Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Major Dell shareholder favors recent buyout offers

(AP) ? A major Dell shareholder is urging the slumping personal computer maker's board to scrap a $24.4 billion deal to sell the company to a group including CEO Michael Dell and pursue two competing bids instead.

The request made in in a Tuesday letter from Southeastern Asset Management isn't a surprise. The Memphis, Tenn., investment firm stated its opposition to Dell Inc.'s plan to sell itself to Michael Dell and Silver Lake Partners shortly after the terms were announced two months ago.

This is the first time that Southeastern has communicated with Dell's board since buyout specialist Blackstone Group and billionaire investor Carl Icahn submitted alternative proposals in late March.

Southeastern says both of those bids are better than the current deal. The firm owns an 8.4 percent stake in Dell.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/495d344a0d10421e9baa8ee77029cfbd/Article_2013-04-09-Dell%20Acquisition/id-0b0097f986544eb1862f9b3393cc9a6f

kony 2012 jim irsay the new ipad apple announcement indianapolis colts joseph kony joseph kony

Halle Berry Confirms Pregnancy, Feels "Fantastic"

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/04/halle-berry-confirms-pregnancy-feels-fantastic/

nightline brady quinn brady quinn bloom box obama sweet home chicago accenture match play george washington carver

Gulf of Mexico can 'self-deep-clean'

New details have emerged about "self-cleaning" effects in the Gulf of Mexico witnessed in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Researchers reporting at the American Chemical Society conference revealed details of a cascade of micro-organisms that spring into action to degrade oil.

Research has also outlined how chemical "dispersants" used in clean-up efforts actually frustrate these processes.

However, the long-term effects of the weeks of oil exposure remain unknown.

And concern was expressed about the ultimate resilience of the Gulf.

Terry Hazen of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, has been studying oil-degrading microbes in greater and greater detail since the disaster, even discovering some that had never been seen before.

They can break down the long-chain carbon-based "alkane" molecules present in oil - and in isolated conditions will even move towards oil.

"They're really oil-seeking missiles," he told the meeting.

'Deep cleaning'

In a sense, it is no surprise that the seas should host oil-hungry microbes; natural seeps from the ocean floor have been releasing oil into the world's waters for millions of years.

A 2003 US National Academy of Sciences report put the annual average of this seepage in the Gulf at 140,000 tonnes.

Continue reading the main story

?Start Quote

I think the Gulf of Mexico is cleaner than you would expect, not only from the oil but from everything else that goes into it?

End Quote Terry Hazen University of Tennessee, Knoxville

But Prof Hazen's research has revealed more of the complex web of microbes that feed on oil - and are in turn fed on.

Through recent studies, most recently in Frontiers of Microbiology, he and collaborators have begun to map the genomes of these microbes and determine which genes contribute to oil-degrading properties when oil concentrations rise.

A release like that of Deepwater Horizon contains a rich mix of carbon-containing molecules - alkanes, methane and what are called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), each presenting its own risks to the environment.

The new finding is about methanotrophs, which feed on methane - among the last compounds to be degraded.

Prof Hazen said that the sudden release of methane, rather than slow seeps, created a lucky effect.

"All of a sudden the [methanotroph populations] go up to really high densities and they're fat and happy - and then [the methane is] gone." he told BBC News.

"At that point, they degrade anything else that's there fortuitously, and they'll degrade it down below what would be usable as a carbon and energy source - so it's really sort of a 'deep-cleaning' effect.

"That's why I think the Gulf of Mexico is cleaner than you would expect, not only from the oil but from everything else that goes into it."

'Dramatic traumas'

Back on shore, Gabriel Kasozi, now of the Makerere University of Kampala in Uganda, studied the sediments in coastal areas of Louisiana after the disaster.

"We took samples 3m and 15m from the shores? followed that for about a year and did some modelling. We found that the half-life of the half-lives of the alkanes was about 70 days and PAHs was 100 days," he told the meeting.

"After a year, the concentrations had pretty much reduced to background levels."

What is becoming clearer with time is that the chemical dispersants typically used in clean-up efforts to break masses of oil up into small droplets does more harm than good.

A study in Environmental Pollution in February found that the toxicity of the oil-dispersant mix was 52 times more toxic to bacteria that are important to the ecosystem than either component alone.

