Monday, December 26, 2011

iOS 5 Untethered Jailbreak: Apple's Updates May Hamper Pod2g, MuscleNerd's Efforts

Apple users, who are using the Cupertino-based tech giant's latest mobile operating system, have been waiting for an untethered jailbreak. But unlike the earlier jailbreaks, the new untethered jailbreak (whenever it is released) will not be able to make all jailbreak fans happy.

Finding a jailbreak for Apple's mobile operating systems had never been easy for hackers. However, in the case of iOS 5, it became more complicated due to the two new devices supported by the new A5 processor.

This is the first time when Chronic Dev-team's French member, Pod2g, has given his work to his team members and taken up a new task.

Pod2g in his recent blog post said: "I need to focus on A5 and hope I can find a path quick, and I have the feeling that Chronic-dev could help me."

So here is what I did:

"I gave all the details to the chronic dev team so that can finish, test, integrate and release the A4 JB ASAP.

I'll put all my energy from now on on the A5."

Like us on Facebook

Hackers, while working hard to find an untethered jailbreak for iOS 5, had been trying their luck in finding exploits which can jailbreak A5 processor devices - iPhone 4S and iPad 2.

Pod2g also succeeded in cache related problem in the A5 processor and working hard to get the final bootrom-exploit, but one more thing which can hamper Pod2g and MuscleNerd's hard work is updates of iOS 5. Apple, to solve battery issues related iPhone 4S running on iOS 5, will be releasing new updates of the operating software which can carry a patch for the new jailbreak.

The long wait of all the Apple device users to perform the jailbreak is going to be over soon as two hackers from two different Dev-teams - MuscleNerd and Pod2g - are working round the clock to find the crucial jailbreaking milestones.

Right now, two jailbreak programs are available and both are not untethered, and don't work on iPhone 4S and iPad 2.

Redsn0w is a tethered jailbreak - the user always has to connect his device to computer whenever he reboots it. ?A semi-tethered jailbreak reduces the problems but still can't replace the need of an untethered jailbreak.

oth the jailbreaks are compatible with the?iPhone?3GS (old and new bootrom), the?iPhone?4, the?iPod?Touch 3G, the?iPod?Touch 4 and the?iPad?1G. They won't work on the iPhone 4S and the?iPad?2 because of the A5 processor.

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/272478/20111224/ios-5-untethered-jailbreak-apple-s-updates.htm

san diego weather tropic thunder justin bieber baby justin bieber baby credit unions tower heist reviews recursion

AP Enterprise: Paul's nonprofits push law's limit

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas signs autographs during a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas has his photo taken with Alaine Olthafer-Lange and her 3-month-old daughter Heidi Lange during a campaign stop in Dubuque, Iowa, Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

(AP) ? The passionate support of an eclectic group of libertarians and young people has Ron Paul in contention to win the Iowa caucus. So has the work of two well-funded nonprofits that for the past three years have kept his aides employed, his volunteers organized and his ideas afloat.

Those nonprofits, including Paul's flagship Campaign for Liberty, blur the line between his presidential campaign and issue advocacy in a way experts say runs afoul of the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of federal tax and campaign finance law.

But unlike a political campaign organization, whose finances are tightly regulated and made public, such advocacy nonprofits can raise unlimited sums of money and aren't required to disclose where it came from or all the details about how it was spent.

"It sounds like it was a way to maintain a permanent campaign," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group. "These groups were never supposed to be political organizations, but more and more, we're seeing them used that way. All of this is leading to our elections getting more and more out of control with fewer regulations."

Paul, a 76-year-old Texas congressman, finished fifth in the 2008 Iowa caucus and abandoned his long-shot presidential campaign that summer. As he left the race, he urged his supporters to continue their fight for libertarian principles by joining his new group, the Campaign for Liberty. He called the transformation of his presidential campaign into the nonprofit a "legal formality" that would allow him to continue building his famously energetic network of volunteers, online activists and college students.

The Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty, a separate group formed to spread his message to high school and college students, were organized as "social welfare organizations" under U.S. tax law. That means they cannot make politics and promoting candidates their primary activities.

The groups quickly found a home in the tea party movement, hosting conferences, training activists and distributing petitions asking members of Congress to support one of Paul's signature policies ? a plan to audit the Federal Reserve. The Campaign for Liberty raised more than $13 million between 2008 and 2010 that paid for direct mail, telemarketing, staff salaries and other expenses. The group claims more than 600,000 members and more than 170 chapters of Young Americans for Liberty at high schools and colleges.

Drew Ivers, who founded the Iowa chapter of Campaign for Liberty, said the nonprofit's goal was never to lay the groundwork for Paul's 2012 presidential campaign. Organizers were careful to separate political work from the work of advocating Paul's ideas, he added. But he acknowledged the organization has helped Paul in Iowa, which will hold its first-in-the-nation presidential nominating caucuses on Jan. 3.

"It kept the ideas alive. And as people who were involved in the Campaign for Liberty liked the idea of limited government, they look at the field of presidential candidates and say, 'You know, I think Ron Paul is serious about this idea,'" Ivers said.

The other candidates from 2008 who are again running in 2012 also took steps between campaigns to build their political clout. President Barack Obama formed his "Organizing for America" group at the Democratic National Committee, while Republican Mitt Romney used a political action committee to raise money, shower donations on lawmakers and pay for his travel to key states. Paul had a PAC, too.

But the finances of both the DNC and political action committees such as Romney's Free and Strong America PAC ? unlike Paul's nonprofits ? are regulated by the Federal Election Commission and subject to financial disclosure rules.

Paul's presidential campaign is thoroughly intertwined with the nonprofits. The Campaign for Liberty calls itself a lobbying group for "individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets and a noninterventionist foreign policy" ? a tidy summation of Paul's campaign platform. Young Americans for Liberty's support of Paul is even more explicit, calling itself the continuation of the Students for Ron Paul wing of his 2008 campaign, coordinating his visits to campuses and publishing a magazine in which he laid out his "agenda for a freedom president."

Between the 2008 and 2012 campaigns, both nonprofits were stocked with Paul aides and relatives. Ivers served as Paul's Iowa campaign chairman in 2008 and holds the same position again this year. The Campaign for Liberty's president, John Tate, was paid a total of $338,000 by the group in 2009 and 2010. He is now Paul's national campaign manager. The nonprofit's senior vice president was Jesse Benton, who is now Paul's campaign chairman; its vice president was Debbie Hopper, who is now Paul's assistant campaign manager.

Lori Pyeatt, Paul's daughter, served until recently as the Campaign for Liberty's part-time secretary and treasurer, earning $34,000 for her work last year. Her daughter is married to Benton. Paul's son Ronnie is the group's unpaid chairman.

In all, nine out of the 16 staff members at the Campaign for Liberty are on leaves of absence from the group to work for Paul's campaign. The nonprofit's executive director, Matthew Hawes, said the group is still able to function and is an active advocate on state and federal issues unrelated to Paul's presidential campaign.

Paul campaign spokesman Gary Howard ? who for 18 months served as the Campaign for Liberty's spokesman ? said Paul resigned as Campaign for Liberty's honorary chairman when he joined the presidential race and believes the nonprofits complied with Internal Revenue Service rules. Still, like Ivers, he acknowledged the nonprofits have indirectly aided the campaign by training activists and raising his issues.

Paul isn't the first to use such a strategy to keep his name in the public's view between bids for the White House. Democrat John Edwards did the same between the 2004 and 2008 campaigns by founding a nonprofit center dedicated to fighting poverty, his central campaign issue.

Federal investigators later issued a subpoena for information about Edwards' nonprofit, according to details previously provided to The Associated Press. An attorney for Edwards has said the nonprofit paid money to Edwards' mistress' video production firm, and the former senator from North Carolina was later indicted on campaign finance charges related to payments from wealthy donors that were used to help hide the woman.

Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who headed the exempt organizations division at the IRS from 1990 to 2000, questions whether such nonprofits were truly designed to serve the "social welfare purpose" as required by law.

In Paul's case, the groups also helped his son's political career. At least two aides from the Campaign for Liberty left to help Rand Paul win election to the U.S. Senate in Kentucky last year.

"Any family campaign seems to draw them out. It's not conclusive, but it tends to suggest a private, not a public, purpose behind the organization," