text:
Contributing Writer for Wake Up World
While the Food and Drug Administration has seemingly reached the limit for unbelievable behavior, the company's decisions continue to astound and appall consumers and health activists alike. In the agency's latest decision, undoubtedly amazing thousands of individuals yet again, the FDA virtually erased 1 million signatures and comments on the 'Just Label It' campaign calling for the labeling of genetically modified foods.
The 'Just Label It" campaign has gotten more signatures than any campaign in history for the labeling of genetically modified foods. Since October of 2011, the campaign has received over 900,000 signatures, with 55 politicians joining in on the movement. So what's the problem here?
Evidently, the FDA counts the amount of signatures not by how many people signed, but how many different individual letters are brought to it. To the FDA, even tens of thousands of signatures presented on a single petition are counted as – you guessed it – a single comment. This is how, despite over a million supporters being gathered by the petition, the FDA concluded a count of only 394.
"This is an election year and there are more than a million people who say this is important to them. This is petition has nothing to do with whether or genetically modified foods are dangerous. We don't label dangerous foods, we take them off the shelves. This petition is about a the citizens' right to know what they are eating and whether or not these foods represent a novel change." said Andrew Kimbrell an attorney for the Center for Food Safety, one of the partner groups on the Just Label It campaign.
The argument as to whether genetically modified foods are dangerous is a whole discussion on its own, but for the FDA to completely sidestep away from the labeling of GM foods is completely and utterly irresponsible. Consumers have every right to know what they are consuming. Needless to say, biotechology giant Monsanto is against GMO labeling, claiming that it would mislead consumers since GMOs are 'perfectly safe'. Of course there is plenty of evidence proving that GMOs are not completely safe, and how they affect life in the long-term is questionable to say the least. Either way, there is enough controversy surrounding the issue which is cause for alarm for millions of people, and Monsanto's opinion on GMOs safety is a sorry excuse for not labeling foods as GM. Is the FDA avoiding such an issue because so many ties exist between genetically modified makers like Monsanto and the agency?
The bottom line is that you have the right to know what is in your food, and what your food IS. Denying that right, whether it be by the essential deletion of millions of signatures on a petition, or by ignoring the voices of thousands of people on the street, is taking power away from the people.
About the Author
Anthony Gucciardi is an accomplished investigative journalist with a passion for natural health. Anthony's articles have been featured on top alternative news websites such as Infowars, NaturalNews, Rense, and many others. Anthony is the co-founder of Natural Society, a website dedicated to sharing life-saving natural health techniques. Stay in touch with Natural Society via the following sites Facebook – Twitter – Web


