When does ad retargeting make sense for your business ...

Ad retargeting is used to follow users as they move from site to site.

Here?s how targeting advertising works ? but use it sparingly & strategically or it could turn off users

Target audience: Businesses, brands, digital marketers, advertising agencies, SEO specialists, entrepreneurs, educators, journalists, Web publishers.

Let me confess up front: I?ve long been attracted to the idea of useful advertising ? the promise that interruption marketing will fade into its well-deserved irrelevance and that marketers will be able to serve us ads and offers based on products and services we actually want or need.

Trouble is, the practice rarely lives up to the ideal, chiefly because retargeting, as it?s called, is hard to do well.

You know what I?m referring to, right? In your forays around the Web, you?ve no doubt noticed that you?re being served up advertising based on the pages you were visiting earlier. Take The Atlantic?s Alexis Madrigal, who discovered that 105 advertising-related companies tracked his online behavior over a 36-hour period. Lots of people are squeamish about the very idea of targeted ads, and for these folks, filling out this opt-out form should put the kabosh on most of these ads.

I fall into the second camp: I think retargeting has its place, especially for small businesses and entrepreneurs trying to break through the clutter of 2,000 marketing messages that bombard us every day. If you run a small business or startup and have a new product, service, book or online class that readers or followers might find valuable, retargeting has its place in your marketing arsenal, as long as it?s done with discretion and is accompanied by other tactics in getting the word out.

Below I?ll offer tips and best practices for your business if you?re considering targeted advertising.

How ad retargeting works ? is it right for you?

Here?s a look at how retargeting works and how it could be useful for your small business.

At its simplest, retargeting allows businesses to target ads to people who visited their site but didn?t purchase anything. Because the targeting is meant to be precise and the ad message can be customized, advertisers frequently see significant higher click-through-rates and purchases from retargeted ads.

Your business could:

• Bring people back who abandoned the shopping cart process
• Deliver a discount coupon or inform previous visitors of a sale
• Simply remind viewers of your product at a later date when they might be ready to purchase

A number of vendors provide retargeting products: Google, AdRoll, Retargeter, Fetchback, Clicksor and Rocketfuel, to name just a few. Some have slightly different offerings, but they all basically work the same way.

?Targeted ads have driven about 15 percent of our enrollments with a lower CPA than other channels?

Retargeting starts with a bit of tracking code that your vendor provides and that you install on pages of your site. This tracking code drops a cookie into a visitor?s web browser and that cookie tracks what pages are viewed on your site. (If this sounds old school, it is: Browser cookies have been around for 19 years.)

Once your visitors travel to other sites on the Web, they?ll almost certainly encounter advertising slots on some of these pages. This is where you can retarget an ad to them and try to bring them back to your site. Those ad slots will do a quick check to see if there is a retargeting cookie present in the browser, and if there is, it will trigger a split-second real-time auction to determine what ad is served.

You?ll want to establish a budget at the outset and set a limit for your campaign. Generally these campaigns start at a few hundred dollars for a small business and can scale up from there. If your bid is the highest, you win the auction and your ad is served. The targeting companies keep track of ad inventory so you don?t have to figure out where your ad will appear. You generally pay on a cost-per-click basis, the same as you would for Google AdWords ads.

How one small business uses targeting to increase enrollments

Porter Gale, a friend who?s the author of the upcoming book?Your Network Is Your Net Worth?and the former vice president of marketing for Virgin America, wanted to get the word out about her new three-day online class?Building Your Brand (day two is today).

So she agreed to a modest retargeting campaign steered by Rick Silvestrini, general manager of?creativeLIVE, which hosts live online workshops, including Porter?s.?Silvestrini?runs targeted advertising campaigns to drive sign-ups for several of his instructors? classes. ?Targeted ads have driven about 15 percent of our enrollments from paid with a lower CPA (cost per acquisition) than other channels,? he said.

As with Google AdWords ads, the cost per click can vary greatly depending on your bid parameters ? after all, it?s auction pricing. With Google, there?s no minimum spend, and you can wind up spending little or a lot depending on how the ad performs. ?Our clicks cost anywhere from 32 cents to $ 1.50 per click, depending on how well the creative performs,? Silvestrini said. ?I?ll spend $300 to $2,000 per week on retargeting alone. That comes out to $50 to $800 per week per course.? The higher the spend, the more people who sign up for the courses.

A targeted ad that appears as an overlay on a YouTube video.

Facebook wading into relevant advertising in a big way

What about Facebook? With a billion users and about a quarter of the all display ads on the Internet, Facebook offers businesses a huge opportunity for retargeting, and the mechanics are basically the same. However, the advertising units inside Facebook are different sizes (those little text & picture ads on the right of your news feed) and there are not as many vendors to choose from; Perfect Audience and AdRoll seem to be the biggest.

Facebook also has another twist on retargeting called Custom Audiences, where you upload your email list and Facebook targets ads to Facebook members who are on your list.

Other social networks, like LinkedIn and Twitter, have their own techniques for ad targeting.

Tips for small businesses that want to try out targeted ads

Can small businesses do this on their own? That depends on how technically savvy you are and how much time you want to devote to mastering retargeting. The easiest retargeting to do on your own is Facebook Custom Audiences targeted to your email list. (I might have recommended Twitter for its ease of use, but the conversion rate was very low for a campaign I recently did for one of my sites.) For the rest, you?ll at least need to know how to install a bit of tracking code into your pages.

Regardless of who?ll be executing your targeted ad campaign, keep these best practices in mind:

• Have a planned-out strategy, don?t just send out a targeted ad blast. Who are you targeting precisely and what do you want them to do?
• Don?t do a mass carpet bombing. Start out with a short campaign and grow it from there.
• Make sure the service you use has an ad report tool. Try several variations of your ad and optimize your campaign to use the version that received the biggest response.
• Make sure your product or service offers value and is something that people will want.
• Make it personal and relevant ? not like a late-night infomercial.
• Where possible, target friends of connections, which you can do in Facebook.
• Make sure your ad contains a clear call to action.

If this still sounds bit daunting, please reach out to us and we?ll help get you on your way.

Ad targeting, while years old, still has a long way to go. Clearly, some of these companies go too far in collecting users? personal data without their consent (but that?s a column for another day). For another, there was no option to turn off the ads even though I registered for Porter?s workshop. I?m with The Register writer who bemoaned, ?Come on, people: if you?re going to track my online behavior, at least use it to get me to buy something I want!?

What do you think of retargeting? Have you used it? Do you think it has its place?

Related articles

? How to run an effective Facebook campaign for $5 (Socialmedia.biz)

? How To Use The 15 Facebook Ad Targeting Options (Socialfresh)

? Online advertising isn?t creepy enough: Go ahead and terrify me? with a properly targeted ad (The Register)

? How To Block Targeted Ads From Following You Around (Business Insider)

? Doc Searls? book The Intention Economy (Amazon)

? The Uncanny Valley of Internet Advertising (Slate)

? How to Opt Out of Facebook?s Creepy New Targeted Ads (Gizmodo)

? Targeted Ads: Finding a Balance Between Cool and Creepy (IT Business Edge)

? Online Display Advertising: Targeting and Obtrusiveness (Marketing Science, PDF)JD Lasica is founder of Socialmedia.biz. We work with large and mid-size businesses and organizations on social media strategies and optimizing your online presence. Contact JD by email, follow him on Twitter and Google Plus or leave a comment below.

Source: http://socialmedia.biz/2013/03/28/when-does-ad-retargeting-make-sense-for-your-business/

bowling green marysville tornados dr. seuss the temptations rush limbaugh sandra fluke green book

Most Say Illegal Immigrants Should Be Allowed to Stay, But ...