But Dongye Zhao from Auburn University in the US said that the dispersants also caused sediments to absorb more of the harmful compounds, lengthening their effects on the environment.

"Preliminary results show us that adding dispersants induces a series of hystereses," he told the meeting.

"That means it's really going to? increase absorption, which is quite counterintuitive."

The group's work presented here also showed that dispersants interfered with other natural processes that degrade oil, including effects from sunlight and ground-level ozone.

Prof Hazen said that while the Gulf was cleaner, faster than was once assumed, the effects of spills are yet to be fully quantified.

"There was a lot of oil out there for 84 days," he told BBC News.

"Fish and bacteria and plankton and everything else were swimming through that oil, and we don't know what long-term effects that'll have.

"I am quite worried about how resilient the Gulf of Mexico is," Prof Hazen said.

"She's had some pretty dramatic traumas, and I'm worried how much the ecosystem can actually tolerate."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22075182#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

glen rice jr bars lindzi cox bachelor finale courtney robertson ben flajnik hunger games premiere

Nantucket Mini Easel from Levenger

Levenger has developed an impressive line of iPad accessories, and they’ve been expanding their line to include some accessories designed specifically for the smaller iPad mini. ?Their new Nantucket Mini Easel Stand for the iPad mini is sized to be just right for the smaller iPad, other small tablets, or even a smart phone. ?It’s [...]

Source: http://the-gadgeteer.com/2013/04/08/nantucket-mini-easel-from-levenger/

kenny powers carl hagelin triple play james neal virginia tech emancipation proclamation april 16

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Violent video games are a risk factor for criminal behavior and aggression, new evidence shows

Mar. 26, 2013 ? People are quick to point the finger or dismiss the effect of violent video games as a factor in criminal behavior. New evidence from Iowa State researchers demonstrates a link between video games and youth violence and delinquency.

Matt DeLisi, a professor of sociology, said the research shows a strong connection even when controlling for a history of violence and psychopathic traits among juvenile offenders.

"When critics say, 'Well, it's probably not video games, it's probably how antisocial they are,' we can address that directly because we controlled for a lot of things that we know matter," DeLisi said. "Even if you account for the child's sex, age, race, the age they were first referred to juvenile court -- which is a very powerful effect -- and a bunch of other media effects, like screen time and exposure. Even with all of that, the video game measure still mattered."

The results were not unexpected, but somewhat surprising for Douglas Gentile, an associate professor of psychology, who has studied the effects of video game violence exposure and minor aggression, like hitting, teasing and name-calling.

"I didn't expect to see much of an effect when we got to serious delinquent and criminal level aggression because youth who commit that level of aggression have a lot of things going wrong for them. They often have a lot of risk factors and very few protective factors in their lives," Gentile said.

The study published in the April issue of Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice examined the level of video game exposure for 227 juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania. The average offender had committed nearly nine serious acts of violence, such as gang fighting, hitting a parent or attacking another person in the prior year.

The results show that both the frequency of play and affinity for violent games were strongly associated with delinquent and violent behavior. Craig Anderson, Distinguished Professor of psychology and director of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State, said violent video game exposure is not the sole cause of violence, but this study shows it is a risk factor.

"Can we say from this study that Adam Lanza, or any of the others, went off and killed people because of media violence? You can't take the stand of the NRA that it's strictly video games and not guns," Anderson said. "You also can't take the stand of the entertainment industry that it has nothing to do with media violence that it's all about guns and not about media violence. They're both wrong and they're both right, both are causal risk factors."

Researchers point out that juvenile offenders have several risk factors that influence their behavior. The next step is to build on this research to determine what combination of factors is the most volatile and if there is a saturation point.

"When studying serious aggression, looking at multiple risk factors matters more than looking at any one," Gentile said. "The cutting edge of research is trying to understand in what combination do the individual risk factors start influencing each other in ways to either enhance or mitigate the odds of aggression?"

What does this mean for parents?

There is a lot of misinformation about video game exposure, Anderson said, that makes it difficult for parents to understand the harmful effects. Although it is one variable that parents can control, he understands that with mixed messages about the risks some parents may feel it's not worth the effort.

