door and wall when the door is in the closed position. 3/8 Frosted tempered glass ANSI Z97.1 certified. Polished brass plated solid brass construction hardware, Vigo lifetime guarantee to never rust. Hinges made of solid cast brass with all stainless moving parts to ensure superior quality and durability. Self closing hinge allows smooth closing of the door. Sealed hinges providing functionality and leak-proof protection. Fixed arm support ensures wall anchoring and reinforces wall stability. Stylized towel bar for a completely different look. Overall dimensions: 46-In W x 34 1/8-In L x 73 1/3-In H. Door swing 33-In. Limited Lifetime Warranty.
When can I expect my order to arrive?
Ships via fedex
Product ships from Rahway, NJ 07065.
This product carries a lifetime limited warranty from the manufacturer against defects in material and craftsmanship, subject to normal use.
Please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-530-TAIL(8245) for assistance with warranty questions or claims.


text:
What are Portals
The idea of a Portal in the Coastal and Marine Wiki is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through the Coastal Wiki project information through pages similar to the Main Page. In essence, portals are useful entry-points combining content specific information, which would in the case of the Coastal and Marine Wiki be Project Specific Information Portals.
Planning to create a Portal?
If you are interested in creating a porject specific Portal within the Coastal and Marine Wiki, you can contact the administratirs at firstname.lastname@example.com. If the project is conform the main objectives of the Coastal and Marine Wiki, you will be able ti create a project specific Portal which can be imbedded into the content of the COastal and Marine Wiki
How to create a Portal
To create a Portal, we refer to themain instruction page of Wikipedia: 'How to create a Portal': [1]


text:
Is this Dr. Yes?
A long story, but an interesting read. Makes the Jets former concussion "specialist" Elliot Pellman look like a complete and utter scumbag. If anything, made me feel more sorry for Al Toon and Wayne Chrebet than I already did.
In 1952 -- 1952! -- the New England Journal of Medicine recommended that football players leave the sport after suffering three concussions; 40 years later, Jets receiver Al Toon retired after suffering his ninth diagnosed concussion. (According to a 2011 New York Times report, Toon still suffers health effects, though he declined to discuss them publicly.) In 1997, the American Academy of Neurology recommended that concussed athletes knocked unconscious be withheld from play until asymptomatic for at least one week. The NFL rejected the recommendation. Seven years later, an international panel of sports concussion experts recommended that concussed athletes should not return to play the same day, even if they never lost consciousness. The NFL again rejected the recommendation, with [Elliot] Pellman subsequently writing in a paper that linking "concussion symptoms to arbitrary, rigid management decisions" was not "consistent with scientific data" and that team physicians should instead "treat their players on a case-to-case basis."
Among those team physicians? Pellman himself, who managed concussion care and return-to-play decisions for the Jets. In 1995 quarterback Boomer Esiason was concussed and missed four games. He later wrote a letter to The New York Times praising Pellman's handling of his injury. Chrebet's experience was different. During a 2003 game, he was knocked out. Drawing on a New York Daily News report, Keating described what happened next:
… "there's going to be some controversy about you going back to play." Pellman looks Chrebet in the eye in the fourth quarter of a tight game, Jets vs. Giants … a knee to the back of the head knocked Chrebet stone-cold unconscious a quarter earlier, and now the Jets' team doctor is putting the wideout through a series of mental tests. Pellman knows Chrebet has suffered a concussion, but the player is performing adequately on standard memory exercises.
"This is very important for you," the portly physician tells the local hero. "This is very important for your career." Then he asks, "Are you OK?"
When Chrebet replies, "I'm fine," Pellman sends him back in …
Like Toon, Chrebet reportedly still suffers from post-concussive ailments.
Last edited by BroadwayRay; 05-20-2013 at 04:36 PM.
Is this Dr. Yes?
There must be a lot of pressure on doctors to let players return to the game. (See RG3 last year). Not excusing them by any means but you've got to wonder how many times they can hold a player out before they're fired.
The decision needs to be made by doctors and other medically certified individuals who have zero to do with the teams or the outcome of the game. There need to be completely independent, objective medical experts on the sidelines who have the final say about whether a player goes back into a game. No interactions with coaches or other team staff, a straightforward medical decision. That's how I would do it.
No one will convince me that guys like Pearlman didn't have some inkling that repeated, violent blows to the head could cause permanent damage to a player's brain.
Last edited by TheBlairThomasFumble; 05-20-2013 at 07:34 PM.
Ive never read anything critical on this specific play but he let Kevin Colley skate off the ice with a severe neck injury. The dude had significant surgery and never played again. I don't know nuthin about nuthin but as soon as the announcers told me that Elliot Pellman, the Islanders physician, was looking at him, I cringed and I still cringe to this day.
The dude is a self-promoter and a businessman, not a competent physician. At least not in the capacity he served for these teams and the NFL.
Bit used to refer to him as Tijuana Pellman....kind of appropo


text:
But why are moderators using all their points to mod things DOWN??? Right now there have been 5 fps and they are all -1. Why dont you read the moderator guidelines - the main purpose of mod points is to make the more interesting posts greater, not to mod down (although it needs to be done at times, yes).
Thank you for your concern, but I am able to skip over a fp without your help.
It's a little different than that. This question implies that the results of a federally funded project might just be given to some corporate entity. What usually happens is that the faculty involved in the project recognize it as having product potential and tell the University administration (Technology Transfer or some such group). This group then seeks out potential corporate licensees-corps who would be willing to a) pay the University and researcher licensing fees b) pay the patent application fees and c) do whatever further development is necessary (eg regulatory approvals, ISO 9000, CE, UL) to make it an actual product.