Released: March 28, 2013

A new survey finds that seven-in-ten Americans (71%) say there should be a way for people in the United States illegally to remain in this country if they meet certain requirements, while 27% say they should not be allowed to stay legally. Most who favor providing illegal immigrants with some form of legal status ?43% of the public ? say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship, but 24% of the public says they should only be allowed to apply for legal residency.

Majorities across all demographic and political groups say there should be a way for illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements to stay in the U.S. legally. Among those who favor providing legal status, the balance of opinion is in favor of allowing those here illegally who meet the requirements to apply for citizenship. However, no more than about half in any demographic group supports permitting illegal immigrants to apply for citizenship.

In 2011, there were about 40 million immigrants in the United States. Of that total, 11.1 million, or 28%, were in this country illegally. (For more see ?Recent Trends in Naturalization, 2000-2011? Feb. 4, 2013.)

The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 13-17 among 1,501 adults, finds that overall attitudes about immigrants in the United States are more positive than negative, despite the nation?s struggling economy.

Thinking about immigrants generally, 49% of Americans say they strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents, while 41% say they are a burden because they take jobs, health care and housing. In a June 2010 poll, 39% said immigrants strengthened the country while 50% said they were a burden.

In addition, more Americans think that the growing number of newcomers in the United States strengthens society than believe that they threaten traditional American customs and values. About half (52%) say the growing number of newcomers in the U.S. strengthens society, while 43% say the influx of newcomers threatens traditional American values and customs.

Broad Support for Legal Status for Illegal Immigrants

Support for granting legal status to illegal immigrants is wide ranging. Eight-in-ten non-Hispanic blacks (82%) and Hispanics (80%) say those in the United States illegally should be allowed to stay if they meet certain requirements; about half of blacks (52%) and Hispanics (49%) say illegal immigrants should be able to apply for citizenship.

Two-thirds of non-Hispanic whites (67%) say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally, while 31% say they should not. Four-in-ten whites say people in the United States illegally should have the chance to apply for citizenship if they meet certain requirements.

Among whites with no college degree, 61% favor allowing those in the U.S. illegally to stay legally, while 37% disagree. There is more support among white college graduates for permitting illegal immigrants to stay in the country legally (81% say they should, while just 17% say they should not).

The partisan differences over providing some form of legal status for illegal immigrants are modest: 76% of Democrats, 70% of independents and 64% of Republicans say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States if they meet certain requirements.

Whites in both parties are divided along educational lines over how to deal with illegal immigrants in the United States: Among white Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 92% of college graduates favor allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. legally if they meet certain requirements; support falls to 68% among white Democrats and Democratic leaners who have not completed college. Similarly, there is a 20-point education gap among white Republicans and GOP-leaning independents (75% of college graduates vs. 55% of non-college grads).

Opinions about Immigrants? Impact on the Country

Currently, 49% agree with the statement ?immigrants today strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents.? Somewhat fewer (41%) agree with an opposing statement: ?immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care.?

The balance of opinion on these questions has fluctuated over the years. Two years ago, opinions were evenly divided and in June 2010, more said that immigrants were a burden than a strength for the United States (50% vs. 39%).

Nearly two decades ago, in July 1994, 63% viewed immigrants as a burden, but the percentage expressing this view declined substantially by the end of the 1990s (to 38% in September 2000).

In recent years, there has been little change in opinions about the impact of newcomers from other countries on traditional values. About half (52%) say the growing number of newcomers from to the United States strengthens American society, while 43% say they threaten traditional American customs and values.

Racial, Ethnic, Partisan Differences in Views of Immigrants

While majorities across all groups support legal status for illegal immigrants, there are sharp differences in opinions about the impact of immigrants on the country. Opinions about immigrants have become somewhat more positive among most groups since 2010.

Fully 74% of Hispanics say that immigrants strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents. About half of blacks (52%) also say that immigrants strengthen the country, compared with just 41% of whites.

While most Democrats (58%) say that immigrants strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents, most Republicans (55%) say they are a burden because they take jobs and health care.

College graduates express far more positive opinions about the impact of immigrants than do those with less education. Fully 67% say immigrants strengthen the country, compared with 41% of those with no more than a high school education.

By a wide margin (59% to 33%), more 18-to-29 year-olds say that immigrants strengthen the country than say they are burden. Among those 65 and older, more say immigrants are a burden (49%) than a strength (37%).

Opinions about whether the growing number of newcomers to the United States strengthens society or threatens American values break down along similar lines. Whites are divided (45% vs. 49%). Majorities of Hispanics (67%) and blacks (62%) say the growing number of newcomers strengthens American society.

Majorities of Democrats (61%) and independents (55%) say that the increasing number of newcomers strengthens society; just 34% of Republicans agree.

Religion and Views of Immigrants

Majorities of all major religious groups say there should be a way for immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally and who meet certain requirements to stay in the country.

For the most part, those who favor legal status for illegal immigrants say they should be allowed to apply for citizenship.

Opinions among major religious groups are more divided when it comes to the impact of immigrants on the country.

A majority of white evangelical Protestants (55%) say that immigrants are burden because they take jobs, housing and health care, while about as many (58%) say they threaten traditional American customs and values.

Other religious groups have less negative views of the impact of immigrants. These differences in opinions, however, are largely the result of underlying differences between religious groups in race, political ideology, party identification and other factors; after controlling for these factors, the independent impact of religion is minimal.

Source: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/28/most-say-illegal-immigrants-should-be-allowed-to-stay-but-citizenship-is-more-divisive/

john scott barry sanders barry sanders jimmie johnson juan pablo montoya crash chardon high school shooting mark martin

Justin Bieber Accused of Battery, Involved in "Intense" Altercation

Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/03/justin-bieber-accused-of-battery-involved-in-intense-altercation/

chris polk chicago bulls st louis blues rueben randle mike trout ryan broyles jerel worthy

PFT: Who has most salary cap room remaining?

AP

When owners and teams treat football like a business, media and fans shrug.? When players do, it?s regarded as an affront to the integrity of the game.

It?s not fair, but that?s the way it is.? And Raiders quarterback Carson Palmer needs to brace himself for that reaction as he tries to force his way out of Oakland.

It?s obvious Palmer wants out.? Two years ago, he finagled his exit from Cincinnati by feigning retirement.? The strategy looked to be a failure until Raiders quarterback Jason Campbell broke his collarbone and former Raiders coach Hue Jackson lost his damn mind, giving up a first-round pick and a second-round pick for a quarterback who isn?t the guy he used to be.

Now, Palmer is turning up his nose at $10 million from the Raiders, which sets the stage for the Raiders eventually to cut him ? and for Palmer to play for someone else.

As Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports explains it, Palmer wants to play for a contender, even if it means being a backup.? (Cough . . . Seahawks and Pete Carroll . . . cough.)? Of course, Palmer won?t get $10 million to be a backup, but his willingness to walk away from football in order to get out of Cincinnati proves that he?d be willing to walk away from $10 million in order to get a shot at winning.

Palmer?s posture also reflects a belief that, despite the hiring of G.M. Reggie McKenzie and coach Dennis Allen, Palmer doesn?t see the silver-and-black bus getting turned around in the immediate future.? Otherwise, he?d gladly take $10 million to stay put.

The problem is that the Raiders currently hold all the cards.? With no seven-figure trigger in Palmer?s deal, the $13 million doesn?t become fully guaranteed until Week One, which means the Raiders can cut him much later in the offseason, if they draft a quarterback early ? or if they eventually decide Terrelle Pryor can get the job done.? The only risk the Raiders are taking is that, if Palmer drops a dumbbell on his foot or pops an Achilles tendon in offseason conditioning drills or otherwise suffers a season-ending injury while on the clock, the Raiders will owe Palmer his full salary.

That could set the stage for a Steve McNair-style lockout.? Even without Palmer being barred from the building (which would violate the CBA), Palmer is making his second power play in two years.