"What parent would go through the pain and all the effort it takes to really control their child's media diet, if they don't really think it makes any difference? That is why it is so important to get out the simple and clear message that media violence does matter," Anderson said.

Just because a child plays a violent video game does not mean he or she is going to act violently. Researchers say if there is a take away for parents, it is an awareness of what their children are playing and how that may influence their behavior.

"I think parents need to be truthful and honest about who their children are in terms of their psychiatric functioning," DeLisi said. "If you have a kid who is antisocial, who is a little bit vulnerable to influence, giving them something that allows them to escape into themselves for a long period of time isn't a healthy thing."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Iowa State University.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. M. DeLisi, M. G. Vaughn, D. A. Gentile, C. A. Anderson, J. J. Shook. Violent Video Games, Delinquency, and Youth Violence: New Evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2012; 11 (2): 132 DOI: 10.1177/1541204012460874

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/mind_brain/child_development/~3/i5WEpZcOs2A/130326121605.htm

meryl streep martin scorsese sacha baron cohen best picture nominees 2012 academy awards 2012 albert nobbs a star is born

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Five Easy Pieces of Energy Legislation

After half a decade in which the energy debate in Washington has been dominated by political posturing and produced almost no legislative action, both Democrats and Republicans who work on energy policy say they?re optimistic about prospects for a number of single-issue energy bills in this Congress.

The hope, they say, is that progress on some smaller-scale bills could restore the trust and relationships needed to build momentum for action on bigger bills.

Signs that something may be breaking loose in the energy deadlock come as members of Congress surprised even themselves last week by reaching bipartisan agreement on a stopgap budget bill absent the dramatic brinksmanship that has, until recently, dominated fiscal debate.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the new Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairman, told National Journal Daily?he?s optimistic that, with the bitter politics of the presidential election behind them, lawmakers are now interested in actually passing legislation.

?What?s different now?beyond the fact that elections are a renewal?is that a very significant group of senators are coming up and saying, ?We?ve just got to find a way to move ahead on energy,? ? Wyden said. ?Energy can?t just be an ongoing polarized bickerfest where everyone sits around and throws rotten fruit at each other.?

There?s a growing urgency among lawmakers to take on energy policy, in particular, since energy?where it comes from, how much it costs, how many jobs it generates?is central to the health of the economy. Also growing is the desire to address the fossil-fuel pollution that contributes to global warming.

Congress last passed a major energy law in 2007, but the provisions of that law don?t do much to address today?s most pressing issues, including high oil prices, greenhouse-gas emissions, and surging energy?demand in countries such as China and India.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he?d like to prioritize movement of energy bills in his chamber. And the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has become a surprising oasis of bipartisan cooperation. Wyden and the panel?s top Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have developed what both senators call a warm, productive friendship, and the two are focused on forging bills that could gain enough support to pass the Senate with a 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority.

Wyden and Murkowski have also met in recent weeks with their House counterparts: House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.; his top lieutenant on energy issues, Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky.; and staff from the office of House Energy and Commerce ranking member Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Such a meeting may sound like it should be commonplace on Capitol Hill, but participants said they couldn?t recall the last time they?d been in a serious policy meeting with members of both parties and both chambers.

For the past two years, House Republicans have focused on energy chiefly as a political-messaging issue. Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has spearheaded those efforts. Before the election, that meant moving a nonstop parade of bills focused on aggressively expanding oil drilling while handcuffing the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. The point, at the time, wasn?t to actually pass legislation (none of the bills had any chance of success in the Senate). It was to create talking points aimed at attacking Democrats running for office?particularly President Obama.

But now that the election is over, McCarthy is taking a different tack. His office has taken pains to point out that the first two energy bills that Republicans brought to the floor this year were not typical GOP ?drill, baby, drill? measures; they were renewable energy bills. The intention, McCarthy said, was to send a message that, on this issue, Republicans are prepared to work with Democrats.

?If we lead with something else, like drilling, and were criticized, they wouldn?t listen to the rest of our energy policy,? McCarthy said. ?Let?s first enter the places that we?re more united on. You crawl before you walk and you walk before your run. If you start out and build coalitions and build trust on both sides, we can keep doing the harder bills as we grow.?