"Betty Dong at the University of California, San Francisco, discovered data that led her to question the effectiveness of a medication being used daily by millions of people. But when she went to report it, she was blocked for seven years by the company that paid for the study. "
"David Kahn, another researcher at the same school, was sued last November for $10 million by the company that sponsored his study, after he published a report that the AIDS drug he was testing was ineffective."
"Mildred Cho, a senior research scholar at the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University, took a different tack. Her 1996 study found that 98 percent of university studies of new drug therapies funded by the pharmaceutical industry reported that those new therapies were more effective than standard drugs. By comparison, just 79 percent of studies without industry financing found the new drugs to be more effective."
Can we say "duh"?
The question is, given the unarguable fact that business _is_ trying to muzzle and restrict science, what the hell are we going to do about it? I mean, other than give up entirely on the idea of having higher education and a scientific community that is worth listening to at all? It is one thing if _ownership_ of scientific discoveries gets concentrated in the hands of business. That is arguably bad, certainly slows progress and ties things up making them unusable to society at large. That's one thing. But surely suppressing scientific research and widely falsifying it and replacing it outright with spin and marketing is far worse? What are we going to do for _truth_ if the only permissible truth is that which is approved by its owners' marketing department? The role of spin and suppression in corporate science is a _lot_ more dangerous and alarming than the simple tendency of all corporate science to become private, withheld property.
In science, it is one thing to lock up your findings and play it cagey. It's uncooperative, but that's a judgement call. But to intentionally lie...
There's two issues here and only one is private ownership of scientific IP. The other is outright suppression of true but 'damaging' scientific IP, and that is IMHO the _really_ frightening aspect of all this.
In the future (_this_ future), there will be no cure for cancer, or any sort of immunizing agents for terrible new diseases, or even a cure for RSI- but there will be an unending stream of patent medicines to treat such ailments, none of which actually work.
This is no good. Profit maximizing IS NOT a recipe for societal health. The belief that it does equate to the ideal society is a religious belief based on blind faith.
The problem is, this is a trend with no obvious way to stop it, and the end point is NOT the same as things have always been. The end point is that releasing false results becomes _customary_, and that there are no significant research facilities left anywhere else to counterbalance that because they've been out-spent, out-publicitied, basically 'competed' into the ground.
At that point, you no longer have access to anything but false results, and people are so used to doctoring their results to please their owners/employers that it becomes traditional and expected. As Mildred Cho found, 98% of the studies say, HEY, what a great new product! That's a transition period- the direction it's heading is that 100% of the studies back the pharmaceutical industry, that more and more and finally _all_ of the studies _are_ funded by said industry, and that there's nowhere else you can go where people have the often expensive facilities to conduct such research at all. That's the end of the road. We're NOT at the end of the road, we are in progress toward that end.
How will you feel when 'false results' often happens? When it usually happens? When it always happens?
However, the government does not have anywhere near as much of an obvious bias (yet!) regarding, say, drugs to cure cancer or 'fix' depression or make people lose weight. And corporate-funded research DOES have that agenda, to the extent that you're just about guaranteed to not hear a wrong thing about the damned product: if the antidepressant caused half the subjects to freaking drop dead and the other half to turn into giggling drooling imbeciles, all you're going to hear is "All subjects are no longer suffering from depression", that's where the money is. *G*
Why shouldn't I like _some_ of my research to be government funded? Then I can look for private research on _government_ issues, and keep 'shopping' for a viewpoint that's not too heavily bribed and paid off. But leaving all research strictly to the specific corporate entities most interested in getting specific results is asinine, and that's increasingly what we've got.
So attention has to be paid to the extremist fringes of the situation- to the corporations that _are_ abusing society. Not because all corporations are painted with the same brush by default- but because, if no other force prevails, the market will cause ALL the corporations to either become equally abusive- or die.
Profit is not a "right" but if government policy prevents or diminishes the expectation of profit, investment dries up
I'm not arguing this. I was simply stating that profit is not a right. Corps shouldn't be able to make the profits without accepting the risk.
Under the public funding-public domain model, none of these patents would be valid. Chevy would have little incentive to improve their engine/suspension/etc system because, after spending $5,000,000 to perfect that system, Ford could put it in their car for just the cost of production.
Now this is just wrong. First of all, if the research was done with public money, then the research belongs to the taxpayers, not any particular corporation. Chevy could use the research to develop a new engine. Perhaps they would be able to patent certain aspects of it as well since they would almost certainly have to figure out how to deal with many issues that come up during the development. If they didn't do anything during development that was worthy of a patent, then they don't deserve a handout. If they simply took what NASA gave them and tried to turn around and sell it, then we shouldn't be protecting them from competition. Surely you understand this?
Surely they have a right to see a return on their investment?
If by that you mean they have a right to turn a profit from their investment, the answer is a resounding "NO!"
If I invest in the stock market, do I have a right to see a profit from it? Hell no. I'm taking a risk. As others have pointed out here, the trend is that risk is being socialized (i.e. they pass it on to us) while profit is being privatized (i.e. they keep the profits). If research is done with public funds, in whole or in part, it should not be patentable or copyrightable. It should be made available to the public that paid for it. Sure, corporations contributed to the development too, and they have as much right to the results as the rest of us. They just don't have a right to claim it as their own intellectual property and charge the public for the rights to use it.
What's so hard to understand?
Corporations do not have feelings, or emotions. They cannot feel pain or pleasure. They don't perceive and don't care about the difference between "right" and "wrong". They are artificial entities.