When a team does it, we applaud.? Fair or not, Palmer should prepare for the jeers and the boos and the accusations of being a chronic quitter.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/27/plenty-of-teams-have-plenty-of-cap-room/related/

power ball april fools pranks livan hernandez soledad o brien mega ball lottery winner lottery numbers

11 key moments from the argument over the Defense of Marriage Act

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses federal benefits at Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing as they relate to the Defense of Marriage Act.

By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared highly skeptical of the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that blocks federal recognition of gay marriages, according to courtroom observers.

Here are 11 key moments from the arguments, which followed Tuesday's session on California's ban on same-sex marriage. The two cases could reshape the legal status of hundreds of thousands of gay couples.

----

1. Early in the proceedings, Vicki Jackson, a law professor appointed by the court to argue that it does not have the jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of DOMA, makes the heart of her case:

Jackson: "While it is natural to want to reach the merits of such a significant issue, as in Raines v. Byrd, this natural urge must be put aside because, however important the constitutional question, Article III prevents its decision here and requires this Court to await another case, another day, to decide the question."

----

2. Chief Justice John Roberts strongly takes issue with the Obama administration?s decision to continue enforcing DOMA while believing that it is unconstitutional -- and appears to question the courage of the president:

Roberts: "And if he has made a determination that executing the law by enforcing the terms is unconstitutional, I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions and execute not only the statute, but do it consistent with his view of the Constitution, rather than saying, oh, we'll wait till the Supreme Court tells us we have no choice."

----

3. Justice Elena Kagan speaks of $300,000, an apparent reference to the $363,000 that Edith Windsor claims she had to pay in federal taxes on her late wife?s estate because of DOMA. She's addressing the issue of whether Windsor meets the legal standard of injury.

Kagan: "But, Ms. Jackson, I mean, to go back to Justice Kennedy's point, we have injury here in the most classic, most concrete sense. There's $300,000 that's going to come out of the government's treasury if this decision is upheld, and it won't if it isn't. Now, the Government is willing to pay that $300,000, would be happy to pay that $300,000, but whether the Government is happy or sad to pay that $300,000, the government is still paying the $300,000, which in the usual set of circumstances is the classic Article III injury."

----

4. Roberts again takes issue with the administration?s decision to enforce DOMA while opposing it on constitutional grounds. He is addressing Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan, arguing for the administration:

Roberts: "So this is totally unprecedented. You're asking us to do something we have never done before to reach the issue in this case."

Srinivasan: "Let me say two things about that if I might, Your Honor. First is that it's -- it's unusual, but that's not at all surprising, because the -- "

Roberts: "No, it's not just -- it's not unusual. It's totally unprecedented."

----

5. Later, as Roberts and Srinivasan continue to argue about the administration's enforcement of DOMA, Justice Antonin Scalia joins the fray:

Srinivasan: "But -- but my point is simply that when the president makes a determination that a statute is unconstitutional, it can follow that the Department of Justice won't defend it in litigation."

Roberts: "Sometimes you do and sometimes you don't. What is the test for when you think your obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed means you'll follow your view about whether it's constitutional or not or you won't follow your view?"

Srinivasan: "Mr. Chief Justice, I'd hesitate to give you a black-and-white algorithm. There are -- there are several considerations that would factor into it. One of the considerations --"

Scalia: "Excuse me. It's not your view. It's the president's. It's only when the president thinks it's unconstitutional that you can decline to defend it? Or what if the attorney general thinks it's unconstitutional?"

Srinivasan: "No, no. Of course -- "

Scalia: "Or the solicitor general, is that enough?"

Srinivasan: "28 U.S.C. 530(d) presupposes -- Congress presupposes that there are going to be occasions in which a statute is -- is not defended because of a conclusion by the attorney general that it's unconstitutional."

Scalia: "Oh, it can be either the attorney general or the solicitor ceneral?"

Srinivasan: "It could be, but this is a situation in which the president made the determination."

----

6. Paul Clement, defending the law on behalf of House Republicans, returns to the point about the administration?s enforcement of the law, and suggests that the move is undermining Congress:

Clement: "But what I would say is I just -- I would continue to resist the premise, which is that the House's prerogatives aren't at stake here. The House's single most important prerogative, which is to pass legislation and have that legislation, if it's going to be repealed, only be repealed through a process where the House gets to fully participate."

----

7. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cites some of the federal benefits denied to gay couples under DOMA:

Ginsburg: "Mr. Clement, the problem is if we are totally for the states' decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can't get leave; people -- if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?"

Clement: "And I think the answer to that, Justice Ginsburg, would be to say that that is a marriage under state law, and I think this court's cases when it talks about the fundamental right to marriage, I take it to be talking about the state law status of marriage; and the question of what does that mean for purposes of federal law has always been understood to be a different matter."

----

8. Justice Samuel Alito questions the intent of certain benefits provided by the federal government -- challenging the pro-DOMA side:

Alito: "Suppose we look just at the estate tax provision that's at issue in this case, which provides specially favorable treatment to a married couple as opposed to any other individual or economic unit. What was the purpose of that? Was the purpose of that really to foster traditional marriage, or was Congress just looking for a convenient category to capture households that function as a unified economic unit?"

Clement: "Well, I think for these purposes actually, Justice Alito, if you go back to the beginning of the estate tax deduction, what Congress was trying to do was trying to provide uniform treatment of taxpayers across jurisdictions, and if you look at the brief that Senator Hatch and some other senators filed, they discussed this history, because what was happening in 1948 when this provision was initially put into federal law was you had community property states and common law states, and actually there was much more favorable tax treatment if you were in a community law state than a common law state."

----

9. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggests that the federal government should leave questions of marriage to the states. Ginsburg says the benefits at the heart of the argument over DOMA have a wide scope -- with an analogy to a dairy product. And Kagan questions the motives of Congress when it passed DOMA:

Kennedy: "We're helping the states do -- if they do what we want them to, which is -- which is not consistent with the historic commitment of marriage and -- and of questions of -- of the rights of children to the state."

Clement: "With respect, Justice Kennedy, that's not right. No state loses any benefits by recognizing same-sex marriage. Things stay the same. What they don't do is they don't sort of open up an additional class of beneficiaries under their state law for -- that get additional Federal benefits. But things stay the same. And that's why in this sense -- "

Ginsburg: "They're not -- they're not a question of additional benefits. I mean, they touch every aspect of life. Your partner is sick. Social Security. I mean, it's pervasive. It's not as though, well, there's this little Federal sphere and it's only a tax question. It's -- it's -- as Justice Kennedy said, 1,100 statutes, and it affects every area of life. And so he was really diminishing what the state has said is marriage. You're saying, no, state said two kinds of marriage; the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage."

(Laughter.)

Clement: "With respect, Justice Ginsburg, that's not what the federal government is saying. The federal government is saying that within its own realm in federal policies, where we assume that the federal government has the authority to define the terms that appear in their own statute, that in those areas, they are going to have their own definition. And that's -- "

Kagan: "Mr. Clement, for the most part and historically, the only uniformity that the federal government has pursued is that it's uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state. So, this was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing. And it suggests that maybe something -- maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity. So we have a whole series of cases which suggest the following: Which suggest that when Congress targets a group that is not everybody's favorite group in the world, that we look at those cases with some -- even if they're not suspect -- with some rigor to say, do we really think that Congress was doing this for uniformity reasons, or do we think that Congress's judgment was infected by dislike, by fear, by animus, and so forth? I guess the question that this statute raises, this statute that does something that's really never been done before, is whether that sends up a pretty good red flag that that's what was going on."

----

10. Later, Kagan presses Clement directly on the intent of Congress.

Clement: "Up until 1996, it essentially has it both ways: Every state has the traditional definition. Congress knows that's the definition that's embedded in every federal law. So that's fine. We can defer. OK. 1996 -- "

Kagan: "Well, is what happened in 1996 -- and I'm going to quote from the House report here -- is that "Congress decided to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality." Is that what happened in 1996?"

