text:
This is the project plan for the Google Summer of Code project "GeoClue for maemo".
The plan is divided into subprojects, which are presented in two groups: those which concern GeoClue generally and the maemo specific ones. After that division the subprojects are in a rough order of importance. Some subprojects have been discussed on the geoclue mailing list during June 2007. The plan will be updated as ideas get more structured, implemented or discarded.
The people involved in this project are Jussi Kukkonen (author, GSoC coder), Henri Bergius (mentor) and anyone on the geoclue mailing list (thanks for the comments). Go ahead and make changes or contact me if there's something you'd like to add.
- -- Jussi Kukkonen
Estimating the development time and schedule (or sometimes even the scope of implementation) is very difficult, so be aware that this is rough and subject to sudden changes... The tasks/subprojects are approximately in the order that I believe I will be working in.
|*Days *
|civic location
|precision information
|Maemo UI: Position Change Info
|Maemo UI: Manual position
|maemo packaging
|wiki/doc update
|Maemo: use the new GPS API
|(feature is still under consideration)
|Maemo UI: Desktop applet (demo)
|(feature is still under consideration)
|Maemo UI: Settings applet
|(feature is still under consideration)
|backend selection
|(feature is still under consideration)
|privacy handling
|(feature is still under consideration)
(completion as of June 20th). The first six tasks together make about 30 days (6 work weeks). Finishing them on schedule (+20% buffer) would mean first half of August...
Modifications to GeoClue proper
Civic location support
This is what I've been calling the kind of location information that includes data like street address, country name or post code. I rate civic location support a high priority issue for Geoclue for two reasons:
- Lots of applications will want to use this data instead of lat/lon
- Human readable location information makes demoing GeoClue easy After a discussion on the mailing list, I have buried my original idea of a new interface: civic location API will be included in the position-interface (this means solving the backend selection -problem is even more important). The API should include methods to query specific data items (such as the post code) and methods to query human readable string representation(s) of the location (such as "Evergreen Terrace, Springfield, USA") and possibly convenience methods to query several common data items at once (e.g. street, city, country).
Possible API elements
IETF rfc 4119 lists these civic location elements, most geoclue supported elements can be picked from here:
|The country (ISO 3166 code)
|national subdivisions (state, region, province
|New York
|county, parish,
|King's County
|city, township,
|New York
|city division, borough
|neighborhood, block
|Morningside Heights
|Leading street direction
|Trailing street suffix
|Street suffix
|Avenue, Platz, Street
|House number, numeric part only.
|House number suffix
|Landmark or vanity address
|Low Library
|Additional location information
|Room 543
|Name (residence, business or office occupant)
|Joe's Barbershop
|Postal code
- define API
- implement
Related links
- RFC 4119: A Presence-based GEOPRIV Location Object Format
- GEOPRIV PIDF-LO Usage Clarification, Considerations and Recommendations
- Revised Civic Location Format for PIDF-LO
Backend selection
Selecting the backend to use is not just a matter of choosing the default one, if using GeoClue is supposed to be easy for both the application developer and the user. Let's take a look at an example:
User has the following position backends installed
Hostip Scenarios:
Application wants to know the city/country (assume civic location is now included in the position-interface).
- An application wants coordinates. User does not have a GPS device with her (or she is indoors so there's no fix). In both scenarios the default GPS backend is unusable. Problem in scenario 1 is something that could be avoided with having separate interfaces for civic/coordinate location, but that is just a special case. Scenario 2, and many other situations like it, would require the application to call get_all_position_providers() and try another backend if the current_position()-method of the first backend failed... This is not friendly at all.
Getting information from several backends should be as seamless as possible. I don't see why the selection of backends couldn't be totally abstracted in the bindings / wrapper library (assume there is a list of preferred backends in gconf instead of the current default backend): {{{If a method (e.g. current_position()) fails, and
* if the current backend was initialized with the generic init-method and
* if there are backends still left on the list of backends
* Initialize the next backend in the list and call the current_position method() on the new backend}}}
- get comments on mailing list
- if approved, implement the idea in the wrapper library
Precision information for position-interface
Positioning backends should report some kind of precision estimate if asked. Otherwise applications will have no idea if the accuracy is 10m (GPS) or 10km (hostip). This would also be useful if additional privacy measures (which might lower positioning accuracy, see notes on privacy) are implemented.
For reference, here is the Google geocode API accuracy chart: http://www.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/reference.html#GGeoAddressAccuracy
- Add a dbus method to position interface (and all positioning backends).
Privacy handling
Motivation: Location privacy is something that people take seriously, for good reasons. There should be a way for the user to set her preferences and this should definitely be handled by the platform (geoclue), not by individual applications.
This will be fairly tricky to get right. The UI has to be simple, but the issue itself is pretty complex. Something to remember while designing: geoclue cannot really prevent an application from accessing e.g. gpsd directly, so the privacy settings should be seen as a way for the user to tell well-behaving applications her preferences on this issue. With this in mind, I believe a lot of the complexity can be hidden: the applications should tell geoclue what default permissions they expect.
IETF GEOPRIV working group has some geolocation privacy documents (see the links section), and this is my current idea based on those:
- Two configuration items
- list of privacy groups with simple access rules (it seems GEOPRIV considers these "meta policies"):
world: rules... colleagues: rules... family: rules... me: rules...
- list of entities and the group they belong to (not sure if this needs to be viewable for the user at all):
maemomapper: me browser/default: world browser/www.jaiku.com: family instantmessenger/default: world instantmessenger/bob@example: colleagues
- list of privacy groups with simple access rules (it seems GEOPRIV considers these "meta policies"): *
- Applications add themselves to the list of entities (with a sane default group). The list of groups is created by geoclue.
- The rules for the groups can internally include the condition/action/transformation-triplets from the IETF specs. This would leave the door open for location-conditions and other fancy rules. However, I believe a single slider is enough for the UI at least on maemo platform: This slider would indicate both the coordinate precision that will be presented to the applications in the group and the access they will have to different civic location types. Example values of both of those variables:
[100km] [10km] [1km] [Exact position] [Country] [Region] [City] [Full civic location]
Related links
- Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences
- Geolocation Policy: A Document Format for Expressing Privacy Preferences for Location Information
Wiki / documentation update
The wiki needs some loving: It's currently a fairly good collection of miscallaneous information, but it lacks focus. In my opinion it also also lacks a "Why should I care" -section for the application developers (something I've been promising to write).
Divide page into two or more pages. Some possibilities:
- Main page -- Intro, contact info, repository info
- Detailed Information -- Whatever passes as general architectural docs
- Development page -- links, ideas, etc.
New things just for Maemo
Maemo packaging
This is a must-have. The packages should be available from a common repository as early as possible (as soon as there's some kind of release of geoclue), otherwise application developers will not be interested in using geoclue. Creating Debian/Ubuntu packages might not be a large job on the side.
Maemo: use the new GPS API
There is a new maemo GPS API based on libgpsmgr and libgpsbt. Using that may be smart.
Maemo UI: Position Change Information
Use a notification (e.g. "New location: Helsinki") to inform user of new being in a new location. There should be an option to manually correct a wrong position (see "Maemo UI: manual position").
The user may want to see the current location at other times too -- this would require a status bar applet. If the backend selection is not automatic (see Backend Selection), the status bar applet could be used to select the backends too.
Maemo UI: Desktop applet
A small applet showing the current location as text. This would be a nice demo, but requires civic location support to really be useful.
Maemo UI: Manual position widget
A user may want to specify a position manually. Implementing a map widget is probably overkill, but this might work:
- A dialog with text input field for manual civic location input
- a link/button to a webmap site that lets the user select a location and returns the coordinates and/or civic location (Google mapplet perhaps?)