Sure, the people that work at these companies are moral, and have feelings, emotions, etc. They're generally decent and trying to make their living. But this rarely surfaces as part of the company as a whole. Good corporations will do whatever it takes to make as much money as possible. If they feel they can get away with resorting to illegal activity to do it, what would stop them?
We're not ungrateful for the things that capitalism makes possible. Frankly, it seems to be the only system that applies naturally to human instincts. But that doesn't mean corporations shouldn't be held accountable for what they do. Falsifying research towards their favor is not an acceptable practice. They should be punished for this.
When you meet something who is governed by one obsessive principle ("Make the most money no matter what!"), it's only natural to regard them with suspicion. The last thing you want to give to something like that is trust.
I could point out that before World War 2, most research in this country was privately funded; it was only during the "emergency" of the war and the following cold war that research was federalized.
Federal research was very good at getting a man on the moon, but also very good at ensuring that manned space exploration would only be a matter of "flags and footprints" before the program was shut down and limited to Low Earth Orbit. Federally run research and the government contractors that are way too similar to old Soviet design bureaus are also successful at keeping the price of say, putting a pound into orbit is astronomically high.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
However, this depends on open sharing or ideas and results, not hiding them from criticism.
But the biggest technological advances come from the military. Corporate interests always seek to get the job done cheaply. This usually just means tweaking existing technologies for more economical use. The military is always looking for the most significant advantage over the enemy, no matter what the cost. This means they are more likely to try new ideas without concern over cost or *immediate* benefit.
It doesn't matter whether it works, what matters is whether it pays. For example, it is much easier to run a study of a drug with the maker's cooperation, than for example, to run a compilation of statistics on complications from the drug after it is in general use. Case in point: phen-fen. And until such an independent study comes up, you're rolling in the dough, as is what happened with phen-fen.
You know, there's something pathetic about the tone of your rhetoric, a really common tone among the rightish-wing of American yahoos. It's like the stockholm syndrome - the impulsive, knee-jerk need to defend the powerful against moral censure. I don't get it.
And these lawsuits are themselves part and parcel of a culture that is compulsively reluctant to provide public health care services, which means that there's always an urgent motivation for locating blame elsewhere when possible. That's why you don't see these sorts of lawsuits in Europe - because people here battling emphysema and lung cancer - and the people insuring them - have every motivation to do so.
The government, effectively, is a big corporation. Specifically, it's sort of a giantic insurance company.
"Insurance" is basically a way of spreading risks - everyone who MIGHT be affected by a problem pools their money, and those random few who ARE affected get the money and/or its equivalent in resources to help deal with it...minus the administrative costs, executive salaries and perks, etc. You pay your "premiums" (taxes) for "Foreign Invasion Insurance", "Civil Rights Insurance", "Ability-To-Get-From-One-City-To-Another-And/Or-M
The only problem many of us have with this is that we only have one insurance company to choose from, and in many cases we are required to pay for insurance we REALLY don't want ("Government-Buildings-Not-Having-Expensive-Enoug
The difficult part of the problem, as I see it, is getting as much power as is reasonable back down to the individual, rather than having to choose whether private corporations get more power or the gigantic government corporation gets more power. (Or, in the US apparently, whether you want to give still more power to "old-style" private corporations [e.g. manufacturing, power, oil, etc.] and the gigantic US Government Corporation, or to "new-style" private corporations [e.g. media companies and other "intellectual property" barons, etc.] and the gigantic US Government Corporation. That seems to be the choice between the two political parties who share the power here these days...].
Don't mind me, just feeling cynical today...
This is just another example of the same lamentable phenomenon, and it's a predictable trend in a "democracy" where legislators are bought and paid for by lobbyists.Our society is socializing risk and privatizing profit.
Actually, I do. These corporations give tons of money to environmental organizations, which fund the very research you're talking about. In fact, corporate giving is very much (three to four times as much) tilted towards giving to left-wing causes. Makes sense, naturally. They hope to placate the leftists that are skeptical of corporations in general.
Bingo: you've nailed the problem exactly. The stuff the researchers get to do is selected by the company. Do you think Monsanto is going to select a project demonstrating the dangers of genetically engineered crops? Do you thing Pfizer is going to finance a study to prove that Americans are over-medicated? When you control the questions that can be asked, you've undermined the very basic idea of unfettered inquiry.
I studied at a well-known eastern U. What the heck, let's name names, Georgia Tech. It's a corporate research empire. Most profs are spending their time writing proposals and trolling for grants from industry and gov't. The profs are paid on a percentage of the grants they pull in. After a coupla years, that is their only income. And the undergrads are always grumbling about not getting good prof time. For the profs that are good at it (i.e., the entrepeneural types), it's a nice cash cow.
The real benefit of this act is that it gives the researchers the ability to make some money off of their own ideas. Better them then some suit who has no clue whats going on, right? The professor I work for (I'm a graduate student) has made a fair hunk of cash off of a research project that he did as a graduate student. I've seen how much work he put into it, and along with how much it has helped out the research community, he more than deserves it.
There are several other professors in our department that have taken their ideas to the corporate world as well, most of them successfully. One of them (ArborNetworks [arbornetworks.com]) was recenty featured here.
The problem is not with the Bayh-Dole act, but with the ridiculous deals like the one at Berkeley mentioned in the article. They're seriously abusing the system. The goal of the act was to allow businesses to emerge out of the research community. The goal is not to have the researchers bought and directed by a company, when they don't even know what's going to come out the other end of the research!
If you want research lackeys to do what you want and to give up all their IP rights to you, hire your own.
The royalties idea is an interesting one - research perpetuating research. Unfortunately, because of the huge scope they deal with, *enforcement* of the royalties would cost more than you'd make because of legal fees I think...