Clement: "Does the House report say that? Of course, the House Report says that. And if that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute. But that has never been your approach, especially under rational basis or even rational basis-plus, if that is what you are suggesting."

----

11. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, also representing the administration, lays out his case against DOMA, and the chief justice poses a hypothetical. Section 3 is a reference to part of the law that says that marriage shall be considered a legal union between one man and one woman:

Verrilli: "The equal protection analysis in this case should focus on two fundamental points: First, what does Section 3 do; and second, to whom does Section 3 do it? What Section 3 does is exclude from an array of federal benefits lawfully married couples. That means that the spouse of a soldier killed in the line of duty cannot receive the dignity and solace of an official notification of next of kin."

Roberts: "Suppose your -- you agree that Congress could go the other way, right? Congress could pass a new law today that says, We will give federal benefits. When we say 'marriage' in federal law, we mean committed same-sex couples as well, and that could apply across the board. Or do you think that they couldn't do that?"

Verrilli: "We think that wouldn't raise an equal protection problem like this statute does, Mr. Chief Justice."

Source: http://feeds.nbcnews.com/c/35002/f/653381/s/2a10b70c/l/0Lusnews0Bnbcnews0N0C0Inews0C20A130C0A30C270C17488910A0E110Ekey0Emoments0Efrom0Ethe0Eargument0Eover0Ethe0Edefense0Eof0Emarriage0Eact0Dlite/story01.htm

frances bean cobain north korea missile launch modesto st louis weather guinea bissau google stock google stock

Prediction of seasonal flu strains improves chances of universal vaccine

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Researchers have determined a way to predict and protect against new strains of the flu virus, in the hope of improving immunity against the disease.

Influenza is a rapidly spreading acute respiratory disease. Worldwide, annual seasonal epidemics of the flu result in 3-5 million cases of severe illness, and up to 500 000 deaths. A newly emerged virus can spread across 74 countries in 2 months.

The study led by the University of Melbourne with Monash University and international colleagues has found how to predict and potentially stop the mutating cells of the influenza virus, which escape our bodies' white blood cells (T cell) immunity.

Senior author, Associate Professor Katherine Kedzierska from the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Melbourne said the finding may lead to a new universal influenza vaccine to better protect against both seasonal and pandemic outbreaks.

This research, published in PNAS today, will also help researchers understand T cell immunity against other viral infections such as HIV, Hepatitis C and tumours.

"The introduction of a new influenza strain into human circulation leads to a rapid global spread of the virus due to minimal antibody immunity," Assoc Prof Kedzierska said.

"White blood cells called T cells are highly efficient in fighting influenza virus infection. Thus, established T cell immunity towards particular viral regions can provide 'universal' immunity against distinct seasonal and pandemic influenza strains.

"However, influenza viruses can mutate their genes to escape efficient T cells. This constitutes a major problem for a design of a universal vaccine.

In the current paper, researchers have unraveled how influenza viruses evade T cell immunity by introducing specific mutations within the viral proteins.

Professor Peter Doherty, a lead author of the study from the University of Melbourne said predicting and designing vaccines to protect against such mutants can promote T cell immunity.

"The studies suggested that an influenza vaccine that targets T cells and recognizes distinct virus strains could provide universal immunity against any future influenza strain," he said.

###

University of Melbourne: http://www.unimelb.edu.au

Thanks to University of Melbourne for this article.

This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.

This press release has been viewed 19 time(s).

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/127268/Prediction_of_seasonal_flu_strains_improves_chances_of_universal_vaccine

ny jets ny jets the situation tim tebow jets katy perry part of me video photoshop cs6 beta cate blanchett

No attention-boosting drugs for healthy kids, doctors urge

Mar. 13, 2013 ? The American Academy of Neurology (AAN), the world's largest professional association of neurologists, is releasing a position paper on how the practice of prescribing drugs to boost cognitive function, or memory and thinking abilities, in healthy children and teens is misguided.

The statement is published in the March 13, 2013, online issue of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

This growing trend, in which teens use "study drugs" before tests and parents request ADHD drugs for kids who don't meet the criteria for the disorder, has made headlines recently in the United States. The Academy has spent the past several years analyzing all of the available research and ethical issues to develop this official position paper.

"Doctors caring for children and teens have a professional obligation to always protect the best interests of the child, to protect vulnerable populations, and prevent the misuse of medication," said author William Graf, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. "The practice of prescribing these drugs, called neuroenhancements, for healthy students is not justifiable."

The statement provides evidence that points to dozens of ethical, legal, social and developmental reasons why prescribing mind-enhancing drugs, such as those for ADHD, for healthy people is viewed differently in children and adolescents than it would be in functional, independent adults with full decision-making capacities. The Academy has a separate position statement that addresses the use of neuroenhancements in adults.

The article notes many reasons against prescribing neuroenhancement including: the child's best interest; the long-term health and safety of neuroenhancements, which has not been studied in children; kids and teens may lack complete decision-making capacities while their cognitive skills, emotional abilities and mature judgments are still developing; maintaining doctor-patient trust; and the risks of over-medication and dependency.

"The physician should talk to the child about the request, as it may reflect other medical, social or psychological motivations such as anxiety, depression or insomnia. There are alternatives to neuroenhancements available, including maintaining good sleep, nutrition, study habits and exercise regimens," said Graf.

The statement had no industry sponsors.

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 American Academy of Neurology (AAN).

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

---

Journal Reference:

1. William D. Graf, Saskia K. Nagel, Leon G. Epstein, Geoffrey Miller, Ruth Nass, and Dan Larriviere. Pediatric neuroenhancement Ethical, legal, social, and neurodevelopmental implications. Neurology, 2013 DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318289703b

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/living_well/~3/lct30rq7sYE/130313182022.htm

david bowie elvis presley elvis presley Pretty Little Liars Rob Parker Comcast Pokemon X and Y

Store donated blood for more than 3 weeks? Say NO (nitric oxide)

Mar. 10, 2013 ? Transfusion of donated blood more than three weeks old results in impaired blood vessel function, a new study of hospital patients shows.

Blood banks now consider six weeks to be the maximum permitted storage time of blood for use in transfusion, but recent studies have suggested transfusing blood stored for more than a few weeks has adverse effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery or critical care.

The new finding suggests a mechanism explaining why older blood might be detrimental to patient health: a deficiency in nitric oxide, a short-lived chemical messenger that relaxes blood vessels.

The results are being presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting in San Francisco. The presenter is cardiovascular research fellow Robert Neuman, MD. Senior authors include Arshed Quyyumi, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Emory Clinical Cardiovascular Research Institute, and John Roback, MD, PhD, associate professor of pathology and laboratory medicine and medical director of the Emory University Hospital blood bank.

In the current study, 43 patients at Emory University Hospital were set to receive cross-matched red blood cells for clinical indications. Members of the group were in hospital for various reasons, such as cancer treatment and surgery. They were randomly chosen to receive either fresh (less than ten days old) or aged (more than three weeks old) red blood cells. On average, they received the equivalent of two units. A unit is 450 milliliters of blood.

Neuman and his colleagues tested blood vessel function by measuring flow-mediated dilation (FMD). By ultrasound, they tested how much a blood vessel in the arm opens up after a blood pressure cuff is first tightened then removed. Flow-mediated dilation is an indicator of the health of the endothelial lining of the blood vessels and is a process that is dependent on nitric oxide.

Healthy, younger individuals can have flow-mediated dilation of up to 10 percent -- the average for the hospitalized group was 5 percent. Patients receiving aged blood saw their FMD halved to 2.4 percent 24 hours after the transfusion, while patients receiving fresh blood saw no significant change in FMD.