Maemo UI: Settings applet
The privacy settings (if implemented) and possibly the preferred backend order will require a Control Panel applet. The implementation is highly dependent on what geoclue features get implemented...


text:
Do You Know How Dangerous The Trojan.Flusihoc Is
Trojan.Flusihoc is a kind of very malicious application which can be injected in your Windows PC via several deceptive means. Well, programmed by the vicious cyber crooks this particular PC threat is reckon as a typical Trojan horse virus. It is such a notorious malware infection which can cause serious damage in your Windows system and is able to make your machine completely useless in just no time. It is mostly spread through network and is capable to itself itself into the compromised computing machine silently. Moreover, Trojan.Flusihoc virus ads itself in your system boot menu and keep executes several malicious activities in computers background every time at system startup.
Due to Trojan.Flusihoc virus users are likely to experience some very critical issues in their computing machine including very slow and improper system functioning, hard drive failure, application malfunctioning, OS crash and many more. In addition, this particular Trojan virus can even delete all kinds of important data in your hard drive. It uses keylogger technique and record all kinds of sensitive information such as bank account number, login credentials, online money transaction report, IP address, browsing history etc. which can proves quite costly if falls in wrong hands. Well, the worse thing about Trojan.Flusihoc is that it is quite good at hiding itself and hence it is very complicated to detect or remove this particular threat from infected computer.
It is very important to remove Trojan.Flusihoc virus at the earliest or else you may encounter some fatal troubles on your PC. It makes several changes in your system settings and disable all kinds of security measures including Firewall, antimalware application etc. In simple words it create a backdoor into the victimized machine and allows several other malicious threat to infect and damage your computer with ease. Therefore, it would be really very sensible to get rid of Trojan.Flusihoc virus as soon as possible from your Windows PC in order to avoid any kind of further damage on your PC.
How Trojan.Flusihoc Saneaks In Your System
- Bundles with freeware third party application.
- Due to opening spam email attachments.
- Using infected media drives.
- While sharing peer to peer network.
- Visiting malicious sites and clicking unknown links.
|Trojan.Flusihoc Removal Instructions
|(Windows OS) Plan A – Remove Trojan.Flusihoc with Manually (Only For PC Experts with Good Techniques)
|(Windows OS) Plan B – Uninstall Trojan.Flusihoc Automatically from Windows Computer (Safe and Simple For All PC Users)
|(Mac OS) Plan C – Delete Trojan.Flusihoc Automatically from Mac OS System (Safe and Simple For All Mac OS System Users)
(Windows OS) Plan A – Remove Trojan.Flusihoc with Manual Solution.
Important Note :- For the safety of your PC, before you start the Trojan.Flusihoc manual removal, kindly confirm the following things:
1. You have good experience for removing virus and malware by manual Technique.
2. Your computer techniques must reach the level of system experts
3. You should very friendly with Registry and clearly know that what harmful consequence may occur for your mistake.
4. You are capable to reverse the wrong operations during Trojan.Flusihoc manual removal.
If you do not fulfill the following term and conditions, Plan A will be very risky option for you. Our tech team strongly suggested you to select Plan B which helps you find and delete Trojan.Flusihoc completely and easily with SpyHunter Malware Removal and RegHunter.
Step 1 – Remove Trojan.Flusihoc and all virus from Control Panel.
1. click "Windows key + R key" together to open Run window:
2. Type "control panel" in Run window and click on Enter key to open Control Panel:
3. Press Uninstall a program:
4. Right-click Trojan.Flusihoc or other unwanted programs and press Uninstall:
Step 2 – Delete Trojan.Flusihoc fromGoogle Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet EXplorer and Microsoft Edge.
Remove Trojan.Flusihoc On Google Chrome: Launch up Google Chrome> press your Chrome menu > press Tools> press Extension> choose Trojan.Flusihoc and unwanted extensions> click on trash bin
On Mozilla Firefox: Open your Mozilla Firefox, navigate to browser menu in the top right > choose Add-ons > choose Trojan.Flusihoc and unwanted extensions and add-ons > delete it with the help of Disable or Remove button.
On Internet Explorer: Open IE >press Tools > press Manager Add-on Tools and Extensions> choose Trojan.Flusihoc and unwanted extensions and add-ons > press on Remove or Disable button.
On Microsoft Edge: (Reset default homepage and search engine to delete Trojan.Flusihoc associated hijacker)
Reset MS Edge homepage: Press More (…) > press Settings > choose A specific page or pages under "Open with" > choose Custom to enter your favorite website.
Reset Edge homepage: Press More (…) > press Settings > press View advanced settings > press <Add new> under "Search in the address bar with"> enter your favorite search engine >press Add as default.
Step 3 – Uninstall noxious files of Trojan.Flusihoc from Registry.
1. click "Windows key + R key" together to open Run window, then input "regedit" in Run window and press Enter button to open Registry:
2. Locate and uninstall registry files generated by Trojan.Flusihoc and other threats as below:
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\Start Page Redirect="http://<random>.com"
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\virus name
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon "Shell" = "%AppData%\<Trojan.Flusihoc>.exe"
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run 'Random' HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Random
Plan B – Remove Trojan.Flusihoc Virus with Quick Removal Tool
Part One – Remove Trojan.Flusihoc Automatically from your Windows OS based computer.
Step 1 – Start a scan with SpyHunter to delete Trojan.Flusihoc completely from your PC.
1. Press on download button below to easily Download SpyHunter :
After SpyHunter is downloaded, your Google Chrome /Mozilla Firefox /Internet Explorer may shows such fake system related security warning "This type of file can harm your PC. Do you want to keep Download_Spyhunter-Installer.exe anyway?", which is created by this Trojan.Flusihoc virus to cheat you, kindly just ignore the fake or bogus warning and press on "Keep" button.
Note: SpyHunter's free version will help you find noxious items on your PC for free. Based on the scan results it provides, you can select to manually locate and delete the threats by yourself if you are PC specialist; And you can select to let SpyHunter help you automatically delete the virus by purchasing its full version license. The full version of SpyHunter Malware Removal will provide you unlimited one-on-one professional help for any virus related problems by its official system experts. If you no longer keep SpyHunter on your PC, follow these steps to uninstall it.
2. Run SpyHunter-Installer.exe to install SpyHunter via its installer:
3. Once the installation finishes, kindly press the Start New Scan to detect and uninstall Trojan.Flusihoc and hiding threats.
4. press Fix Threats to delete Trojan.Flusihoc and other malware completely from your PC.
Step 2 – Maximize performance of your System with RegHunter.
1. Press the download button below to Download RegHunter:
Plan C – Delete Trojan.Flusihoc Automatically from Your Mac OS System (Safe and Simple For All Mac OS System Users)
If your Mac system has been infected by Trojan.Flusihoc and other malware, then MacKeeper will be the safest and simplest way to remove them and cure your Mac.Mackeeper is a reliable and too much powerful Mac protection and optimization application which helps you keep your Mac clean, quick and ease. Mackeeper is one of the world best Mac OS security application created to offer Mac users withone of the best experience. Mackeeper has received great reputations from its user's and it is winning trust from more and more Mac System users. As a 16 in 1 application is one of the most advanced way to care for your Mac computer. It is worth to get it. Follow these given steps to uninstall the threats and malware now:
1. Firstly Download and then Install MacKeeper by pressing the image below:
2. Once MacKeeper is installed into your system, use the Find & Fix feature to check the status of your Mac computer and delete Trojan.Flusihoc and all infections and fix all types of problems:
3. If Trojan.Flusihoc virus is detect & Fix did not solve all your problems, you can use the Geek on Demand feature to get a Apple expert to help you as an personal assistant. The Apple Certified Support Professional experts will provide various solutions for all type of technical issues, whether a minor nuisance or a catastrophic failure.