And, while I'm at it - I agree. There are jerks who ruin it for others, but the whole peer review of work thing makes forged results a really dangerous career move.
"Of the U.S. corporations on the list, 44 did not pay the full standard 35 percent federal corporate tax rate during the period 1996-1998. Seven of the firms actually paid less than zero in federal income taxes in 1998 (because of rebates). These include: Texaco, Chevron, PepsiCo, Enron, Worldcom, McKesson and the world's biggest corporation--General Motors."
Religious belief is the antonym of scientific rigor. They are diameterically opposed.
Those who claim to be christian scientists are by definition not scientific.
Who signed that one into law?
Don't tell me for a minute the corporations "deserve" it or are "entitled" to it. I even saw a comment by someone who said that because corporations "pay taxes" and "contribute" to public universities, they "deserve" to patent public intellectual work.
What a crock. Taxes buy you a lot, but they do not buy you the right to plop your private toll plaza on the brooklyn bridge. Or at least they didn't used to. Contributions to the institutions of higher education are philanthropy - or at least that's invariably what these large corporations' tax accountants tell us.
Patents are very delicate instrument for encouraging research and thought. They have been greviously abused in the past 50 years - beneficiaries of their protection would of course love to skew their protections much farther towards themselves than was originally intended, and they have succeeded smashingly, so that patents are as often a threat to innovation and scientific development as not.
I say as an executive at a corporation and a scientist, there is absolutely no reason why public research should result in private patents. Public research, _because it results in the free exchange of ideas and results_ is the heart and soul of scientific endeavor. When it doesn't, there is no point in maintaining the farce of calling it public.
You will of course be frightened by people who say stopping this practice will reduce research and hinder science, but this is, of course, bullshit. Good science happened before it, and will happen after it ends. Allowing patents to shut off whole lines of inquiry for the paltry benefit of a corporation's profits is the real, vast danger looming opposite that paper monster.
Bingo: you've nailed the problem exactly. The stuff the researchers get to do is selected by the company.
This is a very interesting problem. I was sitting here thinking about it trying to figure out a way around this problem, but as I stated before, it ends up being really, really tricky.
My first solution had the corporations putting the money for research into one giant slush fund for the university and then research projects would pull money out of that, but it would be spread around for all to enjoy as well. The only problem with this is that corporations wouldn't do it, because there was no way to gauruntee that the projects they wanted funded would get funded.
The exact opposite of this would be to allow the direct corporate funding, but I think that is just begging for corruption.
So that led me to the hybrid system, take a bit of both worlds, and implement a shared profit system. If company A wants to fund research B, then they can give B as much money as they want, except that 50% of the money that they give the project will be put into the "slush fund" for other projects to pull some much needed funding out. All rights of the knowledge gained should be public knowledge (assumption: if company A wants the research for their own, then they should hire their own damn researchers to do it in their own damn labs).
There is alot of work that could be done on this, but the idea is a start.
1) The government generally gets a royalty-free license to the any patent deriving from government-funded research. Lots of patents begin with a "the government may have certain rights in this invention" with a citation to the grant number.
2) The government makes its money by taxing the corporate profits and other economic activity arising from the invention/patent. The point of the current proposed legislation is to get a bigger "cut" of that activity. I think that's misdirected -- the government should be investing in basic science, which generally would not necessarily have any detectable income stream. Once the government starts worrying about its "traceable" cut, it will only fund applied research. Ick.
3) Having been a science graduate student at a major research university, my reaction to the various forms of whining about "freedom", "strings", "deadlines", etc. Grow up -- you are living off someone else's money. You are a serf to your research advisor anyway. I don't see the point of whining about responding to corporate demands rather than getting the research published in time for the next (public) funding cycle. When you finally get your Ph.D., finish a post-doc or two, you can choose whether you jump for public-funding reviewers and senior faculty, or your corporate manager. Until then, why sweat the difference?
We as scientists and engineers must ensure that unbiased peer review continues to be the self-policing that we need.
Also, how long is it going to take before people start realizing that companies go into business to make money? Companies need to be able to protect their innovations with patents so that they can make at least some money before the first wave of almost-copies comes out.
I agree that privately patenting ideas that came about through public funding is a little questionable, but we have to allow some of it so that these companies will have some impetus to do the research and development in the first place. How far do we go, is the question: can you imagine every company that got the first money to make its killer product from some small business loans subsequently having to surrender its IP to the public domain? You might as well work for some huge conglomerate with R&D might rather than scramble to start a small company and get nothing in the end.
However, there _are_ serious questions that need to be asked and answered regarding such use of public funds. Also, scientific journals need to have very strict criteria for publication. Peer review and full disclosure of interests may be a good start, but journals must stop short of rejecting all privately funded research or run the risk of censoring some very good research.
Scientists need to solve this problem themselves, since if it's left to the legislators (read: lawyers) the policing of scientific research will become a stifling bureacracy.carcass
A right to sponsor research and then try to silence the researchers when the results say something they don't like? No.
The problem comes when you start mixing public & private funds along with public and private interests. If I, BigRichCo, decide to fund research at a private institution with my private dollars, then yes, I can expect a certain degree of control over the results. However, if I then start funding research at a public institution / university with private dollars, that's where a conflict of interest comes in.
Research done at a public institution should be publicly held and publicly available, no strings attached. If you don't like it, start a private research lab.
Which is plain silly.
what the student should have done was donate the money to the arch foe of the tobacco company. Say a public action group, or something.
How many people here would take a grant from Microsoft, and donate it to the EFF, or what ever?