text:
Applying to Join Conservancy as a Member Project
Part of Conservancy's activity is through its member projects. These projects become formally part of Conservancy and have a close relationship with our activity. Most of our projects are purely software projects, but we also occasionally accept initiatives designed to advance software freedom, such as Outreachy.
The situation for non-profit homes for FOSS activities has improved greatly since Conservancy was founded in 2006. In the USA, options now exist for 501(c)(3), 501(c)(6) and even for-profit fiscal sponsorship, and there are other options around the globe as well. Prospective member projects should carefully consider what type of structure is right for them.
For our part, Conservancy seeks projects that dedicate themselves to the advancement of software freedom and focus their projects on the rights of users to copy, share, modify and improve their software. Being a FOSS project under an OSI-approved and DFSG-free license is mandatory, but not the only criteria. Given the many options available for fiscal sponsorship, we are selective and often refer projects to other fiscal sponsors that are a better fit. Nevertheless, we encourage projects to that need a non-profit home to apply to many fiscal sponsors.
Conservancy's Evaluation Committee considers applications on a rolling basis. Conservancy generally has dozens of projects in various stages of the application process. We do not move rapidly to accept new projects, as we have found that consideration of joining or forming a non-profit organization for your project is best done with careful consideration over a period of many months rather than rapidly.
Conservancy's application process is somewhat informal. New applicants should write an initial inquiry email to <firstname.lastname@example.com> with a very brief description of their project and a URL to their project's website. We'll send back initial questions, and after those questions are answered, we'll send the full application materials. Applications should be submitted in plain ASCII text via email. Your application will be assigned a ticket number in our ticketing system, and please be sure to include the proper ticket number details in the Subject line of your emails to ensure they are routed to the right place.
Projects are reviewed by Conservancy's Evaluation Committee, which is chartered by Conservancy's Board of Directors.
Project Membership Application FAQs
The following are various questions that we typically get from project leaders that wish to apply to Conservancy.
I sent in my inquiry letter and/or application a long time ago. Why haven't you replied?
Conservancy receives an overwhelming level of interest and we have very few staff positions to meet the interest and demand for Conservancy's services to its member projects. Meanwhile, Conservancy always prioritizes needs of its existing member projects over new inquiries and applications. Therefore, it sometimes can take quite a while to finish the application process and be offered membership, but please note that such delays mean that should your project ultimately become a member project, your project will then be a beneficiary of this policy. Also, generally speaking, we encourage care and consideration when joining a non-profit and we do not believe a rapid membership process is in the interest of projects.
What are the key criteria our project must meet to join?
In order to join, projects need to meet certain criteria. A rough outline of those criteria are as follows:
- The project must be exclusively devoted to the development and documentation of FOSS. The project's goals must be consistent with Conservancy's tax-exempt purposes, and other requirements imposed on Conservancy by the IRS' 501(c)(3) rules. Namely, the goal of the project must to develop and document the software in a not-for-profit way to advance the public good, and must develop the software in public, and strategically advance software freedom for all users.
- The project must be licensed in a way fitting with software freedom principles. Specifically, all software of the project should be licensed under a license that is listed both as as an Open Source license by the Open Source Initiative and as DFSG-Free license. All software documentation for the project should be licensed under a license on the preceding lists, or under Creative Commons' CC-By-SA or CC-By or CC-0.
- The project should have an existing, vibrant, diverse community that develops and documents the software. For example, projects that have been under development for less than a year or only a "proof of concept" implementation are generally not eligible.
While any project meeting the criteria above can apply, meeting these criteria doesn't guarantee acceptance of your project. Conservancy favors projects that are well-established and have some track record of substantial contributions from a community of volunteer developers. Furthermore, Conservancy does give higher priority to projects that have an established userbase and interest, but also tries to accept some smaller projects with strong potential.
Is our project required to accept membership if offered?
Not at all. Many projects apply and subsequently decide not to join a non-profit, or decide to join a different non-profit entity. Don't worry about "wasting our time" if your project's developers aren't completely sure yet if they want to join Conservancy. If membership in Conservancy is currently a legitimate consideration for your project, we encourage you to apply. We'd rather that you apply and turn down an offer for membership than fail to apply and have to wait until the next application round when you're sure.
What benefits does our project get from joining?
We maintain a detailed list of services that Conservancy provides to member projects. If you have detailed questions about any of the benefits, please ask <email@example.com> in your application ticket. We find however that projects will find Conservancy a better fit if you don't view Conservancy as a service provider; we are not a service provider in the sense of your hosting provider or other vendor. Conservancy projects become a part of Conservancy, and as such membership with Conservancy is an equal partnership between you and your project and should be treated as such. If that's not the kind of relationship you want from your fiscal sponsor, then other options are likely a better fit for your project.
Conservancy seems to be called a "fiscal sponsor" to its member projects. Does that mean you give our project money if we join?
It's true that we would love to fund our member projects if it were possible, because we believe they deserve to be funded. However, that's not typically what a fiscal sponsor does. The term "fiscal sponsor" is often used in non-profit settings and has a standard meaning there. But, to those not familiar with non-profit operations, it comes across as a bit of a misnomer.
In this context, a fiscal sponsor is a non-profit organization that, rather than fund a project directly, provides the required infrastructure and facilitates the project's ability to raise its own funds. Conservancy therefore assists your project in raising funds, and allows your project to hold those funds and spend them on activities that simultaneously advance Conservancy's non-profit mission and the FLOSS development and documentation goals of the project.
What will the project leaders have to agree to if our project joins?
Once you're offered membership, Conservancy will send you a draft fiscal sponsorship agreement (FSA). A template of Conservancy's FSA is available in PDF (and in ODT). Please note that the preceding documents are only templates. Please do not try to fill one out and send it to Conservancy. The final FSA between Conservancy and your project needs to be negotiated between us, and as can been seen in the template, the Representation section needs substantial work. If your project is offered membership, Conservancy will work with you adapt the FSA template to suit the needs and specific circumstances of your project. This is painstaking work, and it's better to complete that work after both Conservancy and the project are quite sure that they both want the project to join Conservancy.
If my project joins Conservancy, how will it change?
Substantively, member projects continue to operate in the same way as they did before joining Conservancy. So long as the project remains devoted to software freedom and operates consistently with the Conservancy's tax-exempt status, Conservancy does not intervene in the project's development other than to provide administrative assistance. For example, Conservancy keeps and maintains books and records for the project and assists with the logistics of receiving donations, but does not involve itself with technical or artistic decision making. Projects are asked, however, to keep Conservancy up to date on their activities.
Additionally, when Conservancy discovers or becomes aware of any legal, licensing or PR issues regarding your project, Conservancy will contact the project and ask you to work collectively with Conservancy.
Once our project joins, who holds its assets (money, copyrights, trademarks, etc.)?
Conservancy holds assets on behalf of its member projects and manages and disburses those assets in accordance with the wishes of the project's leadership, as long as those wishes are consistent with non-profit rules, requirements, and Conservancy's mission. Funds received by Conservancy on behalf of a project are kept track of separately for each specific project and the management of those funds is directed by the project. For example, if a donor wanted to contribute $100 to Project Foo, they would formally make the donation to Conservancy and identify Project Foo as the desired project to support. Conservancy would then deposit the check and earmark the funds for use by Project Foo. Project Foo would then tell the Conservancy how that money should be spent. As long as that expense is a legitimate non-profit expense fitting with Conservancy's non-profit mission, Conservancy pays the expense on the Project's behalf.
Similarly, any copyrights, trademarks, domain name or other assets transferred to a project are typically held by Conservancy on behalf of the project. A significant service that Conservancy provides its members is a vehicle through which copyright ownership in the project can be unified. There are several advantages to having a consolidated copyright structure, including that it makes enforcement activity easier and more effective. However, copyright, trademark, and domain name assignment is not a requirement in order to join Conservancy, rather, it is an option for those projects that ask for it.
If our project joins, must it be a member project of Conservancy forever?
All agreements between member projects and Conservancy stipulate clearly that the member project can leave Conservancy with a few months' notice. Federal tax exemption law, though, states that projects must transfer their assets from Conservancy in a way that is consistent with Conservancy's not-for-profit tax status — meaning the assets cannot be transferred to an individual or a for-profit entity. Generally, a project would either find another fiscal sponsor or form their own independent tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit.
We fully expect that some Conservancy projects will ultimately wish to form their own non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations; that's why we design our agreements with projects to allow them to leave to another 501(c)(3) organization. Typically, projects join Conservancy because the project leaders don't want the burdens of running a non-profit themselves. Often, as projects grow, leaders get interested in the non-profit management and organizational side of the activities and are then prepared to take on the additional work themselves.
How are "project leaders" defined with respect to Conservancy?
How leaders are chosen for projects varies greatly from project to project. Our goal is to do our best to embody the "natural" leadership structure that evolved in your project into the formal agreement with Conservancy. As part of the agreement drafting, we work carefully with you to understand your project's governance and write up formally with you the decision-making process you use. Most project contributors find this process of formalizing the leadership structure helps them clarify in their own minds the governance of their project, even though the process can be difficult. Since it can be a complicated process, we suggest that you prepare your project community for this discussion once your project is accepted.
How much does it cost us financially to join Conservancy?
New Conservancy members are required to pay 10% of their revenue that Conservancy processes to Conservancy's general fund, which primarily is used to pay staff. (Details on how Conservancy spends its funds, including salaries of key employees, can be found in Conservancy's annual filings.)
Historically, Conservancy allowed projects to give less or nothing at all to the general fund, but we unfortunately discovered that without this requirement, Conservancy was not able to offer the myriad of services to all its projects, particularly to larger projects that have more income and therefore need more attention from staff. Even now, the 10% we receive from our project does not fully fund our fiscal sponsorship activities; we raise additional funds through support program to subsidize our fiscal sponsorship work.
We do understand that, particularly for small projects that only receive a few small donations, that donating a percentage of your income back to Conservancy can be a high burden. We encourage such small projects to consider Software in the Public Interest, which offers fewer services than Conservancy, but only requires 5% of gross revenue. To our knowledge, SPI is the only fiscal sponsor operating in FOSS that requires less than 10%; most FOSS fiscal sponsors require at least 10%, or they operate on a fee-for-service model whereby projects pay the actual costs of any service they receive (and such charges are usually much higher than 10%). We urge you to very explicitly ask about these issues with any fiscal sponsor you consider.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Monday, November 19, 2012
peanut butter fudge pie cookies
20 comments:
- AnonymousNovember 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM
OMG! This is such a CUTE snack! And simple! I'd love for you to share this at my link party Submarine Sunday. It's open until Friday @ 11:59pm. I hope you'll stop by!ReplyDelete
YAY! YAY! YAY! i love it when people give me OMG comments T'onna! my work is done here. heeheeDelete
- AnonymousNovember 24, 2012 at 11:51 AM
LOL I featured these cool cookies at my Submarine Sunday link party! Come over and grab a feature button!Delete
Submarine Sunday Link Party @ http://navywifeypeters.blogspot.com/2012/11/submarine-sunday-8.html
So cute!! So Yum!! I'm a new follower. Would love if you joined my linky fiesta!ReplyDeleteReplies
YAHOOOOO! thank you for making my day! :>D!!!Delete
What an adorable idea! I wish I could go to the store with you and hear all your ideas for the products there! These are really cute and I'm sorry your family doesn't eat your amazing desserts. You can always send them my way, lol!! Happy Thanksgiving, friend!ReplyDeleteReplies
let's make a shopping date Michelle! they actually eat it the next day so i call them "black friday desserts"! LOL but i would totally send some your way if i could too! heehee you have a blessed thanksgiving with your lovely family too! :>DDelete
Oh, I totally know what you are talking about. I too spend hours, or even days making desserts, only to have many people pass for being too full or on a diet. It used to really hurt my feelings, but now I know it's going to happen and expect it. I personally could skip the turkey, mashed potatoes, etc, and dive straight into the desserts. Your cookies are adorable and are just the right size to serve after such a big meal.ReplyDeleteReplies
it's crazy knowing that isn't it Beth? but we can't help ourselves! LOL my family does eat it eventually, so i was thinking i should just make them for the next day-ha either that or eat them all by myself instead of the mashed potatoes! i've seen your food creations and i honestly don't blame them for not eating them right away only cuz they are just so amazing to look at! have a wonder full thanksgiving!Delete
Love this! What a fab idea!ReplyDeleteReplies
thanks so much OneBlueOnePink! that's one fab comment :)Delete
- AnonymousNovember 21, 2012 at 5:41 PM
These are so cute and sound yummy!ReplyDeleteReplies
they are actually really really good-i never had a walker shortbread til i made these and it made the fudge and cool whip really really gooooood! thank you amrsandamama :>DDelete
thank you Kathy! just linked up :>DReplyDelete
Just make fruit compote instead. Cook the fruit they don't eat for meals in the upcoming week. Perfect. Nothing goes to waste, including non of your time.ReplyDelete
Thanks for participating in our party, Lisa! Love having you around.Replies
well Rose, they do eat it, just not til the next day so it doesn't go to waste and i actually don't mind! but making fruit compote would definitely be different, especially since i have no idea what that is! LOLDelete
Deliciously clever! Right up my alley!! Thanks for sharing at Show & Share, featuring this tomorrow!ReplyDeleteReplies
thank YOU Jennifer thank YOU!!! yippeeee-you are wonderful :)Delete
Your cookies are so adorable. My kiddo would call them fairy cookies. I sure hope your family found room to eat some. I've featured your project in tomorrow's A Crafty Soiree, please come by and see it. The post will be up at midnight EST. Thanks for sharing it with us!ReplyDeleteReplies
oh HOORAY! thank YOU so much Katie!!! the truth is, i ate almost half the cookies myself-LOL isn't that crazy?!?! but they did end up eating my other desserts too. heehee thanks again!!!!Delete