Mackeeper is a complete package of 16 software, you can get almost all necessary tools for your Mac system and everything will become simple and convenient on your Mac System. Here are some most powerful tools packed in MacKeeper:
Internet Security – It will Protect your Mac machine from identity theft fraud (phishing), malwares, spyware, adware, viruses, and identity theft while using the Internet.
Files Recovery – Removing all files does not necessarily mean losing them for-ever. Now you can recover them all even after they are removed from the trash.
Files Finder – Find and quickly detect any lost or misplaced data files, even without knowing what folder is.
Disk Usage – Look at the size of the folders on your hard drive to see at a glance which folders take up more space.
Anti-theft – If someone steal your Mac machine, anti-theft continues its location and even makes a snapshot of the thief with iSight.
Important Note To Ignore Viruses :– Something You Should Know After Removing Trojan.Flusihoc
To avoid Trojan.Flusihoc coming back and prevent attacks from other infections, follow these basic rules while using your computer:
- You must be always select Custom Installation no matter what application you are going to install;
- Uncheck hidden options which attempt to install additional programs you never need;
- Scan all your downloaded files and applications or attachments of email before you open them;
- you should Never open any attachments of unknown or spam emails;
- never try to update any app from nonofficial websites.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Episode Description
|Sunday, Apr 7, 2013 - 5:30 AM
"Peanut Butter Apple Puffs"
We're going to take an all time kid favorite food combination of fresh apples and peanut butter, and bake those right inside a biscuit, these are called Peanut Butter Apple Puffs. Sound unusual? You will love them! And we'll serve them up with a yummy cider drink and a smoothie.a purple cow!. D
|More on LEARN/CREATE (MT)
|No upcoming shows in database


text:
You've gotta hand it to Homegrown Smoker. They've come a long way since opening on NE Alberta in the summer of 2009. They've built a snazzy enclosed cart, have moved SW near PSU, and hearing their daily specials announced on the internet, or even pictured, has become….. epic.
Recently, there's been the Portoritto with smoked soy curls and sliced portobellos, the ChiliCheeseFryrrito – just imagine what's in there, the FU Jerk with jerked tofu, the Filet O'Fu with breaded oceanic tofu and remoulade sauce, the freakin' Clamwich – and on, and on – and then there's the regular menu, with their famous MacNoCheese, Tempeh Melts, vegetable sides, Coconut Battered Oreos and various smokey proteins smothered in smokey Maple Bourbon BBQ sauce.
That being said, is there anything Homegrown Smoker would smoke and sauce that you wouldn't want to try? And do they offer adult bibs (or fancy handkerchiefs) with their logo yet?!?
Alright, sometimes things overwhelm even me – I wasn't quite badass enough for yesterday's special – but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support my crazier friends with their intense, nearly unbelievable burritos, my camera, and a stack of recycled napkins.
The SW 4th & College cart pod: home of Homegrown Smoker Vegan BBQ (mere blocks from the home of Vida Vegan Con in August!)
I swear Jared was also smiling the moment before this happened.
Holy, shit. Screw being caught in a downpour on my way here – because, I swear, this was the best version of their MacNoCheese yet – and the Smoked Shroom burger was sheer awesome.
Some of my favorite vegan food continues to be downtown lunch options in Portland. So, have you got your HoGroSmo on yet?


text:
TRENTON, NJ — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Wednesday that he's willing to have a conversation about stricter gun laws, but says policymakers also must address the mental health system, improve access to drug treatment and look at the impact of violent video games.
Christie made the comments on NBC's "Today" show, one of five national television appearances he was making Wednesday morning, one day after his annual State of the State address.
"If all we talk about is just controlling guns we're not doing enough," he said on "CBS This Morning. "We need to talk about mental illness … and substance abuse."
The Republican is also on the cover of this week's edition of Time magazine.
Christie, who is seeking re-election this year, has had a high profile in the political world for a few years, but it's risen more since Superstorm Sandy crashed into New Jersey last October.
The blunt speaker made waves last week when he held a news conference to bash John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the US House, for delaying a vote on aid for Sandy recovery. Days after the stinging criticism, Boehner held a vote for one piece — nearly $10 billion for the national flood insurance program. That was adopted, and Boehner says a vote for more than $50 billion more will come next week.
Christie's speech, along with his praise last year for President Barack Obama's handling of the storm, has cast him as someone willing to criticize his own party.
He said on the TV shows that he would continue to do so if he thinks Republicans are putting politics above the Sandy recovery.
"We've lost two national elections in a row," he said on NBC. "We need to be thinking about doing something different."
Christie, who chose not to run for president last year, said — as he previously has — that he would be "more prepared" in 2016 but that he has not decided whether to run.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


text: [Apologies if you got multiple copies of this email. If you'd like to opt out of these announcements, information on how to unsubscribe is available at the bottom of this email.] Call for Papers --- EuroMPI Workshop: International Workshop on Parallelism in Bioinformatics (proceedings published by ACM Digital Library) + Special Issue in the Journal Parallel Computing (Elsevier) (Impact Factor: 1.311, Quartile Q1) --- SUBMISSION DEADLINE: MARCH 29, 2013 We seek original, high-quality research papers, clearly focused on the application of Parallelism to any possible Bioinformatics problem. In particular, contributions are solicited on, but are not limited to, the following topics: - MPI implementations in Bioinformatics. - Parallel and distributed algorithms in Bioinformatics. - Workload partitioning strategies in Bioinformatics. - Memory-efficient algorithms in Bioinformatics. - Parallel tools and applications in Bioinformatics. - Multicore and cluster computing in Bioinformatics. - Supercomputing in Bioinformatics. - Grid/Cloud/P2P computing in Bioinformatics. - Volunteer computing in Bioinformatics. - Hardware accelerators (GPUs, FPGAs, Cell processors, etc.) in Bioinformatics. With regard to the Bioinformatics problems, many different alternatives exist: biological sequence analysis, comparison and alignment; motif, gene and signal recognition/discovery; molecular evolution; phylogenetics and phylogenomics; determination or prediction of the structure of RNA and protein; DNA twisting and folding; gene expression and gene regulatory networks; deduction of metabolic pathways; microarray design and analysis; proteomics; functional genomics; molecular docking; design of DNA sequences for DNA computing; etc. All the details (paper format, submission system, important dates, etc.) at: http://arco.unex.es/mavega/pbio2013/ --- Kind regards. -- ------------------------------------------------- Dr. Miguel A. Vega-Rodriguez <mavega at unex.es> http://arco.unex.es/mavega ARCO Research Group University of Extremadura Dept. Technologies of Computers & Communications Escuela Politecnica. Campus Universitario, s/n 10003 Caceres. SPAIN Tel: +34-927-25-72-63 Fax: +34-927-25-71-87 ------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** The hpc-announce mailing list has been setup to have a common mailing list to share information with respect to upcoming HPC related events. You are included in this mailing list based on your participation or interest in a previous HPC conference or other event. The purpose for providing a single mailing list is to allow participants to easily identify such emails, and handle them appropriately. Some options include: 1. If you feel that the number of such emails is too many, filter them to less-frequently-read folders in your email client. 2. Change your subscription to a digest option (https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/hpc-announce) which will consolidate emails sent that week into a single summary email. 3. Finally, if you do not wish to receive any emails from hpc-announce, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list (https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/hpc-announce). Once unsubscribed, we guarantee that you will not be added back in through participation in a different HPC related conference or event. You will need to send an email to hpc-announce-owner at mcs.anl.gov to be added back on. If you need help with any of the above, please email us at hpc-announce-owner at mcs.anl.gov. ********************************************************************************


text:
Flavor Flav Teaching How to Fry Great Chicken At His New Fried Chicken Restaurant In Iowa!