This effect of older blood on blood vessel function is similar in size to that of eating a fatty meal (temporary), or the longterm effects of a cardiovascular disease risk factor such as smoking or diabetes.

Healthy flow-mediated dilation reflects sufficient production of nitric oxide, which is generated by the blood vessels' endothelial lining and causes them to relax. Nitric oxide is also important for delivery of oxygen by hemoglobin. Red blood cells carry nitric oxide bound to hemoglobin, and play a critical role in recycling the nitric oxide. Over time in storage, the nitric oxide is lost. Transfused red blood cells last a couple months in the patient. The Emory team did not measure FMD beyond 24 hours.

The so-called "red blood cell storage lesion" consists of several changes including oxidation, disruption of cellular structures, and loss of other chemicals such as the energy currency ATP and the hemoglobin regulator 2,3-diphosphoglycerate. A recent study has also shown that red blood cells stored for more than three weeks lose physical flexibility.

Thus, loss of nitric oxide is probably not the only important change, but it may be significant in terms of effects on cardiovascular health, the authors argue.

"Aside from the direct infusion of nitric oxide-deficient blood, we may be also seeing an indirect effect from other aspects of storage that impact nitric oxide availability and endothelial function such as increased inflammation triggered by aged blood," Neuman says.

A 2008 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that cardiac surgery patients receiving older blood had a higher risk of dying in the hospital, and were more likely to need ventilation support or have sepsis or kidney failure. Two large-scale clinical trials (links below) are addressing the issue of the maximum time blood should be stored.

Although blood banks tend to use a "first-in, first-out" policy, limiting storage time could reduce the blood supply. One possibility could be to reserve fresh blood for those patients at most risk of cardiovascular problems, Neuman says.

Another way that nitric oxide deficiency could be remedied is with an additive such as nitrite, which the body uses as a storage reservoir for nitric oxide, or some other preservative. Red blood cells are now stored in a solution with glucose, anticoagulant and acidity buffering properties.

"There is a lot of information that blood that has been stored for a while can cause problems for patients," Neuman says. "This starts to answer the question: what is causing the problem?"

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 Emory Health Sciences, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

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

---

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/~3/Efp2V2XujIk/130310164225.htm

brandon knight brandon knight Daylight Savings Time 2013 Paul Bearer Valerie Harper Kwame Kilpatrick Anquan Boldin

Baylor still No. 1 in AP women's basketball poll

Baylor guard Kimetria Hayden (1) and center Brittney Griner (42) defend against a drive by Oklahoma State forward Liz Donohoe (4) in the second half of an NCAA college basketball game in the Big 12 women's tournament Sunday, March 10, 2013, in Dallas. Donohoe had 20-points in the 77-69 loss to Baylor. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Baylor guard Kimetria Hayden (1) and center Brittney Griner (42) defend against a drive by Oklahoma State forward Liz Donohoe (4) in the second half of an NCAA college basketball game in the Big 12 women's tournament Sunday, March 10, 2013, in Dallas. Donohoe had 20-points in the 77-69 loss to Baylor. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Baylor center Brittney Griner (42) goes up for a shot over Oklahoma State's Tiffany Bias (3) and Kendra Suttles (31) in the second half of an NCAA college basketball game in the Big 12 women's tournament Sunday, March 10, 2013, in Dallas. Griner had a game-high 30-points in the 77-69 Baylor win. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Oklahoma State forward Toni Young, center, dives to grab a loose ball against Baylor' Jordan Madden, right, as Baylor's Brittney Griner, top, left, Alexis Prince (12) and Oklahoma State's Kendra Suttles (31) watch in the second half of an NCAA college basketball game in the Big 12 Conference women's tournament Sunday, March 10, 2013, in Dallas. Baylor won 77-69. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Baylor guard Jordan Madden, bottom left, looks toward an official waiting for a call as Oklahoma State forward Toni Young (15) scrambles on the floor for a turnover by Baylor in the second half of an NCAA college basketball game in the Big 12 women's tournament Sunday, March 10, 2013, in Dallas. Baylor's Brittney Griner, top left, and Alexis Prince, top right, watch in the 77-69 Baylor win. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Baylor head coach Kim Mulkey and the bench celebrate a score by Baylor's Brooklyn Pope (32) in the second half of an NCAA college basketball game against Oklahoma State in the Big 12 women's tournament Sunday, March 10, 2013, in Dallas. Baylor won 77-69. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez)

Baylor remains No. 1 in The Associated Press women's basketball poll for a 10th consecutive week.

The Lady Bears received all 40 first-place votes for the third straight week and have won 48 straight Big 12 regular-season and tournament games. They play No. 23 Iowa State for the conference title Monday night.

The top four stayed the same, with Notre Dame, Connecticut and Stanford following Baylor. The Irish and Huskies advanced to Monday night's Big East tournament semifinals. Stanford clinched the Pac-12 tournament Sunday night and won't play again until NCAA tournament.

Duke, California, Penn State, Texas A&M and Tennessee round out the first 10. The Aggies made the biggest leap moving up 10 spots after winning the SEC tournament.

Purdue rejoined the poll at No. 21 after taking the Big Ten tournament. Toledo and LSU fell out.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/347875155d53465d95cec892aeb06419/Article_2013-03-11-T25-Women's%20Bkb%20Poll/id-b6f5226569e545a6898121752448f77f

prometheus trailer patrice oneal shamrock slainte the quiet man yellow cab dropkick murphys

Pad & Quill introduce the Aria for iPad mini

Pad & Quill are known for their beautifully crafted cases that lend a hand-bound book appearance to your tablets. ?They have turned their attention to the iPad mini with their new Aria case. ?The case is handmade with bookbinding techniques from full-grain American leather. ?The leather cover features an embossed design on the front and [...]

Source: http://the-gadgeteer.com/2013/03/11/pad-quill-introduce-the-aria-for-ipad-mini/

hilary duff michigan state michigan state andrew luck pro day josh johnson kim kardashian flour matt forte

PFT: Hasselbeck ready for pay cut or release

AP

Add Titans backup quarterback Matt Hasselbeck to the pay-cut-or-be-cut club, and at least the veteran passer understands exactly what?s going on.

Hasselbeck said his agent and the Titans are still talking about what his contract will look like, understanding it might not necessarily be the $5.5 million on base salary he stands to collect now. If they can?t agree, he figures he?ll have to look elsewhere.

?Well, yeah, if we can?t come to an agreement, I guess that?s what they?d have to do. That?s just how it goes,? Hasselbeck told John Glennon of the Tennesseean. ?Right now I?m working out hard, getting prepared and ready, trying to have the best year I can. Again, I?m really hopeful that it?s here, but I understand that some things are more out of your control.?

Unlike when he walked in the door two years ago, he?s entrenched as the backup behind Jake Locker, and the Titans are leaning toward the compensation matching that status.

?I believe in what we?re doing. I believe in [general manager] Ruston Webster and [coach] Mike Munchak. I believe in my teammates like Jake,? Hasselbeck said. ?But , . . . anything can happen. Surprises come. We?ll see. I don?t know. Some of it is out of my hands, and some of it is in my hands.

?I?m really wanting to be part of something special, part of something good, something I can be proud of and things like that will far outweigh salary or whatever. My feelings for wanting to stay haven?t changed. My feelings for how easy it?s been for us to plug into this community in Nashville haven?t changed.?

While he?s not going to play for free, Hasselbeck?s approach to this makes it more likely a deal gets worked out that keeps him making a living wage, while the team re-adjusts the books to reflect his status on the depth chart.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/08/matt-hasselbeck-understands-its-pay-cut-or-be-cut/related/

double eagle bubba masters winner instagram facebook mike wallace mike wallace chicago cubs

New fungal infections, 6 months after outbreak

AP

Nearly six months after injectable steroids made by the New England Compounding Center were implicated in an outbreak of fungal meningitis and other infections, more people are turning up ill, including those who previously tested clear of infection.