text:
Does France have right plan to revive its economy?
The man charged with reviving France's shrinking economy and attracting businesses to invest here is gaining a reputation for doing the opposite.
As the country's first-ever minister for industrial renewal, Arnaud Montebourg has told the world's largest steelmaker it is not welcome in France; exchanged angry letters with the head of an American tyre company he was supposedly wooing; and scuttled Yahoo's offer to buy the majority of a video-sharing website.
Montebourg, a 50-year-old lawyer from Burgundy, is the public face of President Francois Hollande's plan to revitalize Europe's second-largest economy, which is in recession and grappling with 11 per cent unemployment. The plan is to make the French economy more competitive globally - especially for manufacturers - by making it easier to fire workers, offering a payroll tax credit and investing in small businesses.
Economists have praised the labour reforms as a step in the right direction. But mostly they say France's economic plan is all wrong: It is too complicated; it favours a top-down approach to innovation; and it ignores some of the most serious problems plaguing France's economy, such as high labour costs.
And then there is Montebourg, whose public spats with international companies and efforts to block layoffs are making France look like an unappealing place to do business.
In fairness to Montebourg, he's not so much the problem as he is the symbol of it, analysts say. Even if Hollande were to replace him - and that's looking increasingly likely - it's unclear whether the substance of the industrial renewal strategy would change.
The sheer size of France's economy has cushioned it somewhat from the worst of Europe's debt crisis, which has brought depression-level unemployment to countries like Spain and Greece. It is home to many huge industrial companies, like EADS, parent company to plane-maker Airbus; Total, the world's fifth-largest investor-owned oil company; and Sanofi, the world's fourth-largest pharmaceutical company. France is also a cradle for design, high fashion and fine wine, embodied by world leaders like LVMH and L'Oreal.
But make no mistake, analysts warn: The French economy, which had no growth last year and shrank at an annualized rate of 0.8 per cent in the first three months of this year, is in slow-motion free fall.
Profit margins at French companies are the lowest they have been in 30 years. In the past decade, one in six industrial jobs has been lost. And economists forecast unemployment will rise to 11.6 per cent next year.
Hollande says the decline in French manufacturing - from 16 per cent of gross domestic product in 1999 to 10.7 per cent a decade later - is at the heart of his country's stagnation. Many European economies have seen a similar trend, but France's slide has been more pronounced than most. Reverse the decline, Hollande believes, and you reverse the stagnation.
"The goal of reindustrialisation is a perfectly legitimate goal. The only question to ask for France is ... whether it's too late," says Elie Cohen, an economist at Sciences Po university in Paris. "It's probably too late."
Serge Lelard, who started a plastics company called Microplast in 1984, feels the same way. Montebourg, who buzzes around France touring businesses on a near-weekly basis, recently visited Microplast's factory outside Paris. He held it up as an example of the kind of small manufacturing businesses that France needs to keep and attract.
But Lelard is dismissive of the government's reindustrialisation plan. He says there is too much talk and not enough action that addresses the competitive disadvantages French companies face in the global marketplace.
Microplast, which sells plastic bits that connect the wires in cars, has struggled along with the French auto industry. Lelard is pessimistic about the company's chances of survival.
France's economic challenges are rooted in government policies that protect workers at the expense of their employers. It has the highest payroll taxes in the European Union to fund generous health and retirement benefits. It has the highest tax on capital, which discourages investment. It aggressively fights companies that try to outsource jobs. And it makes firing an employee expensive and difficult.
These problems have existed for decades, but a growing global economy and France's control over its own currency and spending policies masked them. Slowly, however, those masks have been removed.
First, the euro was introduced at the turn of the millennium. Europe's strongest economies, like Germany, gained a competitive advantage: The value of the euro, held down by the weaker nations that used it, made German exports more affordable overseas. By contrast, countries like France suffered because the euro was valued more highly than their own currency, making French exports more expensive for buyers outside the eurozone.
Then the global recession dried up demand for French products at home and around the world. Finally, Europe's debt crisis prompted the government to cut spending and raise some taxes to reduce its budget deficit.
With these crutches pulled away, France's industry was pushed to its breaking point.
But Hollande, a Socialist, came to power last year by promising more of the same: He vowed to spark growth without cutting generous benefits.
There are three main planks to Hollande's reindustrialisation plan: up to a 6 per cent rebate for companies on some payroll taxes, labour reforms that make it easier to fire employees or cut their salaries during hard times, and a public investment bank with 42 billion euros ($55 billion) to invest in small businesses.
But new programs are announced frequently. Millions in grants and other incentives have been promised for everything from spurring the construction of electric cars to bringing robots to factory floors.
"That's exactly what you should not do. They're ... complicating instead of simplifying," says Anders Aslund, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington. Aslund says the government should avoid giving grants for specific industries and instead help all industries - with permanent tax breaks, for example.
Last year, Montebourg unveiled a plan to give several hundred million euros in grants and tax credits to car companies and subcontractors in an effort to encourage the development of electric cars and batteries.
But economists say the French government should not try to invent successful sectors. Never mind that France is an unlikely place to incubate an auto revolution. Its car industry can't compete with global rivals like Volkswagen and Hyundai that have lower labour costs and stronger cultures of innovation. For example, French research institutions lack the strong links to industry that allow entrepreneurs in other countries to quickly convert lab discoveries into products.
The flip side of France's efforts to create booming new industries is its aversion to letting struggling ones die out.
"A saved job is always a victory," Montebourg, who is on the far left of the Socialist party, said at a recent lunch with journalists. He declined to be interviewed for this story.
But that's not how many economists see it. Part of Germany's success is its willingness to let some lower-level manufacturing jobs move to other countries, says Christian Ketels, a researcher at Harvard Business School. That allows German companies to stay competitive and keep high-skilled, higher-paid jobs at home.
"To my knowledge, France is really the only country in Europe that is upset about outsourcing," says Aslund.
One of the most glaring examples of this no-job-left-behind policy has been France's campaign to block steelmaker ArcelorMittal from shuttering the two blast furnaces at its processing plant in Lorraine, eastern France - in spite of the fact that local mines are used up, it's far from ports and its furnaces are out of date.
That plant is "a perfect example of what you should close down," says Aslund.
Instead, Montebourg took up the cause, threatening to nationalize the plant and declaring that the company wasn't welcome in France. It's unclear how much of this rhetoric was in line with government policy - the suggestions of nationalization were quickly struck down by the prime minister - but the affair deeply bruised France's reputation as a serious place for business. In the end, the company will close the furnaces but other steel-processing operations at the plant will continue.
Montebourg also tried to save a Goodyear plant in northern France by asking American tyre manufacturer Titan if it was willing to invest. The answer from Titan's chief executive mocked France's work practices in an embarrassing public letter - and Montebourg took the bait, shooting back an equally chest-thumping missive.
There looks to be little hope of saving the Goodyear plant, but litigation could drag on for months if not years.
Just this month, Montebourg vetoed Yahoo's attempt to take a 75 per cent stake in video-sharing website, Dailymotion. Citing concerns about Yahoo's health as a company, Montebourg said the government, which owns a stake in Dailymotion's owner, France Telecom, would only approve a 50-50 deal. Yahoo walked away.
Business owners say that the government remains more of a hindrance than a help. There are too many regulations and too much paperwork even for mundane tasks.
But the fundamental problem French manufacturers face is simple: Workers get paid too much to make products that cost too little.
The French government argues that its hourly labour costs are not much higher than Germany's - 34.20 euros per hour on average last year versus 30.40 euros per hour, according to Eurostat. But France's range of products - with some notable exceptions, like Chanel handbags or Moet & Chandon champagne - is generally of a lower quality than Germany's.
In other words, if it costs the same to make a Peugeot as it does a BMW, guess which company is going to have more left over to reinvest in innovation? And investing in innovation is how you make a Peugeot more like a BMW.
And it's not even that France pays top dollar to attract the best workers. Its wages are above average, though not spectacularly so. But its payroll taxes are the highest in Europe.
The government's new "competitiveness tax credit," which will eventually give companies up to 6 per cent back on some workers' salaries, is a step toward lessening this burden for a time. Early surveys, however, show few companies are taking advantage of it, according to study by consultancy Lowendalmasai.
How come? The paperwork is too complex.


text: Cat and Mouse Round Clock Cat and Mouse Square Clock Daisy Games cat and mouse clock Cat and mouse clock £28.00 Quantity: at £28.00 each Add To Basket 0 in your basket View Basket Checkout A beautiful art clock lovingly made in Britain and featuring a cat and mouse. These clocks are sure to brighten your walls and are available in a round or square shape. These clocks are made to order and should be with you in approximately 1 week and may be dispatched separately from some other items. Made in the UK Composite wood dial with printed face Metal hands Diameter: 283mm (11 1/8") Depth: 4cm (1 1/2") Quartz movement with integral hanger Requires 1 x AA low power battery (not supplied)