Rapper Flavor Flav of Public Enemy
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Jennifer's "Blue Love" Room
Like this entry? Favorite it below!
- Name:
- Jennifer
- Location:
- Chicago, IL
- Division:
- Dark
- Inspiration for my palette:
- Blue is my favorite color..all shades of blue. I love the dramatic look a dark color gives to a room.
- Colors used in my room:
- Benjamin Moore~Blue Note
- Tips for using color successfully:
- Built in primer and don't be afraid to be bold when using dark colors in small rooms.
- Palette:
- Blue Love


text:
Monday, May 14, 2007
Weetabix Wabbit
Thanks to Michael Bailes for sending this to us:
To be honest, I had never even heard of "Weetabix" before today...
8 comments:
- J.E.Daniels said...
I've had Weetabix before, it's like Shredded Wheat.
Great animation and gags in this spot, haven't seen Elmer that animated since his Clampett days.
Too bad it isn't in better quality.
- May 14, 2007 at 11:23 PM
- David Gerstein said...
I'm sorry, J. E., but I don't think you're remembering it right. Here's what Weetabix are like...
...with the slight cavil that the maker of that page obviously likes neither the look nor flavor.
Me, I'm crazy about them. The shape seems aesthetically pleasing and the taste is great, at least in milk.
As for the Bugs and Elmer spot: WOW! "Run, Rabbit Run" is one of my favorite British music hall songs! What a kick to see Bugs and Elmer performing it!
- May 15, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Weetabix is the U.K.'s number one cereal. This is probably a British ad.
- May 15, 2007 at 3:08 PM
- Christopher said...
I remember that advert! 10 years after seeing it, even! That's where I learnt the "Run Rabbit Run" song from, and I agree it's a brilliant piece of animation.
BTW, Matt, you've never heard of Weetabix!? Where've you been all your life? :D
- May 16, 2007 at 6:27 AM
- PCUnfunny said...
Eh, it was alright. Still can't beat the 60s ads.
- May 16, 2007 at 9:00 AM
- Jon Cooke said...
Does anyone have any guesses who is doing the voices in this ad?
- May 16, 2007 at 9:42 AM
- PCUnfunny said...
I am guessing Jeff Bergman did both vocies.
- May 16, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I remember this adverts well and I love Weetabix, I even eat the new OAT-A-BIX. It was a well produced advert, though I liked the Weetabix mascots, the characters who were Weetabix with different personalities.O-KAY?
- August 11, 2007 at 1:49 PM


text:
Supercharger Courtesy would be nice.
Supercharger Courtesy would be nice.
That's pretty crummy, especially at Harris Ranch, when charging should be limited to what's necessary to get to Tejon or Gilroy if at all possible and certainly if people are waiting. It's hard to imagine how being there over an hour could be warranted in any circumstance. I think 99% of S owners would not do that.
You have my word. I'll be thoughtful.
I bought some print-in-printer business cards and leave them in the driver's window. I write in the time I will be back and include a contact email (since it is pushed to my phone).
I don't use the superchargers but always leave the card in my window as a courtesy when at public EV parking. I think everyone should do this. Also - don't park in the EV spaces at malls, ballparks, etc. just because you like the proximity of the space. You have to be charging to use that space!
At Harris ranch, there is a clipboard sign-in at the cashier's station. You can put your phone and check-in time on the list, and it works as a queue when there is more than one waiting. You can then call the person charging to let them know you are waiting (and hopefully they'll come out after 30 minutes or so).
The service at Harris Ranch is very slow, so it's hard to get through lunch in less than an hour - which I suspect further backs up those waits. I've waited for over an hour at Harris Ranch for one driver due to the slow service, but 2.5 hours is really bad!
When the 6 new superchargers outside the HR restaurant open up (still waiting on PG&E?), it would be cool to have a couple Tesla-Tables set up with a speedy fixed price menu for a Battery-Burger, Super-Steak, or Voltage-Vegie, all done in 30 minutes guaranteed.
Tesla should be able to send you a text when your car is done charging, and then it should politely remind you to move your car so that others may use the supercharger.
Also, since the system is all Tesla, the charger should be able to know when the currently connected car is done charging. They should allow multiple cars to park near a charging station, even if there is not enough charging capacity for all of them. It should have extra cables that you can plug into your car, even if they are not live, and then when one car is finished charging, the cable for the next person in "line" will go live.
GabrielB - I like a Tesla-Tea please. Good thinking ! Hope Harris Ranch picks that up.
Many apps have notifications built-in. The Tesla Model S app should be upgraded to give a notification when charging is done. You can just turn on the notification when you are at a public charger and turn is off when at home.
The app should not give a notification "when charging is done" but rather, a notification when optimal high speed charging is complete. That is, when the supercharger has to back off because you are entering the top end of your capacity. The things deliver their biggest punch on empty batteries up to 50%.
Or a notification when I suggest AND when done. A reminder or SMS on the phone would help a lot of people remember to look outside and move if someone is in queue.
With the phone app a person need only check their phone occasionally to see if it is charged enough. Yes a notification would be nice but most of us can easily pay attention to the charge level using the phone app.
Unless you have to enter your password to log in
How about just being polite, courteous,& respectful? Mind the time, and move when you're done charging.
Very cool idea.
Good point. It would even make sense to have regular ev charging stations available near the superchargers so you could move your car to one of them after the really high amperage charging is done, then take your time to top off if you still need it.
Sorry folks, having driven the long I-5 in a Tesla Roadster many times, never seeing another EV, I hate to say but this problem is absolutely AWESOME!!!
I'm sorry for the inconvenience and agree wholeheartedly with all of the calls for charging drivers to pay more attention to their use of the superchargers.
It's great seeing Tesla successful. What a glorious problem to have.
BTW: my first time from LA to SF, I had to spend about 4 hours at the RV park in Kettleman City, waiting to charge. I hope PG&E gets their act together soon and gets those other superchargers on line at the Ranch.
I don't think long 100A 440V cables are on. Just a guess. ;p
"What a glorious problem to have" - so true...
All these backups with about 5,000 cars on the road. The Prius hit 1M units just in CA a few years back. When we have 1M Model Ss on the road we will need 200x the amount of Supercharger stations just to get to the same level of backup we have now. That sounds like a tall order.
How many gas stations do we have? 121 thousand in the US in 2012. So 1.6k SC doesn't sound very high to me. Yes it is building infrastructure and you have to do it over a number of years. And don't forget most of the driving is done with electricity from your garage. Who has a gas pump in their garage... maybe Jay Leno.
At 20,000 per year it will take 50 years to have 1,000,000. Let's hope that happens sooner.
Because Tesla has accurate data on location and current charge of all vehicles, they could control this perfectly over time. They could even tell you as you approach a Supercharging station what the wait is. This problem will not happen in the future. In the meantime, I'll always leave a note... now if only there were Supercharging stations within 500 miles of me...
I'm sure communication technology can help with all of this but this is not like a gas station. Filling my gas tank takes 5 minutes, not 1.5 hours. But at the same time there are a lot of ways to optimize the time spent charging if charging is massively ubiquitous (e.g. everywhere I want to stop has SC stalls). In the US there are over 100M cars. The cool thing about Tesla is they have allowed people to understand that we don't need to wait for EVs to make total sense. I want to see it get to the next level which will require massive growth in charging support but is totally do-able if the right incentives exist.