What a minute
never mind
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
How can you reap profits AND corrupt research? I mean, if you get some students to develop something for you, if their research is bogus, then the product's not going to work, is it?
Or are corporations actually going so far as to force universities to stifle their discoveries that would revolutionize an industry and allow real innovation to take place, thereby obsoleting the considerable investment made in older, inferior technologies?
What we need is a general fund for researchers to draw from with only one limitation on how the funds are spent with the benefits to go directly back into the fund. IE royalties on cool technologies which can be made into products by the man should go back into the fund. After a few years I predict the fund could support itself and turn a profit for all Americans to share.
That one limitation would be for spending the funds on research only. Not on salaries or university overhead but on materials and equipment to further science.
Just my opinion.
Yes that's true. It's called a Farraday Cage. It's the first thing they teach you in Instrumental Analysis. Works wonders. Nothing ruins sensativity in your equipment like having an elevator in your building. The cage just reflects some of that stray energy from the giant dynamo pulling the lift.
Now the fact that we all know about Farraday Cages in science makes it prior art for shielding peoples heads by wraping their cell phones in tinfoil. (or their heads in tinfoil if they're from California.)
The thing is Farraday gave this research away and the world is a better place for it. If he had a NDA with Nokia or Motorola we'd all be paying extra for the tinfoil liscence at Safeway.
NSF is good but could be better.
There are plenty of other examples. One UK university recently took lots of cash from a tobacco company. Amusingly a student who got a major prize from that department publicly turned it down at the prize giving.
As for most of us who have seen the number of NDA's increasing, the patent clauses entering into out contracts, and the number of letters from lawyers suggesting that we talk to them before we talk to our colleagues its definately no surprise. Its not much good for science either, but he who pays the piper....
Of course. And a good number of the radicals responsible for the French Revolution just wanted to topple a absolutist, abusive monarchy. The fact that they then ushered in one of the most bloody periods in European history doesn't mean their intentions weren't good.Corporations aren't entirely evil, you know. Sometimes, the people involved in them actually want to provide good products and services that help others while helping themselves. That's not wrong, is it?
I don't doubt that there are corporations who want to do good out there. I also don't doubt that a fair number of them actually do. And unlike a number of my fellow leftist / socialists, I take a much more traditionalist approach to my creed, in that I view capitalism and corporatism as neccessary, ultimately for the reasons you state: it builds a strong industrial / informational infrastructure that non-market based systems can't.
However, the fact remains that one bad egg tends to spoil the batter. Corporations have, and corporations will, continue to abuse their power, and that's something I cannot, in good conscience, endorse. Like any large concentration of power, corporations are given to corruption. And the market has been shown to be sluggish, at best, in responding to social pressure, and outright unconcerned with anything other than the majority (often at the expense of the minority). Ultimately, I have more faith in a democratic governmental system than a free market system in addressing problems, be they evil or just mistakes. I'd rather have a democratic government addressing my needs and concerns than the whim of the market.
Obviously, since I do live in America, and recognize that most people don't agree with me. But hey, what are you going do? I'll just be sitting here, agitating as best I can, until I can make everyone agree with me. Or until Bill Gates wills me his entire fortune. Either one, really.
How can you reap profits AND corrupt research? I mean, if you get some students to develop something for you, if their research is bogus, then the product's not going to work, is it?Well, if you had bothered to read the article you would have seen:
Betty Dong at the University of California, San Francisco, discovered data that led her to question the effectiveness of a medication being used daily by millions of people. But when she went to report it, she was blocked for seven years by the company that paid for the study.
David Kahn, another researcher at the same school, was sued last November for $10 million by the company that sponsored his study, after he published a report that the AIDS drug he was testing was ineffective.
So yes, Universities are being forced to stifle information showing that new products and techhnologies are ineffective, or at least less effective than existing ones. The products don't work, but no one's allowed to say anything about it.
Indeed, you've hit the nail on the head here.
To maintain and increase the level of technology in our society, it requires research. Research, unfortunately, costs money.
In recent history, many of our larger corporations did much of their R&D work in-house (GE's R&D Center, Bell Labs). And it made a lot of sense to do so, since one of the best ways to make your R&D work profitable is by keeping it proprietary and licensing it. So if your R&D is in-house, it's easier to keep your company secrets secret.
On the flip side of things, Universities traditionally did governmentally and tax-funded research. The important distinction is that, in general (yes, there are a lot of exceptions), Universities worked on basic theoretical research, while Corporate R&D departments generally worked on more applied research.
So what happened? A number of things---Public university funding spent on research declined (whereas money spent on instruction and administration has skyrocketed, but that's another topic), while in the corporate world many R&D departments were gutted since they weren't percieved as being short-term profitable (to look at my previous examples, we all know what's come of Bell Labs, and GE's Corporate R&D center is more of a engineer support center than an R&D center now). But companies still need research, and Universities still need money. The solution of both sides' problems was to have more company-sponsored research.
Alas, the result is that much of our tax money goes, indirectly, to supported corporate R&D work. At least we still have one useful byproduct: universities still produce trained graduates. But unfortunately recent developments, such as the increase in NDA's, and assignment of patent rights to companies, aggravate the situation. As the original article pointed out, for many universities patent income is significant, and now that is being eroded.
Yes, it is an old story, but still one worth examining.
You mean "we" choose 1 of a handful of preselected individuals to make decisions for us. Freedom of choice, bah! There is no freedom of choice for the important things. It's all an illusion. 31 flavors of ice cream, 2 parties. 100 types of toilet paper, 3 nominees.
America sucks.
The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.


text:
As some families gather Monday to mark the last holiday of the summer, other families will rally in Fort Myers to raise awareness about the state of maternity care in the United States.