text:
Genomic Researchers Head To New England Schools for National DNA Day
Celebration Encourages Exploration of Genomic Careers
On April 25, the fourth annual National DNA Day, researchers and professionals from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will serve as DNA Day Ambassadors and fan out across the nation, with an emphasis this year on New England, to visit dozens of high school classrooms to talk with students about genomic research and their personal experiences in this revolutionary field of science. Ambassadors will pay visits to their hometown schools around the nation, but many of the ambassadors will be concentrated in New England.
National DNA Day, begun in April 2003, commemorates the successful completion of the Human Genome Project and the anniversary of the discovery of DNAs double helix in 1953. It is an opportunity to connect classroom students to genetics professionals, both to engage and excite the students about genetics and also to inform them of career options in the field.
The large amount of data being generated by genomics research is creating numerous opportunities for a new generation of students trained in everything from molecular biology to computer science to bioethics. National DNA Day allows students to learn from real-life genome researchers how they can join in the effort to use genomics to improve human health" said Vence Bonham, J.D., chief of NHGRIs Education and Community Involvement Branch.
Approximately 45 schools across New England were chosen to host DNA Day Ambassadors in April as part of National DNA Day. Schools range from those in Boston and Providence to those in the northern parts of Vermont and Maine. The backgrounds of ambassadors are equally diverse, from basic science and clinical researchers, to those that study social and behavioral genetics. While the majority of ambassadors will visit New England, others will spread out across the nation, sharing their unique perspectives on genomic research with students. A state-by-state list of NHGRIs DNA Day Ambassadors and their school is available at http://www.genome.gov/18516588.
The American Society of Human Genetics has partnered with NHGRI and will enlist genetic experts in their Genetic Mentorship Network to speak at schools in their own area, often in collaboration with NHGRIs DNA Day Ambassadors. This will provide teachers with researchers located in their area who can be used as a resource throughout the school year.
National DNA Day events are a collaboration of NHGRI, the American Society of Human Genetics, the Genetics Society of America, the Genetic Alliance and the National Society of Genetic Counselors. This year, even more groups have been getting involved, such as researchers from the University of Vermont.
This is a wonderful opportunity for our researchers to engage students in our community and get them excited about pursing careers in genetic and genomic research, said Tim Hunter, Manager, Vermont Cancer Center DNA Analysis Facility and UVM Microarray Facility, University of Vermont.
Teachers and students throughout the nation can also celebrate National DNA Day by tuning in to a new, multimedia webcast presentation called Genomics: Towards a Healthier You featuring Barbara Biesecker, a genetic counselor at NHGRI. The webcast will present information on why genetics is important to health, as well as information on genetic counseling as a career. Bieseckers presentation also will be offered as a video podcast for the first time on the NHGRI website, http://genome.gov/.
NHGRI will host a live, moderated online chat with NHGRI researchers from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern time on April 25. Experts will be on hand to field questions from students on a wide range of topics, including basic science, clinical research, genomic careers and the ethical, legal and social implications of genomic research. For those unable to participate in the live event, a transcript of the chat will be available on the DNA Day Web site.
The webcasts, live online chat, and a variety of free, educational tools on genetics and genomics, are available for teachers and students at www.genome.gov/DNAday.
NHGRI is one of the 27 institutes and centers at the NIH, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Additional information about NHGRI can be found at its Web site, www.genome.gov.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) The Nations Medical Research Agency includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.
- Contact Information
- Geoff Spencer
- Press Contact
- National Institutes of Health (NIH)
- Contact via E-mail
This news content was configured by WebWire editorial staff. Linking is permitted.
News Release Distribution and Press Release Distribution Services Provided by WebWire.


text:
From international conventions to intimate gatherings, there's a facility for you in Savannah.
Savannah is home to a multitude of meeting places, ranging from characteristic historic homes to the 330,000 square-foot Savannah Convention Center.
Plan something a little different and host a meeting on one of Savannah's elegant city squares, or stage a one-of-a-kind themed event in one of our museums or theaters. If versatility is what you're looking for, the Savannah Civic Center delivers with 25,000 square feet of exhibit space and a spacious 2,500-seat auditorium. Of course, our many hotels, inns and restaurants provide a wealth of options for meetings and events of all sizes.


text:
Five-floor Price Hall was completed in 1907 and was originally known as Agricultural Hall, or "Old Aggie."
Price Hall170 Drillfield Drive
Price Hall is an academic building in the Ag Quad. It is home to the Entomology and Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Sciences departments. The Plant Disease Clinic and Nematode Assay Clinic also are in Price Hall.
Harvey Lee Price
Price Hall honors the memory of Harvey Lee Price, who served as dean of agriculture from 1908 to 1945, longer than any other agriculture dean. An alumnus with two degrees, Price became a faculty member in 1900 and headed the horticulture department for six years. Easy going and amiable, he zealously protected the campus apple orchard, oversaw campus landscaping, was treasurer of the Athletic Council, and achieved Fellow status in the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Building History
- Originally Built:
- 1907
- Map Grid:
- Abbreviation / Number:
- Coordinates:
- 37.22574, -80.42408


text:
When scientists observe minute particles like nanoparticles or bacteria in fluid under a microscope, they don't see a motionless image. What they do see are particles making the tiniest irregular twitches not unlike the nervous ups-and-downs of market prices and exchange rates. These two forms of random twitching -- microparticles in fluid and price developments on the financial market -- are not just similar at first sight as a Japanese-Swiss team has now demonstrated. The underlying mechanism is the same too.
Brownian motion, the name given by scientists to the microtwitching of particles in fluid, results from the impact of the universal thermal agitation of the individual molecules in the fluid. The renowned French mathematician Louis Bachelier observed back at the beginning of the 20th century that there were parallels between this random walk behavior and exchange rates. However, it is only now that Didier Sornette, Professor of Entrepreneurial Risks at ETH Zurich together with colleagues from Japan, has been able to demonstrate exact correlations between the two. The scientists have published their work in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Stock exchange meets Einstein's theorem
"Microparticles are surrounded and moved around by the molecules in the fluid. Similarly, the price at which securities or currencies are traded on a financial market should not be examined in isolation either," explains Sornette. It is far more the case that this price is embedded at all times in a larger whole, in the total sum of buying and selling orders of stockbroker's clients. When the number of these orders is far higher than that of the actual transactions, many bids won't lead to any transactions. This is the case, for instance, when an interested party is only willing to pay a relatively low price for a security but no holder is willing to sell for such a low price. Or when someone wants to sell a security for a relatively high price but can't find a buyer.
Exchange rates and bids influence each other -- spurred on by the ongoing efforts of all market players to make a profit by exploiting the differences in the prices. This means that the order book of stockbrokers is in constant motion. "This -- dynamic -- behaviour of all orders is comparable to the physical behaviour and influence of fluids on a Brownian particle, in the sense that the dynamics of the order book influences the observed transaction price in a precise way ," says Sornette.
The scientists checked their theory against available market data. To this end, they used the data of a global brokering company on the dollar-yen exchange rate. They were, for instance, able to demonstrate that the totality of orders for the buying and selling of the two currencies even met one of the most important theorems of statistical physics, the fluctuation-dissipation theorem that was developed by Albert Einstein in 1905, and still is a very active domain of research for its many applications.
Story Source:
Materials provided by ETH Zurich. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
Cite This Page:


text:
Infused with a generous pour of Cabernet from the start and doused with an additional slug of brown sugar-enriched syrup, soaking each nook and cranny with a strong dose of sweet red wine, this cake knows how to party. Perhaps the holidays would have been easier to manage had we all been so thoroughly sloshed.
Studded with large pieces of roasted chestnuts, it's a limited time treat ideal for these winter months. Though the jubilant days of Christmas and New Year's feel like a lifetime ago already, surely there are plenty of other occasions worth celebrating. Even a good old fashioned snow day could be an excellent excuse to batten down the hatches and drown your sorrows not in a stiff drink, but a strong slice of this tender cake. It's perfectly acceptable to disregard the notion of "happy hour" if it's just a snack, midday, mid-morning, or whenever the craving strikes- Right?
Plus, purely by accident, the formula became much leaner than intended by the clumsy omission of any added fat, so you can absolutely pass this off as resolution-friendly diet fare. Happily, the texture doesn't suffer one bit without the oil; I would have never realized my mistake if not for my recipe notes. I guess it's obvious that not all of the wine made it into the cake first.
Tipsy Chestnut Cake
2 Cups All Purpose Flour
3/4 Cup Granulated Sugar
1 Teaspoon Five-Spice Powder
1 Teaspoon Baking Powder
3/4 Teaspoon Baking Soda
1/2 Teaspoon Salt
2 Cups (10 Ounces) Very Coarsely Chopped Roasted Chestnuts
3/4 Cup Dry Red Wine (Such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, or Pinot Noir)
1/2 Cup Unsweetened Applesauce
1 Teaspoon Vanilla Extract
Crimson Wine Syrup:
1/4 Cup Dark Brown Sugar, Firmly Packed
1/3 Cup Dry Red Wine
Pinch Salt
Preheat your oven to 325 degrees and lightly grease and flour an 8 x 4-inch loaf pan.
In a large bowl, whisk together the flour, sugar, five-spice powder, baking powder and soda, and salt. Make sure all of the ingredients are thoroughly combined and distributed throughout before adding in the chopped chestnuts. Toss to coat with the flour to prevent the pieces from sinking to the bottom of you cake while baking, and set aside.
Mix the red wine, applesauce, and vanilla in a separate bowl before introducing those wet goods into the bowl of dry goods. Use a wide spatula to bring the two together, stirring just enough to combine without over-mixing. It's perfectly fine to leave a few lumps remaining.
Transfer the batter to your prepared loaf pan and smooth out the top before sliding it into the center of your oven. Bake for 55 – 60 minutes, until deeply browned on top and a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean.
While the cake is baking, prepare the red wine syrup by simply adding the wine, brown sugar, and salt into a small saucepan set over medium heat. Cook just until the sugar has dissolved if you'd like the wine to retain a bit of its alcoholic bite, or allow it to simmer for 5 – 10 minutes to lessen its boozy punch.
Once the cake is baked but still warm, poke it numerous times with a skewer to allow the syrup to penetrate deep into the crumb, and pour the hot syrup all over. Let cool completely before removing from the pan. Although the cake tastes best the next day after soaking a bit, it's quite delicious to slice and serve as soon as it's cool.
Makes 8 – 10 Servings