@Kleist I love the fact that I do almost all of my charging at home. But my comment has nothing to do with that. The people currently waiting at a Supercharger aren't charging at home at that moment but they *are* often waiting. When Teslas hit 1M units there will be 200x the likelihood that they will need SC support than there is now.
@Darmok I don't think Tesla did all this work to become the smallest car company on the planet. Of course they will grow capacity to meet the growing demand that will happen due to the obvious appeal of the car. And no car company in history has the potential to scale manufacturing like Tesla does. Just one glance at their factory should make that very obvious.
Can I go from Tejon to Gilroy and bypass Harris Ranch?
@gimp_dad - I gave you 1600 SC for 1M MS... so what is the point?
To put it in perspective - about 100 SC locations you need to cover the US. So there are 1500 SC that are in between... you will have the choice where to stop. To give you a practical example... Harris to LV. Right now you have to drive the extra distance to Tejon and back to make it to Barstow. Put one SC on the I5 next to Bakersfield and you have a straight shot at LV. And for LA to Harris you have now the choice to stop at Tejon or Bakersfield.
Second - once we have 1M MS on the road then we'll also have 120 kWh batteries on many MS... that gives you 4 hrs driving at 75 mph. Even with the 110 m to 150 m SC grid spacing you can skip one SC location - increasing your flexibility even more.
SC are much cheaper then gas stations, we managed to have enough gas stations over time so I think we also can manage SC.
Sure. My point is that there are currently less than 5k TMS cars in CA. When there are 1M in CA, it will feel like a lot of waiting if there are 200 spaces in and around Harris Ranch. Now expand that all over CA and you need a lot of spaces to make it so there is zero waiting.
CA is the model for the rest of the country. For this to become convenient we need thousands of SC spaces in CA and many times that worldwide.
This is why charging on the road will suck for a Long Long time. Chances are hight tat you'll drive somewhere at the same time as others (Holidays or Events). the wait till the pack is full is a Long one so you'll probably try to do something else while it's loading. Stuff will happen and chances are that you're late and therefore some poor guys hav to wait for quiet some times.
Building more stations surely help, but Tesla is putting out 20k cars a year. How many are out there yet? 10k? My Point is, to make those charging stations most efficient they probably should consider a valet Service where they repark your car once it is full.
Or just make it possible to remove the plug after it's full and install Long cables.
How about a button on the charger that sends a text or notice to the person charging (or done charging) that someone is waiting. I guess this might require entering a VIN or having the charger read the VIN somehow?
How about just doing what Chargepoint does with their app? It tells you exactly who is at what station and how long they've been charging so you can actually plan your day a bit better. Then it gets you when there's very little current flowing and again when it stops completely. I don't want to pull into a SC location running low on juice and be surprised to see 4 cars in the queue. So much for arriving anywhere close to on time.
Running low on juice? There are lots of oranges to squeeze where those came from.
Point taken and valid!!
I'm still waiting for Model S but "looking forward" to hearing that "a supercharger" is anywhere in the area :-) or anywhere along any of the highways nearby that I might want to travel. Allot of folks would just like to see a Supercharger!
So maybe problem falls in category of ..., wish I had that problem? Location and density at location all an issue.
We can agree to disagree as to when there will be 1M S on the road in California, or in the world for that matter. But I understand and agree with your central point, that SC capacity will need to increase as cars on the road increase. Hopefully for all of us Tesla sells (or leases) lots of cars and keeps adding SCs at new and existing locations.
Just common courtesy would be great. Just got back from Vegas. Had to use the Barstow station. It was great. No waiting for the charger. It was available both time I used it to/from Vegas. I stuck around the car just to be close by just in case other Tesla owner need to use it also. One other Tesla pull up after me but there was another charger that was available. I was done in about 45 mins. Tesla should install 4 more chargers there. There was only two available and no major sign to show where it was. Do definitely a better signage.
By the way Crystal at the Las Vegas city center was a great place to charge your tesla also. Located at Crystal Valet. Only one charger available and it only charge about 16 miles per hour


text:
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 27th Sep 2005 22:40 UTC, submitted by Danijel Orsolic
"This follow-up to the previously published article 'Ubuntu: Derivative or Fork?' takes into account most of everything that has been posted as a reaction to the first article to present a general opinion and compare them with facts derived from various resouces. You'll see that peace can be achieved between these two, and ultimately any GNU/Linux group out there."


text:
G2040, Reviewed December 1993
Crossbreeding in commercial beef cattle production improves efficiency through heterosis and breed complementation. Heterosis or hybrid vigor is an advantage in performance of crossbreds compared to the average performance of the parental breeds. Heterosis is particularly strong for traits that are lowly heritable such as conception rate, preweaning liveability of calves and preweaning growth (Table 1).
Table 1
Individual and maternal heterosis for beef cattle (from C.R. Long, 1980. "Crossbreeding for Beef Production: Experimental Results." J Anim. Sci. 51:1197
Crossbred cows with crossbred calves can be expected to wean as much as 25 percent more pounds of calf per cow exposed than purebred cows with purebred calves of the same average breed makeup (Example 1). Breed complementation describes using breeds as they are best suited in a crossbreeding system. To take advantage of breed complementation, breeds with good maternal ability and milk production would be used in a dam line and be mated to large framed, fast growing terminal sire breeds.
Optimal crossbreeding systems take advantage of individual and maternal heterosis and breed complementation. An optimal system requires a minimum of three breeds. Unfortunately, it also requires multiple breeding pastures or artificial insemination (AI) to ensure correct matings resulting in maximum heterosis. A relatively large herd is required so that efficient use can be made of more than one breed of bull.
A minimum of three bulls are required to efficiently operate a three-breed crossbreeding program which produces its own crossbred replacement heifers using natural service. AI requires a higher level of management, especially when coupled with the tasks of estrous synchronization, estrous detection and breeding. As partial compensation for the management required, AI offers the advantage of making available many sires with outstanding genetic merit, a situation that would not be economical for most commercial producers for use in natural service.
Most beef cattle herds in Missouri have fewer than 60 cows. These herds are not large enough to take advantage of conventional crossbreeding systems. In this publication, efficient alternative crossbreeding systems are presented for use by commercial cattle producers with small herds. Systems using one and two bulls are described.
Heterosis is a difference in performance of crossbred animals compared with the average of the pure breeds which contribute to the cross. Heterosis is usually, but not invariably, favorable. An example of an unfavorable result of heterosis is an increase in fatness of crossbred calves. Traits such as growth and reproduction usually respond favorably to crossbreeding.
To predict performance of a cross, estimates of the merit of the pure breeds and estimates of the magnitude of individual and maternal heterosis (Table 1) must be available. Adapting data for weaning weight from Notter, 1989 (Beef Improvement Federation Proceedings), Angus were 432, Hereford 435 and Charolais 490 pounds. If Hereford bulls with average genetic merit (EPD = 0) were mated to average Angus cows, crossbred calves would be expected to weigh 5 percent (from Table 1) more than the average of the pure breeds included in the cross, or:
If Charolais bulls were mated to Angus x Hereford F1 cows, calf weights would be predicted by adding individual and maternal heterosis to the average genetic merit of the crossbred calf. The genetic merit of the calf would be calculated as 1/2 the genetic merit of the Charolais plus 1/4 the genetic merit of the Angus and plus 1/4 the genetic merit of the Hereford or
= [1/2 Charlois + 1/4 Angus + 1/4 Hereford] x (1 + Individual Heterosis) x (1+ Maternal Heterosis)
= [(1/2)(490) + (1/4)(432) + (1/4)(435)] x ( 1 + 0.05) x (1 + 0.08) = 524 pounds
To predict weaning weight per cow exposed, improvements due to heterosis for conception rate and calf survival also need to be considered. Assuming that as purebreds 85 of 100 cows exposed of each of the breeds listed above deliver a live calf and 95 percent of calves born survive to weaning; then weaning weight per cow exposed would be 349 pounds for Angus, 351 pounds for Herefords and 396 pounds for Charolais. Prediction of weaning weight per cow exposed is similar to prediction of weaning weight as shown above except that individual heterosis is 8 percent and maternal heterosis is 19 percent:
= [(1/2)(396) + (1/4)(349) + (1/4)(351)] x (1 + 0.08) x (1 + 0.19) = 479 pounds
The value of 479 pounds of calf weaned per cow exposed for the crossbred cows raising crossbred calves compares with an average genetic merit of the combination without heterosis of 373 pounds (1/2 the genetic merit of Charolais plus 1/4 the genetic merit of each Angus and Hereford). Thus heterosis contributes 479 - 373 = 106 extra pounds of calf weaned or an increase of 28 percent.