About 100 people are expected to gather outside of Gulf Coast Medical Center as part of a movement called the National Rally for Change. The aim is to raise awareness about what the group maintains is the lack of evidence-based maternity care.
Rallies will be hosted in more than 100 major cities across America.
Angela Bailey, a co-leader with the Southwest Florida Birth Network who helped organize the Fort Myers rally, explained that supporters want to see a cut in elective induced labor and medically unjustified Caesarean sections.
"Many mothers are unaware of the risks, and they think these things are normal," she said, adding that many later find out their procedure was unnecessary.
"It's more for women to have an informed choice," Bailey said.
She reported that electing to induce labor increases a woman's risk of requiring a Caesarean section, or C-section, by about 50 percent.
"It's major abdominal surgery," Bailey added, emphasizing one risk.
"And the recovery time is harder than with a vaginal birth," she said.
Improving Birth, a non-profit organization founded with the mission of encouraging hospitals to review their birth-specific policies and procedures, is spearheading the massive, nationwide movement set for Labor Day.
"This is not a protest," founder Dawn Thompson reported. "It is a public awareness campaign to bring attention to the outdated practices that have been proven time and again to not be what is best for mothers and babies."
The United States reportedly outspends every country in the world for maternity care, yet America still ranks 49th for maternal mortality rates.
"Although we spend and spend and add more technology, the (maternal mortality) rate has gotten worse," Bailey said.
Constant electronic fetal monitoring and the restriction of food and water during labor are some of the routine practices with which the group takes issue.
"Research does not show them to be beneficial," she said. "There's no scientific evidence that shows that that needs to be done."
Last year, Lee Memorial Health System applied for and was accepted as a participant in a statewide collaborative put together by the March of Dimes. The aim of the effort is eliminating elective deliveries before 39 weeks.
A baby is considered "full term" at about 39 or 40 weeks old.
"Lee Memorial Health System supports evidence-based practices and obstetrics," Nancy Travis, the director of Women's Care Birth Suites at the Cape Coral Hospital, said. "We have been working very hard since 2011."
As part of the collaborative, LMHS set policy that prevents all elective deliveries - induced labor and C-sections - unless medically warranted.
"It has to be part of their medical record, and it has to be sent to us," Kathy Bridge-Liles, the vice president of Women's and Children's Services, said.
In an effort to ease into the change, LMHS held an educational seminar for about 100 providers and OB-GYNs to cover the reasons behind the policy.
"Had we not done that, we would have had a lot of pushback," she said.
Bridge-Liles explained that prior to the policy being set, a physician or mother-to-be could ask for a delivery on a specific date for any reason.
"There really wasn't a process in place to prevent that," she said.
As a result, babies were being delivered before reaching full development.
"We had been seeing that babies were being born a little bit earlier," Travis said, adding that elective deliveries were occurring at 37 and 38 weeks.
According to the Southwest Florida Birth Network, the World Health Organization suggests a C-section birth rate of 15 percent or less when dealing with primary Caesareans - women having their first C-section.
"It should not be any higher than 15 percent," Bailey said.
From 2008-2010, Lee County had a C-section birth rate of 35.9 percent, ranking 23rd in Florida. Charlotte County took 20th at 36.6 percent, while Collier County ranked seventh with 39 percent, according to the network.
Florida's C-section rate during the same period was 37.8 percent.
"Cape Coral (Hospital) has the highest C-section rate right now between Collier, Lee and Charlotte," Bailey said.
Gulf Coast Medical Center reportedly has the lowest induction rate. She attributed it to a higher number of midwives than OB-GYNs on staff.
According to Bridge-Liles, the higher number of C-sections at the Cape hospital is due to the types of scenarios that the medical staff see.
"C-sections are not called unless there's a danger to the mom and baby," she said.
As for the countywide rate, Bridge-Liles pointed to the collaborative.
"I think that when you are looking at an initiative this large that impacts everyone's perceptions," she said. "I think that it's an evolution."
"Over time it's going to reduce the C-section rate," Bridge-Liles said.
Travis added that LMHS offers tools to help mothers have a natural birth, including hydrotherapy and squat bars, along with childbirth education.
"There's other things we do to help women in our facilities have the birth that they want," she said.
As for constant fetal monitoring, any woman requiring medicine during the birth or having induced labor must be monitored for her and the baby's sake. Women not at risk can request intermittent monitoring, as can her doctor.
"We, as an organization, really believe in supporting women and their families," Travis said. "As long as it's safe for that mother and that baby."
The public is welcome to attend Monday's National Rally for Change at Gulf Coast Medical Center. The event will take place from 10 a.m. to noon. Those planning to attend can talk about the issues - information will be available.
Raffle prizes and goodie bags will be given away as part of the rally.
For more details, call 849-5019 or e-mail email@example.com.
Gulf Coast Medical Center is at 13681 Doctor's Way, in Fort Myers.


text:
Everton's Sylvain Distin only one Premier League game away from 400 appearances
Everton's Sylvain Distin is only one Premier League game away from achieving an impressive personal landmark.
Last Updated: 13/02/13 4:40pm
Distin, 35, missed out on becoming the first foreign outfield player to make 400 Premier League appearances last weekend when illness ruled him out of Everton's clash against Manchester United at Old Trafford.
The centre-back will now have to wait to pass the landmark as the Toffees resume their FA Cup campaign with a trip to Oldham.
Distin has made 28 appearances while on loan from Paris St Germain at Newcastle, 178 appearances for Manchester City, 77 for Portsmouth and 116 so far for Everton.
He said: "I'm not there yet so I'm not pleased. But if it happens then it's obviously something pretty amazing.