text:
Oh God Jennifer Holliday What Are You Doing
[There was a video here]
American Idol crowned its winner last night, blahblahblahwhocare...Did you see the faces Jennifer Holliday was making as she sang her signature song, Dreamgirls' "And I Am Not Telling You I'm Not Going," with eventual first-runner-up Jessica Sanchez? The diva sounded great but looked like she was biting through air sinew. Was she always this facey? A cursory YouTube check suggests yes. Well, Jennifer Holliday, welcome to the era of animated gifs. Enjoy your stay.
(This gif and so many more really amazing ones via Matt Cherette.)


text:
Sprayed Polyurethane Foam Training At Your Door
Building Professionals is able to provide training at your place of business or any location in the world. We have trained hundreds of individuals for contractors, manufacturers and trade associations. To register for a training program, schedule a course at your location or to find out more about customized training solutions, please visit contact us for further information.


text:
One of the most influential men in sports pawing women in a hotel bar in front of a couple enemies with old scores to settle—and much of it surreptitiously captured on video? It sounds like the stuff of an investigation carried out by one of ESPN's harder-charging journalistic franchises. Instead, it's one night in the life of the man who built them.
The video, shot in January 2012 at the bar in the Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif., and recently obtained by Deadspin, shows John Walsh, the 69-year-old godfather of ESPN's news operation, chatting up strangers while looking besotted and confused. As a camera catches Walsh stumblin' and bumblin', Jay Mariotti and Sean Salisbury—then-jobless miscreants who'd both been cast off by ESPN and who by total coincidence just happened to be in the same establishment—provide color commentary in which they reflect on their ruined careers and generally make bitter sport of their old boss. The scene makes for a low-wattage ESPN version of Boulevard of Broken Dreams. The general air of hopelessness is greatly enhanced by a serendipitously sublime soundtrack. As Walsh puts his head in his hands, the song on the stereo is a remixed version of "Time of My Life."
Walsh's conduct doesn't approach the aggressive misogyny that derailed Salisbury's and Mariotti's careers. Patrons on the tape seem more amused or annoyed by Walsh than threatened or offended, even when he starts to get a little handsy. But accounts from sources familiar with the situation—and emails from Salisbury to John Skipper, ESPN president and Disney Media Networks co-chairman—make clear that both of the exiles used Walsh's night out to their advantage. And as a result, Skipper's network, which once upon a time wanted nothing to do with either Salisbury or Mariotti, wound up helping both of them try to get their careers back on track.
On May 22, ESPN held an open house at their Bristol campus for favored media organizations, showing off the future-proof new buildings and digital gizmos that would soon make SportsCenter the shiniest toy in broadcasting. The event could have been a tribute to the career of John Walsh, who as much as anyone is responsible for creating the modern ESPN. Skipper has lauded him as a "partner" and "guide," and called him "the guy who made [ESPN] a serious journalism enterprise." More than that, Skipper credits Walsh—whose fingerprints are all over such worthy projects as Outside the Lines and ESPN The Magazine—as one of the few people in the massive enterprise who can claim personal ownership of any piece of its programming.
"John Walsh reinvented SportsCenter when he first got here," Skipper has said. "So he owns that."
Originally, Walsh tied on with ESPN as an outside consultant with a top-shelf résumé—a year as managing editor of Rolling Stone and a stint at the Washington Post complementing his tenure atop Inside Sports, a magazine that in the early 1980s enjoyed a brief run as a legitimate alternative to Sports Illustrated. That print credibility, and a long memo detailing everything wrong with SportsCenter, convinced ESPN not only to bring him on full-time in 1988, but to put all news programs under his control. He quickly made his mark, urging higher-ups to make SportsCenter into a hybrid of reportage and entertainment—it was his idea to hold off on giving scores until the end of a highlight package—and lobbying for all sorts of smart talent to be brought to the network. If you ever enjoyed watching Peter Gammons or Keith Olbermann, if you ever learned some new piece of information from Chris Mortensen, you owe Walsh a debt of gratitude.
This was good business, too. In the days before ESPN became a broadcast-rights-gobbling behemoth, a strong newsroom and a flagship news program gave people a reason to watch the network, even if the big events were being broadcast elsewhere. That's why former Disney chief executive Michael Eisner has called Walsh's hiring a turning point for ESPN.
Walsh was always protective of what he'd built. Olbermann has said that the beginning of the first end for him at ESPN came when Walsh feared that he and Dan Patrick were becoming bigger than SportsCenter. Legend holds that Walsh threatened to quit in 1993 over the network's hiring of Jim Rome, fearing that the yakker's shtick would—in the words of then-executive vice president of marketing and programming John Lack—"ruin the journalistic integrity" of the operation. And former ESPN honcho Mark Shapiro told Jim Miller and Tom Shales, authors ofThose Guys Have All The Fun: Inside the World of ESPN, that Walsh rejected Shapiro's vision for a Pardon the Interruption-style shoutfest because of his belief that such a vehicle would diminish the credibility of the network's news reporting.
In addition to waging, if not always winning, those battles over the journalistic soul of the network, Walsh has often been the heavy when it comes to disciplining staffers who do anything to tarnish the brand, at times deeming such minor offenses as publicly mocking the town of Bristol to be worthy of suspension. (Olbermann found that out in 1997.) When Bill Simmons wanted to make a Chris Berman joke in his Book of Basketball, Walsh talked him out of it. When Gregg Easterbrook was fired over a bizarre tirade about "Jewish executives [who] worship money above all else," Walsh was there. When PTI co-host Tony Kornheiser was summoned to ESPN headquarters and suspended in 2010 for busting on his ESPN colleague Hannah Storm's outfit, Walsh was in the room—much to the annoyance of his old friend Kornheiser, whom he'd edited at Inside Sports.
Walsh, who is married and has two children, doesn't tolerate boozy behavior from his employees, either. In 2011, a rumor went around Bristol that popular ESPN host Michelle Beadle had gotten tipsy at an ESPYs afterparty and told Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers, "I just wanna get fucked." Beadle, who denied saying that, later told Deadspin that Walsh had sicced another VP on her , Marcia Keegan, to investigate the incident.
In company lore, Walsh emerges as a sort of corporate true north, the man who has long upheld certain starchy notions of propriety, both in ESPN's product and its workplace. People who appreciate his intellectual and ethical rigor talk about his Jesuit background; people who think he instilled a prudishness in the company that he alone enforced, in his behind-closed-doors way, allude darkly to the Vatican. (Despite the rep for probity and rectitude, he is also known among colleagues as an eager collector and purveyor of office scuttlebutt. It was Walsh the gossip and not Walsh the Jesuit, for instance, who once dished to a college journalism class that Deadspin's persistent coverage of a serial plagiarist at ESPN was the result of a love triangle . This was false.)
While Walsh was instrumental in dismantling the ESPN frat house and installing women in key positions, he was also reportedly something of a squish when it came to the company's rampant sexism. Things were bad enough around the time Walsh arrived that at one point SportsCenter anchor Karie Ross stood up in the cafeteria and made a speech about the sexual predation going on around her. That was in 1989. Little changed, at least not immediately. Between that year and 1993, according to Mike Freeman's ESPN: The Uncensored History, the network averaged seven to eight formal complaints a year from a pool of around two dozen women working in production. Walsh told Freeman that the number of complaints is "not unusual for a male-dominated company."
Punishment was doled out unevenly, if it was doled out at all. Rank was a factor, according to Freeman. One notable example: In the early 1990s, Mike Tirico was given a three-month suspension when a female producer went to Walsh to accuse the rising on-air star of harassing her and five other female staffers, with the sexual misdeeds ranging from inappropriate touching and pillow talk to following one producer home and making drunken advances away from the shop. Walsh was told that Tirico had behaved similarly with five other women on staff. Around the same time Tirico was ordered to go on hiatus and cool his heels, Freeman wrote, an unnamed male production assistant was caught sending a note over an in-house messaging system to another male P.A. They were talking about a female production assistant. "She couldn't handle our seventeen-inch dicks," the message read, according to Freeman. Walsh called the sender to his office and fired him.
The double standard in Bristol was plain enough that even outsiders took notice. "ESPN basically has to have one of their talent talk about Hitler," former NBC Sports president Dick Ebersol told Miller and Shales, "or put a picture of their dick on a phone—which is what that Salisbury guy did—before they'll do anything about any of these various crazies, because they don't have to. Nobody can touch them."
That "Salisbury guy" is Sean Salisbury, a former NFL quarterback who parlayed his experience into a gig as an analyst on SportsCenter. By the time he and Jay Mariotti had arrived in Bristol, ESPN was a different company in a lot of ways—more Disneyfied and quicker to act on displays of misogyny, even, on occasion, when high-priced talent was involved.
In Salisbury's case, he was done in by his behavior at a staff party at a bar near headquarters, wherein he asked numerous women if they'd like to see a photo of his "baby"—the dick alluded to by Ebersol—and treating those who didn't turn and run to a selfie featuring his genitalia . In 2008, ESPN declined to renew his contract. (Salisbury sued Deadspin over its reporting of this incident and his dismissal in 2009 from a Dallas radio station. He eventually dropped the case, and later copped to the first incident. "A sophomoric mistake," he called it.)
Mariotti, for his part, was a columnist with the Chicago Sun-Times when ESPN brought him in as a panelist for its shout show, Around the Horn. He bailed on the newspaper in 2008, whereupon former co-worker Roger Ebert wrote a column titled "Jay the Rat" about how little anybody in the newsroom would miss him. (Mariotti and this website have also had a number of differences over the years. ) In 2010, he was arrested after a fight with his girlfriend, which the L.A. Times said began when Mariotti accused her of flirting with a club patron during a night on the town. An ESPN spokesman said a few weeks later, "We have no plans to use him at this time." In 2011, Mariotti was arrested again, this time on suspicion of stalking and assaulting the same woman. He pleaded no contest to a series of reduced charges, but later maintained his innocence in an e-book he wrote called The System: A Manual on Surviving Liars, Loons, Law, Life.
Maybe Ebersol was right—ESPN cares about the misbehavior of its key employees only when it rises above a certain threshold of egregiousness. Or maybe things had changed and the removal of Salisbury and Mariotti suggested that everyone was now playing by the same set of rules. When Walsh stumbled back into their lives in Beverly Hills, the pair immediately put that suggestion to a test.
Both Salisbury and Mariotti had trouble finding work in any medium after their high-profile departures from ESPN, and so the two media veterans jumped when Scott Jeffress—a TV maven with executive producer credits on both The Bachelor and Jersey Shore—approached them with a plan to match them up for a reality show. That idea never did make the jump from the drawing board to the screen, but in January 2012, it was a live enough proposition for the pair to meet with Jeffress in Los Angeles to brainstorm for the show.
On a Monday evening, Salisbury and Mariotti gathered with friends and business associates involved in the project in the restaurant of the Wilshire Hotel—the same swanky digs featured in Pretty Woman and Entourage, right on Rodeo Drive in the heart of Beverly Hills.
Much to their delight and disbelief, in strolled Walsh, the very guy who years before had banished them to sports-media oblivion. According to a source who was in the restaurant at the time and whose account is corroborated by the video, Walsh entered by himself, looking a bit overserved. He began introducing himself as an ESPN bigwig and handing out business cards to folks in the room. At one point, according to multiple sources, Walsh—who is legally blind—came over to the table where Salisbury and Mariotti's entourage sat and introduced himself as if they were strangers.
"These guys worked for him every day for years," said one witness, "and he had no clue who they were."
Salisbury and Mariotti, both of whom can be heard but not seen on video of the encounter, are increasingly put off by what they're watching. "John—can I have your card, you cocksucker?" Salisbury says while watching Walsh hand out business cards to ladies at the bar. "You had my résumé for 12 years!"
Witnesses also said Walsh was giving out more than cards. He gave his hotel-room number to a woman at the ex-ESPNers' table. The woman happened to be Mariotti's date.
Mariotti, in emailed responses to Deadspin's questions about Walsh's night out, said that seeing Walsh amble around the room left him "stunned, amazed, then pissed off."
"I thought of corporate hypocrisy and double standards," he said. (You can read his full response here .)
Mariotti also confirmed that Walsh came to their table and gabbed, yet gave no indication that he recognized either him or Salisbury.
"If Chris Berman, Stuart Scott, and Tony Kornheiser had been at the table, he wouldn't have recognized them," he told me. "If Barack Obama and Vlad Putin had been at the table, he wouldn't have recognized them. People stopped everything and were taping the scene on phones at various tables in the restaurant and adjoining bar. Never seen anything quite like it."
As seen in the video, Walsh strolls around the bar, doffs his hat to women nearby, and gives female patrons apparently unsolicited rubs on the back—and, in one case, a little lower. He looks world-weary as he takes a seat at the bar and continues trying to talk up various women, two of whom start giggling at the old dude hitting on them. His moves aren't smooth. As one of his targets gets up and leaves the bar, Walsh reaches out and gives her a not-so-sneaky pat on the butt. At one point, an uptempo version of the theme from Dirty Dancing plays over the house sound system. Now I've … had … the time of my life. "Sing it for me, Johnny," someone at Salisbury and Mariotti's table says. The hammiest directors in Hollywood would be hard-pressed to script a more pathetic scene.
"I will never get that old," Mariotti says on tape, with disgust.
While Walsh works the bar, Mariotti, ever the good wingman, can be heard telling others at the table how great Salisbury's career would have been if only the ESPN hammer hadn't fallen on him.
"He was their top NFL analyst," Mariotti says. "I told him earlier he'd be at Monday Night Football now, if they were employing him." The implication seems to be that Salisbury would have had a seat in ESPN's biggest booth, rather than a chair at a Beverly Hills lounge, had the white-haired old-timer pawing women at the bar not screwed him over for, well, disrespecting women at a bar.
"Mover and shaker," Salisbury says at one point, describing Walsh, "who'll look you in the face and tell you, 'You can't do that.'" It's his best color commentary of the night.
This went on for two hours, according to one person at the table, over the course of which the tone of the commentary went "from comedic routine to literally both of them"—Salisbury and Mariotti—"going, 'Wow, it's really sad to watch this.'" Still, the gang clearly knew they were witnessing something that could prove valuable. Somebody on the tape jokes that they should go ask Walsh for "the fucking number for human resources at ESPN."
"'Cause that's where you're going to end up tomorrow!" says another, amid lots of giggles.
Walsh's night, according to a person who was in the bar, ended with the ESPN VP retiring to his room without incident. Within a day, sources said, Mariotti—knowing full well who had the means and motivation to protect Walsh's reputation—emailed ESPN's president to let him know what he'd seen. (Mariotti confirmed this account, though he declined to provide Deadspin with copies of any emails to John Skipper regarding Walsh, or to read their contents over the phone.)
Salisbury sent pleading emails of his own to the network president, telling the big boss all about his grand plans to get back to talking about sports and the NFL for a living. (Emphasis added below.)
Dear John,
Hope all is well with you. Just wanted to congratulate you on the new position; could not have happened to a better man. I enjoyed my time working with you and know that ESPN will be well served with you at the helm.
I recently sent a letter to Norby to establish some communication and he was gracious enough to get back to me. It was very nice to hear from him. I will be forever grateful for 12 great years at ESPN and am sorry that a simple mistake became such a hurtful experience. However, I do now feel that we have all learned a great deal.
As you were made aware, Jay Mariotti and I were approached by a strong producer to put together a show that I'm excited about. I'm enjoying that process and am hopeful that this all comes together in the near future. Jay did inform me of his communication with you regarding the unfortunate events we witnessed this past Monday evening. To be honest John, it was disturbing, but even more, it was sad. I actually felt sorry for John. I know you'll handle that tough situation correctly.
This is the greatest time of the year for me as a lover of the NFL. There's nothing quite like the spectacle of the Super Bowl. This year I have been asked to represent a medical group, that helps former players, who have suffered chronic pain and injury due to the poundings we took during our football careers. They've taken good care of me and my goal is to be of assistance to them. I'll be on radio row and at other functions to do my part.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and I hope to hear from you soon. If not, enjoy your time.
Best regards,
Sean Salisbury
Eleven days later, Skipper replied:
I am just back from Indy. What a great game and what a good job the city did in hosting.
I am glad to hear from you and glad things are well and active.
I appreciate your kind words and support. Thanks for all you did for ESPN.
I would be happy to get together for a cup of coffee at some point. Where do you live?
Let's see if we can set something up.
So nice to hear from you. What a great week and yes Indy was a great host. I was honored to be part of espn and loved being part of a great place. I believe I've served my time and deserve to be back at it talking sports and doing it with passion. I live in Dallas and would love an opportunity to meet with you anywhere. I could also use your endorsement as I know so many hold your opinion in high regard. Thanks John.
I do get to Dallas a couple of times a year. If you are in NY let me know. I am happy to help with a phone call to anyone.
Nine days later, Salisbury sent another note to Skipper, this time with a specific request:
Hope this email finds you well. I recently received a phone call from Sam Flood of NBC Sports. We had a good conversation. I think he was trying to gauge where I am right now in life and in my career. At the time he was neck deep in Super Bowl stuff but let me know that after Super Bowl he wanted to further the discussion.
Where I am is ready to get back to work on a national stage and do what I did and did well for 12 years at ESPN; talk sports and the NFL. I've been down this road a few times recently but it seems like the old ESPN stuff comes up and gets in the way. And I think we all know that after four years the punishment has far out reached the crime.
I was hoping that you might be able to reach out to Sam with a phone call or an email and put to rest any trepidation NBC might have as it relates to the past and my work at ESPN. I know you're a busy man but I would appreciate your consideration in this effort.
I appreciate you taking the time to review this. If you could get back to me I would be very grateful.
Best regards,
Sean Salisbury
Skipper later reported back on his conversation with Flood:
I spoke to Sam this afternoon. I told him you had a good 12 year run, that you worked hard and well in the shop and that I believed you to be sincerely contrite for a lapse in judgment. He said he appreciated the call.
Keep me posted on your progress. I wish you well.
Salisbury did eventually catch on at Yahoo Sports Radio late last year; it's unclear if Skipper had any role in his landing the job.
Mariotti seems to have played his cards a little bit better. In February 2013, he told the Sherman Report that ESPN had given him a freelance "storytelling" assignment, inspiring a great deal of perplexed head-scratching in sports-media circles—and, as Sports Illustrated's Richard Deitsch reported at the time, some real anger from women at ESPN. A month later, a 5,000-word opus on Kobe Bryant showed up on ESPN.com.
Eventually, Mariotti, now writing for a website called Sports Talk Florida, dropped a few hints as to how he got that work from ESPN. The biggest hint came this past March, in a column in which he directly linked the Walsh incident to the Kobe Bryant assignment. Comparing and contrasting the treatment he received from ESPN after his domestic-assault charge with the NFL's treatment of Colts owner Jim Irsay after Irsay's substance-abuse-related transgressions, Mariotti didn't use Walsh's name, but he did describe his one-off return to ESPN as an outright transactional exchange:
If the NFL is the monolithic model of all American sports leagues, ESPN represents a similarly large, powerful presence in American sports media. That company has made unfair examples of some employees, including me, who have had legal issues. All I ask is that any company with a stern behavioral policy apply it to all employees, including high-profile executives who write the policy. Two years ago, during a business meeting with a TV producer and another former ESPN sportscaster at a Beverly Hills hotel, I witnessed a prominent ESPN executive stumbling through the lobby bar and generally making an ass of himself as customers howled. He wobbled by our table — he didn't recognize me, a veteran of 2,000-some appearances on his network's air — and he gave his room number to a woman. To make a point, I contacted ESPN president John Skipper and reminded him that double standards should not exist. He thanked me for the 'constructive' criticism, had me write one piece for ESPN.com and paid me. I doubt that the man, vital for decades in the ESPN creative structure, was reprimanded."
Even with Walsh's name omitted, this passage apparently peeved Skipper. Via email, Mariotti told us the ESPN boss warned him that legal action would be taken against him—a libel suit, perhaps.
"I'd e-mailed Skipper the day after this happened—in January 2012—and told him I had no interest in harming the man or publicizing his name," Mariotti told me in an email, "but I also said I can't believe ESPN allows top executives to behave like this in public when the company expects high character from everyone else in the place."
Two years and change later, Mariotti said he's still stunned by what he witnessed from Walsh, whom he described as a "buffoonish top executive," and the subsequent refusal by ESPN brass to deal with the matter. He dubs the whole situation a "corporate farce."
He wrote in an email: "The company had summoned all employees for a conference call in 2010, emphasizing a zero-tolerance, perfection-in-public behavior policy. Yet a top executive, someone involved in writing the policy, doesn't live by that same policy? No one at ESPN would get away with it, with the possible exception of Bill Simmons, who seems to get away with everything because Skipper lets him."
What's more, Mariotti believes now that the work he got from ESPN was a form of hush money. "In retrospect," he wrote, "I think Skipper was playing me so I wouldn't go public with the story."
Skipper did not respond to a request for comment on the Walsh/Beverly Hills matter. Through ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz, I asked Walsh about Mariotti's description of the evening. Walsh responded with a statement:
The entire characterization is inaccurate. It's clear to me that the story is not based on fact but is rather rooted in an individual's malicious agenda. It is extremely disappointing to be put in the position of having to respond to these false claims. While I am accountable to ESPN and many others, I am not accountable to Jay Mariotti for my personal life.
For further context, it is important to make very clear to those who aren't aware that I have a condition where both of my hips are severely inflamed which at times affects my balance. In addition, I have challenged eyesight. I am an albino with limited vision. Dimly lit restaurants always make it extra difficult to recognize even the closest of friends. It is something I have lived with all my life, and again, people who know me well have come to understand the limitations it imposes.
Krulewitz declined to comment on whether Walsh was ever disciplined after the incident was brought to Bristol's attention.
But maybe that doesn't matter. Walsh's contract is up, and he said last summer that he might retire as soon as this year, though no date has yet been set. Right now it looks as if getting Mariotti his byline and Salisbury his job reference will rank among Walsh's final contributions to the network. For a guy thought of as ESPN's most serious journalist, that might be punishment enough.
I spoke with Walsh over the phone on Sunday to set up ground rules for getting responses to my questions about whatever went on in Beverly Hills. He was pleasant, even complimentary. He'd recently learned that I'd written for Grantland, another of his many contributions to the ESPN portfolio. Before we hung up, he paid me another compliment, and I was left with the feeling that if I needed anything—anything at all—Walsh would be happy to help.
Image by Jim Cooke.