In deciding among crossbreeding systems, primary considerations are sources of replacement females, amount of heterosis expressed by the offspring (individual heterosis), amount of heterosis expressed by the dam (maternal heterosis), possible breed complementation or potential for using specialized sire and dam lines, and management issues.
If crossbred replacement females are readily available, many other considerations are overcome. Crossbred replacement females yield maximum maternal heterosis, and when mated to a bull of another breed, maximum individual heterosis will result. Choosing a bull of a terminal sire breed also results in breed complementation. Management in a single- or multiple-sire situation is straightforward. This situation is ideal but unfortunately seldom available or economically feasible.
In choosing a crossbreeding system, primary consideration must be given to a source of replacement females. It generally is desirable to produce replacement heifers within herd. Possibilities for within herd production of crossbred replacement heifers include the use of AI on a fraction of the cows, something not always within the management capabilities of some producers; use of a breed of bull on purchased purebred heifers to produce cows for a terminal cross, which also involves purchase of a fraction of the replacements plus use of at least two breeds of sire; or use of a rotational crossing system either in combination with a terminal sire or as a stand-alone system.
Crossbreeding systems fall into four categories: specific or terminal systems, rotational systems, rotaterminal systems and composite or synthetic systems. Each has advantages and disadvantages in the amount of heterosis obtained, potential for breed complementation, source of replacement females and ease of management. Small herd size presents extra limitations on suitability of particular systems. No one system is optimum for all beef cattle producers. Characteristics and examples of each type of system are presented.
Two-breed specific
Specific crossbreeding systems use a specific pattern of consistently mating a particular breed of bull to a particular breed or breed-cross of cow. The resulting offspring are not brought back into the system. An example of a two-breed specific cross would be mating Angus bulls to Hereford cows. The resulting black-baldy calves are sold. This system is used frequently in Western range states.
Two-breed specific systems are often referred to as terminal systems because the progeny are not returned to the herd. This system provides maximum individual heterosis because the sire and dam have no common breed composition. No maternal heterosis is provided, since cows are purebred. Opportunity exists for breed complementation because maternal and paternal breeds can be chosen for favorable characteristics which contribute to the cross. Most important, these breeds will be used consistently in their role as a maternal or paternal breed in this particular crossing system. The source of replacement heifers is the major obstacle for using the two-breed specific crossbreeding system.
Three-breed specific
A three-breed specific or terminal cross results from mating Charolais bulls to the black-baldy cows. In the three-breed cross, both individual and maternal heterosis are maximized. Maternal heterosis is maximized because the breeds crossed to produce the maternal line (the black-baldies) have no common composition. Individual heterosis is maximized because the maternal line (Angus and Hereford) has no common breed composition with the terminal sire (Charolais).
Again, breed complementation is available because the sire and dam lines can be chosen for their strengths in contribution to the cross. With this and all other specific crossbreeding systems, source of replacement heifers is a potential problem. A dependable supply is needed if they are to be purchased. Management considerations are important if the producer is to provide replacement heifers from within his own herd.
In a backcross system, heifers from a first cross are mated to a bull from one of the breeds in their own breed makeup. For example, a black-baldy heifer might be mated to a Hereford bull. The backcross is most often used when a particular breed is well suited to the production environment such as indigenous breeds in tropical areas. Backcrosses yield maximum maternal heterosis but only 50 percent of maximum individual heterosis. The reduction in individual heterosis is due to the common breed makeup between bull and cow in the backcross.
Two-breed rotation or criss-cross (Figure 1). Rotational systems involve a specific cyclical pattern of mating breeds of bulls to progeny resulting from a preceding cross. The simplest example of a rotational system is the two-breed rotation or criss-cross system.
Figure 1
Breeding scheme for a two-breed rotational crossbreeding system.
A series of alternating backcrosses are used in the two-breed rotation. In a Hereford-Angus rotation, progeny resulting from an initial Hereford-Angus cross would be backcrossed to one of the parental breeds, say Angus. The resulting backcross progeny, 3/4 Angus and 1/4 Hereford, are mated to Hereford bulls. Progeny resulting from this third generation are mated to Angus bulls and this cyclical pattern continues.
After three generations, breed composition stabilizes at approximately 2/3 the breed of the sire and 1/3 the remaining breed. In this example, generation four calves are sired by an Angus bull and are approximately 2/3 Angus and 1/3 Hereford.
The primary advantage of rotational crosses is that replacement heifers are provided within the system. Both individual and maternal heterosis are less than maximum because of the common breed composition of sire and dam. Since cows share approximately 1/3 of their breed composition with the bull with which they are mated, a third of potential heterosis is lost. No breed complementation is obtained from a rotational cross. Sire breeds alternate between generations. Therefore, using specialized sire and dam breeds is not possible.
Management of matings for this system can also be somewhat complex. Additional heterosis is lost if improper matings are made. Since generations overlap in cattle, females from both breeds of sire will simultaneously be present in the herd requiring at least two breeding pastures to ensure correct use of the system if natural mating is used.
Three-breed rotation (Figure 2). Three-breed rotations simply add a third breed of bull to the cycle of matings used in a two-breed rotation. Cows are mated to the breed of bull that makes up the smallest proportion of their own composition. A three-breed rotation increases use of individual and maternal heterosis to 86 percent of maximum. Again, no breed complementation is available.
Figure 2
Breeding scheme for a three-breed rotational crossbreeding system.
Management is more complex than for the two-breed rotation. Choice of breeds becomes an important consideration, as the number of breeds included in a rotation is increased.
First, breeds used to initiate the rotation should be the best available for your production system. The heterosis gained from adding an additional breed must be greater than the loss of average genetic merit due to adding a breed which is poorer than those used to initiate the system. Second, breeds used in a rotation should be somewhat similar in characteristics such as mature size and milk production. Diverse breeds may lead to calving difficulty and problems associated with feeding and marketing heterogeneous calves.
Three-breed rotaterminal (Figure 3). Rotaterminal crosses are a combination of rotational and specific crossbreeding systems. They add some of the best features of each system. A rotation, usually of two maternal breeds, supplies cows for a terminal mating. For example, older cows from the Hereford-Angus two-breed rotation would be mated to bulls from a terminal sire breed.
Figure 3
Breeding scheme for a three-breed rotaterminal crossbreeding system.
Although not maximized in all the calves, some individual and maternal heterosis contributes to the performance of all calves produced. Approximately 40 to 60 percent of the cows are involved in the rotational part of the system. Individual and maternal heterosis is yielded by this part of the system at the same rate as that for a two-breed rotation. All male calves from this part of the system are sold while female calves are retained as needed for replacements. Crossbred cows from the maternal rotation are mated to a terminal sire breed. Cows express partial maternal heterosis and calves express 100 percent individual heterosis.