By JoNel Aleccia, Senior Writer, NBC News

Nearly six months after the start of a deadly fungal meningitis outbreak blamed on tainted pain shots, patients who originally tested clear are showing up sick, raising worries that the incubation period for illness may be longer than anyone thought.

Though the flood of patients has slowed dramatically, two or three people each week are still reporting infections caused by contaminated steroids in the outbreak that has killed 48 and sickened more than 700, officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.

Among those new patients are people who received mold-tainted doses of the drug methylprednisolone, but who previously got MRIs or lumbar punctures that showed they were free of infection. These slow-growing infections aren't as severe as meningitis, but worrying nonetheless.

?If you had an MRI in October, I don?t know that you?re out of the woods,? said Dr. Anurag Malani, an infectious disease expert at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital in Ann Arbor, Mich., the state that has seen the most cases -- 253 -- in the outbreak.

CDC officials issued a health alert this week urging clinicians to remain vigilant for new infections, even in people who show subtle symptoms -- or none at all.

?We are seeing some patients with very long incubation periods,? said Dr. Tom Chiller, associate director for epidemiological science in the CDC?s division of foodborne, waterborne and environmental diseases. ?We expect to see people getting infections months after their injections.?

Nearly 14,000 people in 23 states were exposed to the contaminated drugs produced by the now-shuttered New England Compounding Center of Framingham, Mass. An estimated 11,000 actually received shots for back or neck pain, the CDC says. So far, 720 people in 20 states have fallen ill.

Most of the seriously ill people ? those with fungal meningitis infections that caused strokes, for instance ? showed up within several weeks or one to two months starting in late September.

Back then, CDC officials told worried patients that the greatest risk for meningitis was likely in the first 42 days -- six weeks -- after the shots, suggesting that they could breathe easy after the first week in November.

But patients have continued to?become ill, most often not with meningitis, but with infections at the injection site, with epidural abscesses or with a condition called arachnoiditis, an inflammation of the nerves near the spine.

Though doctors have little experience with such fungal infections, the incubation period appears to be stretching longer than a previous outbreak in 2002, when a patient became ill 152 days ? five months ? after getting a steroid shot.

?I don?t think at this time we know how long the incubation period is,? Malani said.

That?s worrisome for people like John Horrell, 54, of Nashville, Tenn., who received a steroid shot for back pain from one of three tainted lots in September. He says he?s feeling ?remarkably well? these days, with no signs of infection. Health officials told him the biggest worry was after 90 days or so, but now he?s not so sure.

?There?s people still having problems,? said Horrell, who owns a sound system firm. ?We just keep our fingers crossed. I try not to worry about it.?

CDC officials want health workers to continue to monitor patients who got shots, particularly those whose have pain that is worse or different from the initial symptoms. But even patients who previously tested negative for infections and those with no apparent symptoms are at risk.

?These infections may be unrecognized because some patients have not continued to receive close clinical follow-up or because they have not recognized symptoms suggestive of a localized infection,? the new alert says.

CDC recommends that health workers have a low threshold for considering MRIs, or magnetic resonance imaging, to detect unseen infections.

Even patients who initially resisted MRIs because they didn?t want them or didn?t think they needed them have turned up with infections, said Malani.

The danger of not detecting the infections is that they only will get worse, Chiller said.

?Any untreated infection can sit there and smolder and spread,? he said, noting it can move beyond soft tissue to bone and the central nervous system, with devastating, even deadly, effects.

That, however, raises the next question in the ongoing meningitis puzzle: How long should infected patients be treated? Some patients say they?ve been told three months, then nine months -- then a year.

The primary drugs used to treat the fungus -- voriconazole and amphotericin B -- are both expensive and toxic, with a host of side effects ranging from hair loss and hallucinations to liver problems.?

Margaret Snopkowski, 51, of Fowlerville, Mich., has been on the drugs since early October, when she developed?meningitis -- and later, arachnoiditis -- after getting a contaminated shot.

She's back home, but life is hardly back to normal, especially with the high doses of antifungal drugs necessary to keep her infection in check.

?She walks around like a zombie,? said her husband, Tom Snopkowski. ?It just knocks her on her butt.?

Family members had hoped she?d be better by now, or at least looking to wean herself from the drugs. But that?s not happening, her husband said. Another MRI is scheduled for next week to see whether the infection has gotten worse.

?Now, they don?t even have an end date for that treatment," he added.

Related:?

Pharmacy tied to fungal outbreak files for bankruptcy

Fungal meningitis risk greatest first six weeks after shots, CDC says

Fungal meningitis victim hopes Congress hears: 'It's torturous'

Source: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/07/17213640-six-months-after-scandal-patients-still-developing-fungal-meningitis?lite

tony stewart kurt busch kurt busch nba dunk contest 2012 act of valor woody guthrie benson henderson

Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App (PAID)

Tour Tracker 2013

Robert Virzera

[list][*]App Genre: Reference

[*]App Price: $0.99

[*]Released on: March 6, 2013

Tour Tracker 2013 is designed to help touring technicians track where their friends tours are. Tour Tracker currently follows almost all "Yellow Card Attractions". Features:-See tours near you by a variable distance-See where all tours are in a List View-See where all tours are by a Map View-See Tours Year ScheduleFollowed Yellow Card Attractions-Alvin Ailey-American Idiot-Anything Goes-Beauty and the Beast-Billy Elliot-Blue Man Group-Can't Stop Singing-Catch Me If You Can-Disney Live Mickey's Music Festival-Disney On Ice 100 Years of Magic-Disney On Ice Dare To Dream-Disney On Ice Rocking Ever After-Disney On Ice Treasure Trove-Disney On Ice World Of Fantasy-Disney's Phineas and Ferb-Dream Girls-Elmo Makes Music-Elmo's Super Heroes-Flashdance-Hair-Hubbard Street Dance-Jekyll & Hyde-Jersey Boys-Jersey Boys Second National-Les Miserables-Lion King-Mary Poppins-Memphis-Million Dollar Quartet-Peter Pan-Priscilla Queen Of The Desert-Rock Of Ages-Shrek-Sister Act-The Book of Mormon-War Horse-West Side Story-Wicked-Wicked Munchkinland

? © Robert Virzera

AppStore link to Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App

Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App is now available.

How to download Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App?

You can download Tour Tracker 2013 - Reference iPhone App onto your iPhone by following the link below.

Link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tour...9553?mt=8&uo=2

Source: http://forum.iphoneworld.ca/iphone-appstore/tour-tracker-2013-reference-iphone-app-paid-284619.html

google privacy changes windows 8 preview leap year moratorium dwts season 14 cast leap day michigan primary results

Microsoft to Allow Office 2013 License Transfers to New PCs

Microsoft has reversed course and will allow Office 2013 users to transfer their licenses to another PC in the event that their computer dies or they buy a new machine.

Initially, Microsoft said that an Office 2013 license would only be transferable if the PC on which it was installed died while under warranty. Complaints from customers, however, prompted Redmond to change that policy.

The change is effective immediately and applies to Office Home and Student 2013, Office Home and Business 2013, Office Professional 2013, and the standalone Office 2013 applications.

Customers, however, can only transfer their Office 2013 license once every 90 days (except in the event of hardware failure).

"At Microsoft, we strive to make Office the very best product to help busy people and families get things done," Jevon Fark with the Microsoft Office team wrote in a blog post. "A key ingredient in our formula for success is listening to our customers, and we're grateful for the feedback behind this change in Office licensing."

As ZDNet pointed out, Microsoft tried to limit transfers with Windows Vista back in 2006, but complaints prompted it to drop the idea.

The subscription-based Office 365, meanwhile, is accessible on up to five devices. For more, see 10 Things You Need to Know About Office 365, as well as PCMag's full review of Microsoft Office 365 Home Premium.