text:
FaceTime? Try Rehashed Pea Salad
Imagine that you hate peas. It shouldn't be a difficult exercise, the green balls of mush smell like a towel return outside a sauna devoted to those suffering from gangrene and taste even worse.
As repulsive as peas are, some people apparently like them. Any pea hater will tell you that they are constantly faced with conversion attempts. Attempts to make them realize their pea-hating ways are in error. The pea hater will be eating at someone else's home and admit to loathing the spitball of the vegetable world and become immediately embroiled in a pea conversion tête-à-tête. They'll get the classic "Oh, but you'll love my peas!" As though there is something magical that a particular cook could do to peas to make them palatable. Still, the cook ardently believes that their added dash of salt or pat of butter will make the peas irresistible. The truth is that Wolfgang Puck could pour caramel syrup over the things and serve them on solid gold toothpicks and it wouldn't make peas anymore palatable.
So why does anyone eat peas? Peas seem like the perfect food, they seem like something everyone should like. One imagines peas have nutrients, fiber and other stuff your body needs. But the real draw of peas is that they are easy to make. Crack open a can or a bag of frozen peas and you have an almost instant healthy side dish, right?
With Monday's introduction of the iPhone there was a lot to like but one of the big selling points was just another can of peas. The great stuff about the new iPhone is easy to tick off: better battery life, better camera, HD video recording, a flash for those low light situations, the wrap around antennae and so forth. The thing Apple was pushing the hardest was FaceTime and it's something you've had before and didn't like. Like the peas Apple seems to think you'll finally like it this time, but you won't.
FaceTime is video calling. You are familiar with this concept because people have been fantasizing about it since Alexander Graham Bell said: "Mr. Watson come here. I need you." It seems like a great idea, what if you could talk to someone and actually see them at the same time! Hit the bricks George Jetson, Apple's caught up with you and it is only 2010.
The truth is Apple had already caught George Jetson back in 2003. That's when the company introduced iChat AV. You remember the big deal Apple made about actually being able to see the person you were chatting with, listening to the company you would've imagined that chatting over iSights was the next huge revolution coming to the world of computing.
Then things got a little weird. It turns out people didn't really want to look at each other when they were chatting. Chatting was something you did in the background while you were doing something else. Face to face chatting, while it seems natural when you are out and about, doesn't feel so great when you're parked in front of your Mac. Everyone tried it out and no one stuck with it. You'll note that while you've tried peas, we all have an experimental phase after all, you've likely never ordered peas in a restaurant. That was iChat AV. It seems great conceptually but it is mostly useless in practice.
Saying no one liked it isn't quite right. Apple loved the concept. The company stuck with it and with iChat 3 Apple introduced the visual conference call concept. Four folks could chat away looking at each other's smiling, though badly lit, faces. Expecting conference video calling to go over huge when video chatting is stalled is a lot like expecting a pea hater to love your peas because you've cooked four cans instead of two.
At this point people are going to be complaining that people actually love video chatting. You'll hear about the person who uses iChat to watch his son grow up while he was stationed at the North Pole, or about innovative uses for video chatting on the Mac. Which is great, some people do manage to do interesting stuff with iChat video chatting. On the other hand, my kid stuffed peas up his nose when he was little, but that doesn't mean stuffing peas up your nose is a revolutionary way of pea eating.
Which brings us back to FaceTime. If iChat didn't rule the world, if the phone companies never got video phones off the ground, why does Apple think that FaceTime is a revolution on the iPhone? Before that question is answered, a look at the current trends in telephonic communication is required. The easiest way for most of us to get a reply, a question answered, isn't with a phone call. It is with a text. A text limits the amount of time and effort you have to spend interacting with someone and it makes everything simpler. Humans, being essentially lazy creatures, prefer the 20 seconds it takes to text over a fifteen minute phone call. The concept of a video call is even more troubling. You don't just have to worry about getting involved in an actual conversation, you have to worry about how you look and what you are revealing.
When FaceTime so clearly goes against the trend, why is Apple pushing it? Is Apple certain that people will finally love its peas? Not likely. Apple is pushing FaceTime not because everyone in the world will be using an iPhone 4 on Wi Fi and be able to take advantage of FaceTime. Apple isn't pushing FaceTime because someday the carriers will get onboard and video calling will be the standard way to make a call. Apple is pushing FaceTime because it seems like something you should want, like peas.
FaceTime is a perfect marketing decision. You can imagine yourself using it; you can imagine the situations where you'd actually kill someone to have it, and that is the kind of thing that moves phones out the door. Apple knows you won't really use FaceTime more than once or twice, but the company also knows that promising that you'll like this version of pea salad will draw you in and put a fourth generation iPhone in your pocket. Don't expect FaceTime to be a communication revolution, that method of communication has been tried and proven marginal over and over, and this time will be no different.