Breed complementation is available from the terminal phase of the system. All calves from the terminal mating are sold. One advantage is that heifers usually are initially mated to a bull of similar size as their own sire breed as part of the rotation. As cows mature and have a reduced likelihood of experiencing calving difficulty, they can be transferred to the terminal cross to be mated to a larger breed of bull.
This system suffers the drawback of complexity and unequal usage of bulls. A minimum of four bulls must be utilized to properly operate the system, which makes it unattractive to the majority of beef producers.
Composites are a stable intermating population originating from crossbred matings. Santa Gertrudis and Brangus are examples, as are the MARC composites developed at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center. Composites usually incorporate a combination of breeds, each of which contributes a characteristic desirable for good performance or environmental adaptation. Zebu breeds have contributed to several composites because of their adaptation to hot climates.
Composites offer some heterosis, with the amount depending on the original breed composition. Unfortunately, these breeds have commonly suffered partial loss of heterosis over time. This has resulted from inbreeding accumulating in the breeds, because most were initiated from a relatively small genetic base.
Discounting the potential loss of heterosis due to accumulated inbreeding, retained heterosis can be calculated by squaring the fractional contribution of each breed, summing the squared values and subtracting from one. As an example, breed composition of Santa Gertrudis is 5/8 Shorthorn and 3/8 Brahman. Retained heterosis is 1 - [(5/8)2 + (3/8)2] = 0.47 or 47 percent.
As more breeds contribute to the composite, retained individual and maternal heterosis increases. When composites are used sires and dams do not differ, thus no breed complementation is offered. Management is similar to utilization of pure breeds.
Many beef cattle in Missouri are in herds that use a single bull. Efficient crossbreeding systems for herds of this size would increase the productivity and profitability of the state's beef industry. In comparing crossbreeding systems for single-sire herds, several conditions will be assumed:
Two rotational systems have proven useful in single-sire systems (M. A. Lamb and M. W. Tess, 1989. J. Anim. Sci. 67:28). One involves rotation of two breeds, the other uses three. In each system, a new bull is introduced every second year to avoid mating heifers back to their sire. The same breed of bull is used for four years (two consecutive bulls) before a new breed is introduced. This yields more heterosis than rotating breeds with each new bull or every two years.
If the breed of cows used to initiate the rotation is designated breed A, the sire rotation would be
with the subscripts representing different bulls of breeds A and B. Since a single bull is used, not all matings can be optimal as in the two-breed rotation. This single-sire rotation is expected on average to yield 59 percent of maximum individual heterosis and 47 percent of maximum maternal heterosis for the first twenty years of operation. These values compare with 72 percent of maximum individual and 56 percent of maximum maternal heterosis obtainable from a two-breed rotation in a large herd or through the use of artificial insemination. Loss of heterosis is due to acceptance of a proportion of incorrect matings in the single-sire system.
Using genetic breed means for Hereford and Angus from Example 1 and heterosis from Table 1, weight of calf weaned per cow exposed would be expected to average 399 pounds for the first 20 years of this system. This compares with 409 pounds expected from the optimum two-breed rotation and 350 pounds average of the genetic means of the two pure breeds.
A three-breed rotation initiated again with breed A cows would have a breed sequence for bulls of
This single-sire rotation is expected to yield 77 percent of maximum individual and 60 percent of maximum maternal heterosis.
Single-sire rotations offer potential for increased productivity in the small beef cattle herd. Choice of breeds is of great importance. Breeds should not only be adapted to the production environment, but must be compatible with each other in a rotational system.
Additional crossbreeding opportunities are available to the producer with a slightly larger beef herd. Numbers of cows and pastures that justify using two bulls can increase possibilities for using productive crossbreeding systems.
The two-sire, two-breed rotation initiated with breed A cows uses a bull sequence of
Bulls can be used a maximum of four years to avoid mating to granddaughters. Initially, all cows are of breed A. Some matings of breed A cows to breed A bulls must be made in the third year to stay within the serving capacity of the breed B bull. After the first four years, cows sired by breed A bulls are mated to breed B bulls and vice-versa.
Expected individual heterosis is 70 percent of maximum and expected maternal heterosis is 54 percent of maximum. These values compare with 72 percent for individual heterosis and 56 percent maternal heterosis in a system in which all matings are correct. Expected performance is very similar for the two systems.
Three-breed rotations offer increased heterosis over two-breed systems. This advantage may be partially offset by problems associated with choice of a third breed. Optimal sequence for bulls in a two-sire, three-breed rotation is
For the first four years the largest proportion of cows are breed A. They should be mated to the bulls with which they are least related. Whenever possible, cows sired by breed A bulls should be mated to breed B bulls, cows sired by breed B bulls should be mated to breed C and cows sired by breed C bulls should be mated to breed A.
Some matings that yield less than maximum heterosis will occur in years three and four. This sequence yields an average of 82 percent of maximum individual heterosis and 63 percent of maximum maternal heterosis over the first 20 years of operation. These values compare with 91 percent of maximum individual heterosis and 70 percent of maximum maternal heterosis for a system with no incorrect matings. Again, expected performance is quite similar.
When using two sires, one available option is to use part of the cow herd in a terminal cross. A three-breed rotaterminal system provides breed complementation in the terminal mating, which involves about the oldest 40 percent of the cow herd. The sequence of bulls is
The youngest 60 to 65 percent of the cow herd is in a single-sire two-breed rotation. All heifer calves from this part of the system are kept as replacements, while all older cows are mated to the terminal sire.
This system yields slightly more individual heterosis than the two-sire, two-breed system but slightly less maternal heterosis. Assuming a 10 percent increase in growth rate due to breed complementation in calves produced by the terminal sire, productivity is similar to the three-breed rotation. Productivity, which might be less than expected, is due to low heterosis in the substantial proportion of the herd involved in the two-breed rotation used to produce replacement females.
The rotaterminal system is more sensitive to management than are the other systems. Use of all heifers calves from the two-breed rotation as replacements can be limiting if death loss is high or if the proportion of calves which are female is low in a particular year.
Selecting the most appropriate cross-breeding system for your herd is based on several factors. Average expected levels of individual and maternal heterosis for the first 20 years of operation of the crossbreeding systems described above are summarized in Table 2. These levels will vary from year to year, particularly in the rotational systems, and are only one consideration in choosing a system appropriate for your operation. Choice of a system should also depend on the level of management commitment you are willing to make and the size of your herd. Similarly, selection of breeds depends on various factors, including feed resources as well as availability of breeding stock.
Developing a plan and choosing a system and breeds is an important first step towards capturing the benefits of crossbreeding in your herd. For long-term success, it is critical to follow through and persistently stick to your plan, and not be persuaded by the temptation of the hottest new breed on the scene in a year-to-year decision mode.
Table 2
Heterosis1 and breed complementation in crossbreeding systems
Order publications online at http://extension.missouri.edu/explore/shop/ or call toll-free 800-292-0969.


text:
- Inside Athletics
- Tickets
- Fan Zone
- Media Zone
- Social
- Shop
- Donate Now
MACON, Ga. (Aug. 10, 2012) – The Atlantic Sun Conference continued releasing its preseason awards on Friday as the league office announced their volleyball honors. Junior outside hitter Megan Devine (Kingsport, Tenn.) was named Preseason Player of the Year by the coaches, while ETSU was picked to finish third.