Source: http://feeds.ziffdavis.com/~r/ziffdavis/pcmag/breakingnews/~3/CR1u9lzKVQM/0,2817,2416288,00.asp

Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012 Turkey Cooking Times Butterball mashed potatoes Apple Black Friday how to cook a turkey emma stone

White House tours halted, staff reductions blamed

WASHINGTON (AP) ? No more chance sightings of first dog Bo?

Citing the impact of new spending cuts on staffing, the U.S. Secret Service and the National Park Service announced that public tours of the White House will be canceled beginning Saturday.

The cancellations come at the start of the spring tourist season, a popular time for White House tours.

Callers to the White House Visitors Office information line are told that tours already planned will not be rescheduled. The free, self-guided tours can take three weeks to six months for visitors to arrange through requests submitted to members of Congress or to embassies.

The cancellation is one of the consequences attributed to the automatic spending cuts that began to take effect Friday. The cuts, known in Washington as "sequestration," were initially designed to force Congress and the Obama administration to agree to a long-term deficit reduction plan. Those negotiations, however, failed to come up with an alternative.

As a result, the government has been forced to cut $85 billion from a myriad of federal accounts between March 1 and Sept. 30.

The U.S. Secret Service said that Uniformed Division Officers assigned to the public tours will be reassigned to other security posts. The reassignments will reduce overtime costs as well as potential furloughs that could have been required to meet the cuts in spending, the Secret Service said.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-tours-halted-staff-reductions-blamed-204824946.html

north korea missile don t trust the b in apartment 23 world financial center shabazz muhammad angela corey zimmerman charged bonobos

How to keep Facebook from annoying your friends

Facebook

Alan Henry Lifehacker

5 hours ago

NBC News

Facebook is using you, whether you know it or not. Sometimes it's obvious: you like a page, you click share, Facebook benefits. Other times, you have no clue until a friend asks you about a photo they saw that you liked. The unfortunate side effect to all of this is that it can actually make you an unbearable annoyance to your friends, and you probably don't even know it. Here's how it works, and how to stop it.

When we talk about the ways that Facebook uses your personal information, we're usually talking about why you should care about your privacy, or how Facebook tracks your activity. In this case, we're discussing how your Facebook habits are used ? with or without your knowledge ? to bother your friends with ads that they associate with you. It's a very different beast, but it can be stopped. Here's what you need to know.

EdgeRank: The math Facebook uses to pimp out your likes

You've probably seen an increase in posts in your news feed that say "[Your Friend] likes [Random Group]'s photo," with the full photo and text of the group's post right there, as though you liked the group yourself.

Courtesy of Lifehacker

On your phone or tablet, you've likely seen "Sponsored Posts" that say "[Another Friend] likes [Random Company]" with an invitation to like that page as well. It's annoying to be sure, but you also likely know that your friend didn't choose to advertise the page to you ? it's Facebook, using our habits to get likes and shares.

The logic that Facebook uses to decide what lands in your friends' feeds is called "EdgeRank," and it's purposefully obscure ? after all, if everyone understood it clearly (and lots of people claim to, but don't), advertisers wouldn't have to pay to promote posts, and users would be able to easily filter their feeds and block ads they don't want to see.

EdgeRank serves two purposes: For people who operate Facebook pages and manage brands, it's the algorithm that decides whether your post gets out to as many of your fans as possible. For users, it's the likelihood you'll see something in your feed liked or shared by someone else. It's also the math that governs why your news feed refuses to stay in real chronological order, even after you set it to "most recent."

We're not talking about your own status updates, photos or anything you post to Facebook yourself ? just the way you interact with other pages, groups, and people on Facebook. It's one thing if your news feed is full of baby pictures from your old high school friends ? it's another thing when every post you like from a group you follow ends up in all of your friends' news feeds without you knowing or being able to control who sees it.

Facebook uses you to help pages and brands find friends and go viral

The problem: When you see a post in your news feed from a group you've never heard of, like a heartwarming photo or a campaign for a cause, you might assume it's because your friend chose to share it with their followers by clicking the "share" button. That's not the case: odds are they thought it was good, clicked Like, and moved on.

A quick way to check is to visit their profile directly: if you don't see the post there, then Facebook decided that you might like to see it too, not your friend.

This is annoying, but it's especially problematic when you click like on something that may not be work-safe, assuming that "like" is not "share," so "who'll see it, right?"

Courtesy of Lifehacker

For example, one of my friends is a model: she's attractive, and her photo shoots are often artsy, but it's nothing you'd want your boss asking you about because they peeked over your shoulder at work. By "liking" her posts about her photo shoots, I run the risk of unintentionally sharing her photos with my Facebook friends, and having their bosses scold them for looking at scantily clad model pics. See the problem?

Unfortunately there's no way out of this: Facebook doesn't let you set the privacy level of something you've liked. If the original poster shared publicly, your like is public as well. Remember that if you're a fan of any Facebook groups or pages that like to keep their posts in-group or close to pocket, or it may land in a friend's news feed.

This is EdgeRank in action: it's not sinister, it's just Facebook deciding that your friends may have similar interests and may like what you like.

The downside is that it populates your news feed with photos and updates from pages you may have no interest in, and does the same to your friends. We've shown you how to clean up your own feed, but how do you avoid cluttering up everyone else's feed?

The solution: First, think before you click the Like button. There's no way to determine which likes will be posted to which friends, so before you like that photo on one of your favorite pages, assume that it could be broadcast to all of your friends. Here are some other tips:

• Hide those pages you like from your profile and set their posting rights to "only me." In our tests, doing this hid the things we liked from those groups from other people's feeds ? but we can't be 100 percent sure it'll work for everyone.
  
• Check your activity log. This is the only way to know which of your likes are public and which aren't. (Go to your profile, then click "Activity Log.") You'll see a history of every status update, photo and shared item you've liked, along with an icon that'll tell you whether it's public or shared only with friends. Facebook usually doesn't let you change the visibility of those entries, but you can "unlike" something if you don't want it in someone else's feed with your name plastered over it.
  
• Use Social Fixer to tame your own feed. You can use Social Fixer to trim down those types of reliked posts in your own feed, removing the temptation to like them yourself. Still, this doesn't stop Facebook from resharing groups you actually do like with your friends that don't.
  

Facebook uses your likes to sponsor brands, cluttering up your friends' feeds

The problem: You've seen the ads before: Friend A, B, and C Like [Brand], with a Like button next to it. They're right there in the middle of your news feed ? sometimes there are two or three of them together in a big "sponsored" box.

Courtesy of Lifehacker

It's annoying, especially when the brand in question isn't even remotely interesting to you. Save your friends the hassle, and audit the brands and companies you like on Facebook.

The solution: Unlike pages and brands that you don't need an active relationship with, and don't like new ones unless you need to. Save your friends the irritation of seeing "So-and-So Likes A Company You Couldn't Care Less About!" every time they log in to Facebook and just remove brands you don't feel like providing free advertising for.

Don't get us wrong, lots of companies offer great customer service, discounts, and other incentives to like them on Facebook (we'd be lying if we said we didn't want you to like us on Facebook too,) but let's be honest. You probably liked a bunch of companies on Facebook because you shop there and wanted to see what their Facebook page was all about, or because they were running a contest that required you Like them ? not because they offer you any tangible benefit today. Alternatively:

• Follow the same companies on Twitter instead. Twitter doesn't come with the same commitment that Facebook does, or the same access to your friends. You could also use Twitter lists to stay on top of their deals and coupons without having to like or follow them at all.
  
• Set up a second Facebook account for "liking" purposes. A second account, one that you only use for things like promotions and discounts, is invaluable ? stuff it full of as much or as little information as you choose to provide, and then use it instead of your main account. You can even use it as a way to see what's Facebook is sharing from your primary account without you knowing (although the specifics vary from friend to friend.) Note: Facebook's policy is one person-one account, so you'd likely be violating their TOS by doing this. Just something to keep in mind.
  