text:
From Slate, some speculation that Caster Semenya sandbagged the 800 meter final in order to avoid further gender-related scrutiny.
After the race, track and field aficionados questioned her tactics. The BBC's David Ornstein said it appeared that Semenya "had more left in the tank." His story quoted BBC commentator Kelly Holmes, who won this event in the 2004 Olympics, suggesting that Semenya hadn't made her best effort: "She looked very strong, she didn't look like she went up a gear, she wasn't grimacing at all. I don't know if her head was in it, when she crossed the line she didn't look affected." Meanwhile, Sports Illustrated senior writer Tim Layden tweeted that Semenya "seemed oddly disengaged most of race and not tired at end."
I watched the race and Semenya's finish was odd...she made her move super-late and was moving at a tremendous pace when she crossed the line. Had she worked her way up to the front before the final turn, she may have beaten the field by several lengths.
Update: Here is a more nuanced analysis of Semenya's effort in the 800 meter final.
Perhaps there is nothing to her performance other than that she runs a more even pace than her rivals.
A comparison between her semi-final and this race is interesting in this regard. In that semi, she went through 400m in just over 58 seconds, 600m in about 1:28 and then closed the final 200m in 29.5s, looking like she had something in reserve.
Tonight, she went through 400m in 57.69s, then through 600m in about 1:27.1, and then closed in a touch over 30 seconds. My point is, her performance in the final was slightly faster at every stage than the semi, until she closed slower over the final 200m. To finish SLOWER than she did in the semi implies that she has little reserve and that she is closer to the limit than she looks. She wasn't actually that fast over the final 200m, it's just that everyone else was very slow!
(via @andrewsmit)


text:
Display web pages using IE within Chrome. Use Java, Silverlight, ActiveX, Sharepoint, and more.
IE Tab exactly emulates Internet Explorer, and enables you to test your web pages with different versions of IE (IE7 – IE11)
Please note that IE Tab for Windows does require the use of a separate executable, ietabhelper.exe. You can read more about that in the FAQ below.
A license is required for non-personal use of all versions of IE Tab, and IE Tab Enterprise has more strict license enforcement.
* Create a list of URLs that will automatically open in IE Tab
* Group Policy support for enterprise deployments
* Securely use the old IE rendering engine
* Edit Sharepoint documents instead of opening read-only
* Use Java, Silverlight, and ActiveX in Chrome seamlessly
1. Why do I have to install ietabhelper.exe?
IE Tab uses the Internet Explorer rendering engine. This rendering engine can't be directly accessed from a Chrome extension, so we need a helper process to talk between the Chrome extension and the rendering engine.
2. Did IE Tab always require this extra program?
No. Chrome used to support a technology called NPAPI (the Netscape Plugin API) which allowed extensions to access local computer resources. IE Tab used to use that functionality to access the Internet Explorer rendering engine. But Chrome removed NPAPI support, so we were forced to implement a new solution, and that solution requires a separate helper executable. From a technical standpoint, the only real change is that our code moved from an NPAPI .DLL file to a helper .EXE file.
3. Is the IE Tab Helper application safe?
Absolutely! IE Tab has always used native code, and we have always treated the security of our 2+ million users very seriously. So you can rest assured that this helper executable is secure and trustworthy.
4. I'm an enterprise customer, how do I deploy the IE Tab Helper automatically?
We have enterprise deployment options, please contact us at [email protected] for details.
The Privacy Policy for the IE Tab extension can be found here: http://www.ietab.net/privacy-policy


text:
If you've ever used AirPlay to connect speakers or your AppleTV to your iPhone, you'll know that you've got to be diligent about disconnecting your device afterwards, lest you suddenly start piping sounds or video to somewhere else accidentally.
How bad can it be if you don't remember to do that? Really, really bad. In fact, this is pretty much the worst case scenario we could think of: one Redditor who forgot to disconnect his iPhone from his Apple TV via AirPlay ended up showing his in-laws a homemade pornographic film featuring their daughter.
The post on Reddit reads:
I have an Apple TV 2 and an iPhone. I regularly use AirPlay to display videos from my phone to my living room TV via the Apple TV 2. My wife and I have used my iPhone to record ourselves being… "intimate" (don't bother preaching about the risks involved in having such things on your phone. I'm well aware, and I've taken every measure possible to secure my iPhone).
This is great for me because I travel frequently, and sometimes my wife and I will watch the videos to "get in the mood".
Yesterday afternoon my my wife and I were in the living room, getting a little frisky, so I proposed we throw one of the videos up onto the TV screen. She was into it, so I started to AirPlay a video of our last recorded intimate experience. Unfortunately, we didn't get very far before our doorbell rang. It was her parents. They had arrived at our house a bit early to start their evening of babysitting our daughter for us so we could attend a friend's birthday party at a local restaurant.
So, we went to the party, had a good time (dinner, drinks etc.) and returned home at about 11 p.m.
My in-laws were lounging in the living room, watching Tinker Tailor: Soldier Spy. They said that they only had about 30 minutes remaining until the movie was over, so they said they would let themselves out when it was over. So we said our goodnights and headed up to our room.
Both my wife and I had the same thing on our mind (hint- sex) since earlier that evening, so, after undressing and hopping into bed, I whipped out my… iPhone… and pulled up the video we had started watching earlier.
As we lay there, staring at the screen, I was initially confused as to why the video progress bar was moving, but the screen wasn't displaying the video…
As we were lying there in the bed, and the realization of what was happening hit me, I immediately stopped playback and disabled airplay. I laid there frozen, stunned.
My wife didn't understand what had happened, so she was asking me, "what happened, why'd you turn it off" still in a playful mood. I was deciding whether to tell her what happened, as I tried to recall what point the video was at when it may have been AirPlaying to the living room TV.
I didn't say anything, and I pulled the video back up (double-checking to make sure AirPlay was disabled), and pressed play. When the video resumed, the scene was not full-on pornographic, as it was a point in which we were both moving/adjusting, and the camera was mostly showing the surrounding room. I scrubbed the video back a few seconds (10-20) and was somewhat relieved to see that there's a 75% chance that her parents didn't see anything too graphic.
From what I saw in the section of video that most-likely played through the TV, they may have see my topless wife (their daughter), but no actual "sex".
So, I didn't explain to my wife that her parents had probably seen a few seconds of our home sex tape. I just told her that the video was paused, and still connected to the Apple TV, but that I didn't think it had played before I reverted it to the iPhone.
We didn't go downstairs to confront them. We just let them finish their movie, and let themselves out.
They haven't said anything to either of us about it yet.
Fingers crossed!
Fingers crossed indeed. Remember to disconnect your AirPlay devices, kids!
Source: Reddit