"I don't count games to be fair so you could say to me 200, 300, 500 and I would just have said 'yes'. But overall it's not just the quantity of games, it's the quality as well.
"I just take games one after each other and enjoy my time, but they are the kind of records that you can only be pleased about.
"I've been here (in the UK) for a long time and I enjoy it here. Do I feel English? No. Do I feel comfortable? Yes.
"When you think about it, it's something you have to be proud of because playing in the Premier League is not easy and staying there is even harder."


text:
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Meh... I would say nothing is wrong with the "ribbon" interface, but I could write an essay on why those damn nested menus suck. But if you like them, hey--have at it. Use them. Enjoy them, however the hell that's possible. It's bad enough they are increasingly becoming the default--as long as they don't become permanent and unchangeable, I guess I can't say too much.
BUT... will Ubuntu allow changing this? Moving the Close/Maximize/Minimize buttons back to the right was a hit-or-miss change; some people were able to do it with little trouble, others had to change the theme entirely for it to work, and still others had to (gasp) f*** around in gconf-editor. This is not GNOME, it's Ubuntu we're talking about, so I don't know how hell-bent they will be at making the interface as hard to change as possible, but I just have a feeling that they've got the same basic mentality as the GNOME guys and it won't be fun.
I don't know what's worse--drop-down menus or hidden menus. I hate them both, but at least with a hidden menu you can hit Alt and have the whole thing pop up, exactly as you expect it. Not so with the Drop-down menus.
Edited 2012-02-15 05:15 UTC


text:
User:David Johnston Monje
Contact Info
- David Morris Johnston Monje (or Dr. David M. Johnston Jr.)
- University of Guelph
- Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building
- 50 Stone Road East
- Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
- firstname.lastname@example.com
I'm a recently graduated doctoral student from the Canadian Laboratory for Inexpensive Maize Biotechnologies (otherwise known as Dr. Manish Raizada's lab) at the University of Guelph in Canada. I learned about OpenWetWare after my involvement in iGEM 2008, where I helped start up our university's first team. Check out that website here: iGEM Gueph 2008. Since making a website was a great experience for promoting the work, sharing ideas and techniques, and organizing the project, I made a similar one here for my PhD and now post doctoral work. Hope you find it useful and send me your comments via email!
Click to download David's Curriculum vitae
- 2011, Internship, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária de Agrobiologia (Brazil)
- 2011, PhD, University of Guelph Click for link to PhD thesis: MICROBIAL ECOLOGY OF ENDOPHYTIC BACTERIA IN ZEA SPECIES...
- 2006, Internship, International Potato Research Institute (Peru)
- 2006, MSc, University of British Columbia Click for link to MSc thesis: Functional Genomics of Plant-Chitinase Genes
- 2003, Internship, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (Italy)
- 2001, BSc, University of Ottawa
Click for seminal publication: Conservation and Diversity of Seed Associated Endophytes in Zea across Boundaries of Evolution, Ethnography and Ecology
Research interests
- International Development
- Plant Molecular Biology
- Agricultural Policy
- Microbial Ecology
- Synthetic Biology
- Metagenomics


text:
I bought 3 1997 Tamas from different sources and they all have very laggy and unresponsive buttons compared to Tamagotchi Connection. Are older ones just like that? It's kind of frustrating.
Vintage Button Lag?
Started by NostalgicTama , Jul 11 2011 03:44 PM
Started11 Jul 2011
Last Post26 Jul 2011
Posted 11 July 2011 - 03:55 PM ( #2 )
That's normal, if I remember correctly. They're normal for their kind, but more laggy than Connections, yes.
Posted 26 July 2011 - 06:42 PM ( #4 )
My 1997 Tamagotchis definitely have a lag compared to all the newer ones (except maybe the Music Star). It's definitely a little frustrating, especially at first, but you do get used to it after a while.
- Pauly likes this


text:
Five state House members, all of whom have been stopped and given traffic citations by state troopers, could be forced to give testimony in the upcoming case of Charles Swindle, a highway patrolman who was fired over his handling of a stop involving a lawmaker.
The Florida Highway Patrol fired Swindle last month after an internal investigation concluded he broke agency rules in his handling of a stop on I-10 last Nov. 19 involving Rep. Charles McBurney, R-Jacksonville. Swindle said his radar gun clocked McBurney at 87 miles per hour in a 70 mph zone in rural Madison. But rather than give the lawmaker a speeding ticket, Swindle gave him a $10 citation for not having proof of insurance and said he told McBurney: "I'm cutting you a break on this one."
McBurney denied he was speeding. He did have an insurance card in his wallet, and he complained to the FHP, which fired Swindle March 15.
Swindle's attorney, Sidney Matthew of Tallahassee, is challenging the firing in a hearing scheduled for May 2 before the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). His petition says the state "has engaged in unlawful disparate treatment by dismissing (Swindle) for substantially the same doncut in which other similarly situated FHP troopers were not dismissed."
Besides McBurney, Matthew notes in his PERC filing, he plans to subpoena Rep. Mike Clelland, D-Lake Mary, who also was stopped by Swindle on Nov. 19 and three others cited in the past year: Rep. Clovis Watson, D-Gainesville; Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa; and Rep. Ed Hooper, R-Clearwater. Also on the witness list: McBurney's wife Deborah, who was riding with her husband that day on I-10, and Swindle's former superior officer, Sgt. Gary Dawson, who was described in an inspector general's report as approving Swindle's handling of the McBurney case.
Matthew was traveling Thursday and could not be reached for comment. The day of the hearing is the next-to-last day of the regular legislative session, and a state law requires that any legal proceeding involving a member of the Legislature "shall stand continued" for 15 days after the session ends.