Devine, who was the only unanimous selection on the preseason all-conference team, was named to the First Team All-Atlantic Sun and All-Tournament teams in 2011. As a sophomore, the Kingsport, Tenn. native ranked 34th nationally in kills per set (4.16) and 54th in points per set (4.51), while setting the ETSU single-season record in kills per set. Devine finished with a career-high 26 kills at Florida Gulf Coast back on Oct. 15, which was one of seven matches with at least 20 kills for the Buccaneer standout. The 26 kills versus the Eagles were tied for the third highest among A-Sun players, and Devine also tallied double figure kills in 27 of her 31 matches played.
Joining Devine on the preseason all-conference team were Jill Hopper and Gigi Meyer from FGCU, Sara Metroka and Camille Pedraza of Kennesaw State, Lipscomb's Kaycee Green, and Paige Pridgeon from North Florida. Pedraza was also tabbed Libero of the Year.
Meanwhile, in team voting, the Blue and Gold were picked to finish third behind Lipscomb and FGCU. Lipscomb received six of the ten first-place votes and tallied 95 total points, compared to 86 by FGCU and 83 for ETSU. The Bucs picked up three first-placed nods, while the Eagles earned the other vote.
Lipscomb, the three-time defending tournament champion, was the projected tournament champion after generating five votes.
The Bucs are continuing their preseason practices en route to gearing up for the season-opener on Friday, Aug. 24 when ETSU faces UNC Asheville in the Gamecock Invitational.
For more information on Buccaneer volleyball, visit www.ETSUBucs.com.


text:
Apparently We Are All Confused And Killing Net Neutrality Will Be Just GREAT For Startups
from the Godzilla-was-simply-misunderstood dept
"Everyone assumes that cable companies have all the market power, and so of course a bigger cable company means disaster. But content owners may be the real heavyweights here: It was Netflix that withheld high-quality streaming from Time Warner Cable customers last year, not vice versa. As WIRED recently noted, "Netflix is hardly without leverage" (Time Warner lost over 300,000 subscribers). Similarly, it was ESPN that first proposed to subsidize its mobile viewers' data usage last year."There's some half-truths and falsehoods in that statement used for effect. One, Netflix's Open Connect Content Delivery Network is free for any ISP to join, and will speed up Netflix streaming by hosting Netflix caching servers on the ISP network. Netflix ranks ISPs by streaming performance, and while Netflix does "name and shame" ISPs in the hopes they'll join their CDN, joining is free and it benefits all parties involved.
Time Warner Cable (who chose not to join, like Comcast and Verizon) did try to feebly argue this was a neutrality violation, but Netflix responded by making Super HD streams (previously only available for CDN partners) available for all ISPs. It's also worth noting Time Warner Cable lost 300,000 subscribers because of their retransmission feud with broadcasting giant CBS and the resulting blackout, not because of imaginary Netflix "leverage."
As for ESPN being the one who came up with sponsored data, they're simply wrong; AT&T was the first to propose the idea of charging content companies in order to bypass user bandwidth caps (first pitched as "1-800 data" or "free shipping" a few years back). Verizon liked the idea, and ESPN being ESPN, was the first company with enough cash and cold ambition to think this was a good idea. The biggest problem with AT&T's Sponsored Data is that while ESPN might be able to pay to play, smaller startups and businesses can't -- creating an unlevel playing field where one didn't exist formerly. The editorial somehow forgets to discuss that angle of AT&T's awful idea.
By artificially inflating content company leverage and intentionally under-selling incumbent ISP power, Szoka and Skorup try to pretend that what we're actually seeing at play here isn't an entrenched TV and broadband industry (with a long history of anti-competitive behavior) fighting a disruptive new streaming Internet video industry, it's a healthy "two-sided" market relationship where incumbents are just doing an awesome job innovating:
"ISPs and carriers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon face what economists call a "two-sided market." In this case, they — and other tech firms — can receive revenue from two major sources: content providers (through sponsorship or ads), and consumers (through subscription fees). While TV broadcasters traditionally relied almost entirely on the former, cable programmers like HBO and Showtime rely almost entirely on the latter. But most technology firms use a combination of both ad support and subscription fees. So it makes sense for AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others to do what most media firms (and that includes app creators) do: develop a balanced revenue stream from both the content side and the customer side to ensure profitability while making the service affordable."That's a leap. Consumers pay for bandwidth. Content companies pay for bandwidth. Wireless carriers already profit handsomely on both ends and across the middle. What sponsored data and arbitrary usage caps do is allow the wireless carriers to charge yet another "troll toll" for wireless bandwidth already paid for. They get away with this double dipping because they enjoy regulatory capture and abuse their market position while regulators nap, not because of healthy markets. But in Szoka and Skorup's world, you're asking for trouble if you dare question telecom companies' motives for double dipping:
"...we also need to ensure content providers don't undermine incentives to invest in the capacity they themselves need — or block the business model experimentation that may be needed to drive that capacity."This idea that if you don't let telecom companies experiment with predatory pricing we'll face capacity and investment problems has been a cornerstone of sloppy telco logic for a decade. It's at the heart of the repeatedly debunked exaflood argument, and while Szoka and Skorup do yeoman's work trying to sell it as sound new theory, all they've really done is put some lipstick on a dead horse and given it a swift kick. It's a manufactured and frankly odd defense of predatory incumbent pricing practices that the pair claim will "bring down the cost of services for consumers" (protip: that hasn't happened, doesn't happen, and will not happen).
I'm all for honest debate on competitive markets, but a recent bout of painfully un-nuanced Wired editorials featuring Szoka seem more like Colbert-esque satire than honest discussion. Whether it's pretending that an FCC with a history of apathy, incompetence and deregulatory tendencies is a bigger threat than predatory monopolies or the insistence that incumbent ISPs are faultless for any part of the country's broadband competition problems, you'll notice one common refrain: the nation's giant telecom companies can do no wrong and it's always somebody else that's to blame. If Wired's recent editorial selections really are intended to be satire making fun of the nation's phone and cable companies, then I must say it's excellent, amazing work on Wired's part.


text:
It is not the profusion of wild flowers, the gently swaying grasses or the golden sun on Half Dome that brings most people to Yosemite in summer, at least, not in my experience. As a kid, this is when I first experienced California's favorite national park.
As an adult, I've found/ it is the memory of Yosemite in summer that draws me to her, like the savoring of a first love. For me — and, I suspect, for others, Yosemite meant freedom from school, from work, from the constraints of the city or the monotony of the country. It meant nature and animals and a moon so milky white that it seemed a dream. It meant family and fresh air and the time to pause and reflect on a state that sometimes seemed less than golden.
We love Yosemite and the memories it conjures, but maybe we love it a little too much.
Today, tour buses belch forth legions of passengers, and campsites are full. Sometimes as many as a half a million people tramp through the 1,189-square-mile park at summer's zenith. I've been here many times in the warm months, but it's not always easy to love the crowds that come with it. Maybe I just don't like sharing. As I've chronicled Yosemite in four seasons for The Times in the last year (this is the last installment; the others can be seen at latimes.com/yosemite), I've found that my sense of ownership is greater in other seasons when the park seems more like a one-on-one experience.
Nowadays, you need an escape plan for your escape plan, but it means forsaking Yosemite Valley. A drive up Highway 120, Tioga Road, offers a great change of perspective and gives the valley-weary traveler a chance to explore and hike in the high country.
At 8,600 feet, Tuolumne Meadows is about a two-hour drive from Yosemite Valley. The meadow is filled with beautiful vernal pools, wild flowers and hiking trails that lead to pristine lakes and crystal streams.
Glacier Point, too, offers a break from the crowds. The long, winding road to the point provides several great viewing spots, access to some easy day hikes and, perhaps more important, a vivid perspective. The air is clean and the scenery uncluttered.
Here, away from the crowds and the noise, you are that much closer to heaven.