• Adjust your Facebook ad settings. One reader noted that you can also make sure to limit Facebook's ability to use your name and likeness in ads (which they currently don't, but say they may in the future), and how they use your likes and pages to generate ads for others to see. There's even a settings page governing it, even though it's quite buried. Set both options to "No One."
  

Facebook isn't planning to stop anytime soon

Annoying your friends ? by which we mean making sure that Facebook ads your friends see have your name above them (and vice versa) aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Facebook's new Graph Search gives you a great way to find people who share interests with you, but it also gives advertisers a great way to cross-reference people's likes and interests so they can better target who should see their brand or product, and which of their friends they should use to say "See? Your friend already likes us, why don't you?"

Courtesy of Lifehacker

Image from the always funny Actual Facebook Graph Searches.

Now, Graph Search is only limited to a small number of people right now and it respects your privacy settings. If you're smart about keeping your privacy settings where they should be, you don't have anything to worry about from Graph Search. Similarly, it's not certain that Graph Search is even open to advertisers right now, so there's no reason to get out the torches and the pitchforks.

Another example of the same philosophy was Facebook's Social Reader. Graph Search is in the future, but Social Reader is a great example of a Facebook feature that went belly up because people didn't care too much for their activity being shared automatically and without their explicit permission each time it was used.

News sites using Social Reader, like The Washington Post andThe Guardian (the latter of which has already killed their social reader app) saw tumbling numbers last year as readers ditched them en masse. Whether they left because they didn't care for every story they read being automatically shared with their friends (assuming they didn't change post visibility to "only me,") or because they just didn't like what those apps had to offer is still a matter of debate.

The bottom line: Just know what you're getting into

The truth is that Facebook is a free service to users, and it needs to make money somehow, and that money will be made using your data. The question is whether Facebook uses it or they give it to someone else to use, and how that information is used.

The moral of the story here is to be careful with the things you like, because it's not just things you share that end up in your friends' news feeds. Since you can't even go to your profile to see what's been shared on your behalf, it's impossible to tell until someone pings you to ask why you've been liking so many posts from one particular Facebook group lately, or why the only thing you seem to share these days are someone else's photos.

Of course, stay on top of your privacy settings, the post visibility of apps you use (remember: "Only Me" is your friend,) watch what you click "Share" on. Oh, and of course: Every time Facebook makes an arcane change with nebulous results, make sure to update them accordingly.

Morefrom Lifehacker:

Source: http://www.today.com/tech/facebook-uses-you-annoy-your-friends-heres-how-stop-it-1C8645123

black panthers mauritania obama open mic jefferson county colorado extenze tenacious d steve smith

Moscow skeptical about US autopsy of Russian boy

Demonstrators hold posters reading "There is no place for juvenile justice in Russia," "I want all children be happy" during a massive rally to back the ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Demonstrators hold posters reading "There is no place for juvenile justice in Russia," "I want all children be happy" during a massive rally to back the ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Demonstrators hold portraits of adopted Russian children who died in U.S., during a massive rally in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. The poster at left reads: "Vitya Tulimov died in 2000 in New Jersey at the hands of adoptive parents." A poster at right reads "Dima Yakovlev." (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

Demonstrators carry Russian flags and a huge poster reading "March in Defense of Children" during a massive rally in Moscow, Saturday, March 2, 2013. Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on Max Shatto, a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko)

MOSCOW (AP) ? Russia voiced strong skepticism Saturday about the U.S. autopsy on a 3-year-old adopted Russian boy in Texas and demanded further investigation as thousands rallied in Moscow to support the Kremlin ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children.

Max Shatto's death in January, ruled accidental, came a month after Moscow passed a ban on international adoptions in retaliation for a new U.S. law targeting alleged Russian human rights violators. Russian officials have pointed at Max's case to defend the ban, which has drawn strong public criticism.

The boy, born Maxim Kuzmin, died Jan. 21 after his adopted mother, Laura Shatto, told authorities she found him unresponsive outside their home where he had been playing with his younger brother.

Ector County Sheriff Mark Donaldson and District Attorney Bobby Bland said Friday that four doctors reviewed the autopsy report and agreed that the boy's death was not intentional. Preliminary autopsy results had indicated Max had bruises on several parts of his body, but Bland said Friday that those bruises appeared to be self-inflicted. He also said no drugs were found in Max's system.

Foreign Ministry rights envoy Konstantin Dolgov said Saturday that Moscow "proceeds from the understanding that these are the preliminary results of the investigation" and urged U.S. authorities to produce autopsy documents and the boy's Russian passport.

The Investigative Committee, Russia's top investigative agency, has opened its own probe into the case. It said has sent a formal request to the U.S. to provide the autopsy and other related documents. The committee's spokesman, Vladimir Markin, said it also has urged U.S. authorities to allow Russian investigators take part in the U.S. probe.

Children rights ombudsman Pavel Astakhov, who initially claimed that the boy had been "murdered" by his adoptive parents, tweeted that Russia should "demand convincing proof."

Pro-Kremlin groups rallied in central Moscow to back the ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children and call for more adoptions by Russian parents. Protesters held signs with pictures of adopted Russian children who died in the U.S. in recent years and wore ribbons in the colors of the Russian flag with slogans demanding Max's half brother Kirill be returned to Russia.

"Today people are telling us that Maxim supposedly maimed himself to death with a blunt instrument and damaged his own internal organs. That's a slap in the face of our country and our people," Irina Bergset, one of the march's organizers, said in a speech at the rally.

Olga Batalina, a lawmaker from the Kremlin-backed United Russia party who reportedly authored the adoption ban, said Saturday that Russia should work towards liquidating orphans as a class by focusing on state-sponsored "basic moral values."

Organizers claimed upwards of 20,000 attended, though police estimated numbers at 12,000. Two people were arrested. Approximately 25,000 attended a protest against the U.S. adoption ban in January.

The atmosphere at Saturday's march was festive and rather bizarre. Marchers included large groups of old people in fur coats, members of obscure esoteric communist parties, and organizations that had no apparent link to the march, including the Gardener's Union and a group for victims of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine. Organizers herded people into columns and handed out balloons as eerie pop music sung by children wafted over loudspeakers.

"I came here because Americans beat our children they adopt," Ivan Levin, a participant, said. "Ideally, that shouldn't happen."

A significant number of demonstrators had been bused in from as far as hundreds of miles away from Moscow, a common tactic to boost numbers at pro-Kremlin rallies. In the days leading up to the march, classified ads and letters on United Russia stationery appeared online offering people money to attend or demanding that business owners and university directors bring 50 people.

Organizers vehemently denied that anyone had been paid or coerced to attend. The independent RBK news agency, however, posted photos on Twitter of what it said were marchers being paid after the march ended.

President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said on independent Rain TV Saturday that the rally demonstrated that "this problem has been very painful and sensitive for our people." He said that Russian diplomats had taken action to return the boy, but acknowledged that it would be difficult to achieve because the adoption process was in accordance with Russian law.

Last month, Russia's state-controlled Rossiya TV channel aired a talk show with the boy's biological mother, Yulia Kuzmina, who lost parental custody of Max and half brother Kirill Kuzmin over negligence and serious drinking problems. Kuzmina said during the show that she gave up drinking, had found a job and pledged to fight to regain custody of Kirill. But right after the show, Kuzmina and her boyfriend, who were traveling back from Moscow to their hometown, were taken off the train by police after a drunken brawl.

___

AP writers Vladimir Isachenkov and Laura Mills contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/cae69a7523db45408eeb2b3a98c0c9c5/Article_2013-03-02-Russia-US-Adoptions/id-198d0d512c8844919ec314dd40e1311d

where the wild things are birdsong teresa giudice atlanta hawks 2012 white house correspondents dinner forrest gump bernard hopkins