-- Steve Bousquet


text:
Tuesday, May 22Today's Hours:
Courier Article by Erika Qualls
Sunday, July 11, 2010
July is perfect time to pick up historical book
July is a month full of history. We all know that America celebrates our independence from England by the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4. Most people don't realize that the document's wording was approved on July 4, but it wasn't signed until over a month later! The first zeppelin flew on July 2, 1900, the Liberty Bell cracked on July 8, 1835, and man first landed on the moon on July 20, 1969. With these fun history facts to get you going, check out the following historical books- both non-fiction and fiction- to read during the "dog days" of July.
Paradise Lane by Elizabeth Gill begins with rich, comfortable Annabel living in London in 1902. While Annabel and her mother don't have the best relationship, it isn't until her father's death that Annabel learns why. The life of privileged young woman was a lie for Annabel. She is not who she thought she was, and now that her fiancé has called off the wedding and the woman she called Mother has kicked her out, Annabel is left with no other choice but to find her real family.
For lovers of Little Women, check out Louisa May Alcott: the woman behind Little Women by Harriet Reisen. This non-fiction book gives a detailed account of Alcott and how she came to be a celebrity during her time. Raised by Bronson Alcott, a transcendentalist incapable of providing for his family, and Abigail May, an intelligent woman who would have to carry her entire household, Louisa May Alcott grew up dependent on charity and constantly moving to outrun debts. As she grew older and recognized her father's failings, Louisa becomes determine to support her family through writing and becomes the J.K. Rowling of her day.
If you want to read about Louisa May Alcott, but are not a fan of biographies, Kelly O'Connor McNees' The Lost Summer of Louisa May Alcott will give you history of Alcott with some liberties. True to the real Louisa, McNees' character is desperate to leave her family's situation in New Hampshire for Boston. Local merchant, Joseph Singer, falls for Louisa and forces her to choose between her love for him and the independence she craves.
Amandine by Marlena de Blasi is a debut fiction novel about a young orphan growing up in the convent of Montpellier in France. Abandoned by her Polish royalty family, Amandine grows up loved by her nurse and the nuns that run the convent. Desperate to find her real family, however, Amandine is wise beyond her years and continues to seek out her mother. When World War II comes to France, Amandine is faced with the horror of war and what it means for her beloved nurse.
Last to the list, is Betsy Ross and the Making of America by Marla R. Miller. While most Americans grew up with the legend of Betsy Ross and her flag, many historians believe that it was merely that- a legend. Miller sets out in a wonderful biography of Ross to prove that while the legend was neither right nor wrong, Ross was an important woman with a unique perspective to the founding of our country.


text:
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The last person known to see an Oklahoma woman whose body was found last month about 21 years after she went missing says she had nothing to do with her disappearance.
Beverly Noe was Wendy Camp's mother-in-law. Noe says she last saw Camp when she left her and two others at a Wal-Mart rather than taking them home.
Noe told The Associated Press on Friday that while she had a testy exchange with Camp two decades ago, she regretted abandoning the three whose bodies were discovered last month.
Noe said she found it odd that the bodies were found on Oklahoma property once owned by her brother and mother.
The brother, Grover Prewitt, is accused of being an accessory after the fact, but no one is charged with killing the three.
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.


text:
(WEAU)---As parents, we all know how fast little ones learn and change. Early childhood educators say research shows the skills children learn from birth to school age set the tone for their future education. To make sure kids are ready to start school the Alma Center –Humbird-Merrillan School District has started a preschool integration project. The idea is to take the concept of the classroom and bring it to where kids naturally learn, in the home and at play.
Once a week, Early Childhood Education Teacher Laurie Spaude comes to play with 4 year old Aiden.
"They naturally learn through play and they need to learn how to socially interact how to problem solve. Not only am I teaching the child but I'm teaching the parents and or daycare provider so that they can implement those skills all every day," says Spaude.
Aiden Patrick has autism and other developmental delays and like most kids his age spends most of his time with his family at home.
Spaude says by having Aiden work on motor skills and communication at home, he's more likely to use them when she's not there.
"He needs to be ready for the big world out there and this program has done a lot for him," said Aiden's mom Jessica.
Along with home visits, the district holds play groups once a week. There Aiden joins other preschoolers, like three year old Sophia Fronk.
"When she says something wrong Mrs. Spaude corrects it, I don't think she realizes that she's learning you couldn't ask for anything more," said Sophia's mom Tiffany.
Spaude says by combining learning and play, at home and at school, kids will be more successful come kindergarten.
"We are giving them tools at a young age so that they are ready to take on the academics," said Spaude
The play groups are open to any child up to age 5 in the district.
Recently the Elementary School's preschool program was honored by the retired educators association for its innovation.


text:
Printing a Building 112
RedEaredSlider writes "Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are trying to push 3-D printing technology even further. Their goals: create whole working machines and perhaps even buildings. Thus far, 3D printing has been used to make shapes of plastic or metal that can be assembled later. These folks want to change that. One idea is to use concrete in a novel way: 'Not only would it be possible to create fanciful, organic-looking shapes that would be difficult or impossible using molds, but the technique could also allow the properties of the concrete itself to vary continuously, producing structures that are both lighter and stronger than conventional concrete. To illustrate this, Keating uses the example of a palm tree compared to a typical structural column. In a concrete column, the properties of the material are constant, resulting in a very heavy structure. But a palm tree's trunk varies: denser at the outside and lighter toward the center. As part of his thesis research, he has already made sections of concrete with the same kind of variations of density.'"