Leaders in both parties and both chambers are quick to clarify that they don?t expect to see a major energy bill anytime soon?and that even single-issue energy proposals will meet plenty of obstacles. But they pointed to these five proposals as ideas that have legs.

Energy Efficiency

The House has started a bipartisan caucus aimed at passing energy efficiency legislation?bills that would require buildings that provide the same amount of light and heat with less fuel, for example. The leaders of the caucus have serious political chops: Republican Cory Gardner of Colorado has been designated by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to serve as a point man for the GOP on energy issues. Democrat Peter Welch of Vermont is a staunch liberal with close ties to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. And in the Senate, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio is gaining traction. ?People are tired of gridlock,? Gardner told NJ Daily. ?You?re starting to see that frustration that members don?t have something to go home and show people. These energy bills are opportunities to show our constituents that we not only talk about it, we bring something home to show for it.?

Offshore Drilling

This issue is gaining traction thanks in part to the retirement of Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., former chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Bingaman did not oppose offshore drilling, but he did oppose the idea that coastal states should share a portion of the revenue generated by drilling in federal waters. The new Energy chairman, Wyden of Oregon, isn?t a big fan of offshore drilling, but he doesn?t object to proposals that send more money to coastal states. Murkowski, the panel?s ranking Republican, has introduced a bill with Democrat Mary Landrieu of Louisiana?that would expand offshore drilling, give coastal states a taste of the profit, and require some of the money to go toward development of renewable energy. The multi-pronged bill is drawing a mix of supporters?and is being taken seriously by leadership on both sides of the aisle.

Nuclear Waste Storage

This is another issue that?s gaining traction thanks to the push of local politics. The nation still has no solution for nuclear waste, which today is kept in temporary storage facilities at nuclear power plants across the country?a situation that?s viewed as dangerous and also expensive. The federal government, by law, was to have taken title to the waste in 1998, and every year that it doesn?t, it pays millions of dollars to nuclear power companies. An old proposal to build a federally run nuclear-waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was killed by Obama and will likely remain on ice as long as Nevadan Harry Reid retains seniority in the Senate. Proposals to build an interim ?medium-term? nuclear-waste dump were also stalled until this year, as the most likely site for such a facility is New Mexico. But Bingaman, the New Mexican who chaired Senate Energy and Natural Resources, was not a fan. Now that he?s retired and been replaced by Wyden?whose state has a closed nuclear-power plant that still stores radioactive waste?plans for a ?medium-term? nuclear-waste storage dump are suddenly on the move.

Ethanol Reform

For the first time since Obama won the White House in 2008, the top Republican and top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are working collaboratively on a controversial piece of energy policy: the renewable-fuels standard. There?s growing opposition to the provisions of a 2005 law mandating that oil refiners blend an increasing share of plant-based ethanol into the nation?s gasoline mix. Oil companies complain it raises their costs, and the use of corn to produce ethanol has also contributed to rising food prices in the wake of last year?s drought. Meanwhile, the technology to produce ethanol affordably from nonfood crops still isn?t commercialized. Given those pressures, there?s a growing coalition of strange bedfellows?the oil industry, environmentalists, food manufacturers, and antipoverty groups?pushing for the law to be reformed. To that end, Upton and Waxman are working on a series of white papers aimed at opening up the issue for debate and, they hope, legislative action.

Hydropower

In January, House Republicans brought to the floor a bill to speed construction of small hydropower plants in the Pacific Northwest. The bill, sponsored by Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, was meant as a signal that the GOP was ready to work with Democrats on at least some form of renewable-energy legislation. It worked. Wyden has introduced a companion measure in the Senate. Members of both parties in both chambers are optimistic about its prospects.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/five-easy-pieces-energy-legislation-195106235--politics.html

viktor bout ncaa hockey role models ferdinand porsche gregg williams theraflu masters leaderboard

Gay marriage tickets cost time, money

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The most expensive ticket to "The Book of Mormon" on Broadway: $477. The face value of a great seat for this year's Super Bowl: $1,250. Guaranteed seats to watch the U.S. Supreme Court hear this week's gay marriage cases: about $6,000.

Tickets to the two arguments that begin Tuesday are technically free. But getting them requires lining up days or hours ahead, or paying someone else to. The first people got in line Thursday, bringing the price of saving a seat to around $6,000.

For some, putting a value on the seats is meaningless.

"It's just not possible," said Fred Sainz a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, which began employing two people to stand in line Thursday.

The court will hear arguments Tuesday over California's ban on same-sex marriage. On Wednesday, the court will take up the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage say the cases are so potentially historic that they want to be inside the courtroom to watch, no matter what the cost in time or money.

Part of the reason the seats are so coveted is the court doesn't allow TV broadcasts of its arguments, so coming in person is the only way to see the justices at work. The court has said it will release transcripts of the hearings as well as audio recordings roughly two hours after each case ends, but advocates say that's no substitute for being there.

Seats, meanwhile, are at a premium because there aren't that many. The courtroom seats about 500 people, but seats are reserved for court staff, journalists and guests of the justices and lawyers arguing the case. After those people are seated, there will be about 100 seats Tuesday for lawyers who are members of the Supreme Court bar and at least 60 seats for the general public. An additional 30 seats for the public will rotate every three to five minutes. Tickets for all those seats are handed out on a first come, first served basis.

For the most controversial cases, the line to get those tickets can start to form about a day before. When the court heard three days of arguments on health care last year, the first people arrived three days early.

This time, the line started even earlier. By Monday morning there were more than three dozen people waiting, even as snow was falling. Several in the line said they were being paid, while others included college students and a substitute teacher. People in line said they passed the time talking and reading.

There were games of cards and at one point people watched the television show "The West Wing" on one person's computer. Those waiting said they'd made friends, and they traded watching each other's chairs and sleeping bags to go for bathroom breaks or coffee. On Monday morning, one man came around offering others donuts.

Donna Clarke, 62, of Mountain View, Calif., arrived Sunday night and was 37th in line. The Army veteran who has been with her partner for 27 years had intended to just be part of a planned demonstration outside the court Tuesday, but she decided to join the line when she realized it might be possible to get inside.

"I think there'll be a lot of my friends who will be very jealous," said Clarke, who intends to marry her partner in Massachusetts before they return to California, and said the Supreme Court's decision could be a "transformative moment" for the country.

Most of the people waiting in line are supporters of gay marriage. But opponents, too, said they intend to be at the court to watch.

Ken Klukowski, a lawyer at the Family Research Council and a professor at Liberty University School of Law in Virginia, says these cases are "not just major, not just blockbuster, but historic." Klukowski said he expects to be getting up in the middle of the night to get in the separate line for members of the Supreme Court bar.

"No one knows how early but ridiculously early," Klukowski said.

For those willing to pay to get in, several Washington services will hold a person's place in line. One company charges $36 per hour, another $50, meaning the cost of a 5-day line stander comes in at $6,000. John Winslow, the operations manager of Linestanding.com, which like most other line standing services is also a courier service, said his service would be holding places for 40 to 50 clients, a number of them lawyers. His group held about 35 places in line for the health care arguments last year, he said. Most people, he said, are starting their line stander 24 hours before, so they'll spend $864 to attend.

Linestanding.com's owner, Mark Gross, said for many of his clients, attending is personal.

"Health care was more about public policy and the direction that the country was going politically," Gross said. "But this really affects people in a personal way,"

Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in California, contacted Linestanding.com three weeks before the argument to secure her space. Kendell, a lawyer, said she tried to get into a Supreme Court case that involved gay rights in 1995. By the time she arrived at 3 a.m. on the day of the argument, she said, there were so many people she could only get in a line that allows people to watch three minutes of the argument. This time she isn't taking any chances.

"This is one of those experiences that I want to see firsthand. I want to see the faces of the justices. I want to hear their questions," she said.

She initially planned for her line stander to start at 4 a.m. Tuesday but has since moved the time up twice.

"All I care about is being in that courtroom and I'm pretty much willing to do whatever I have to do," Kendell said.

___

Follow Jessica Gresko at http://twitter.com/jessicagresko

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/high-court-gay-marriage-tickets-cost-time-money-183335516--politics.html

toby mac blue ivy carter photos purple squirrel blade runner close encounters of the third kind beyonce and jay z baby droid 4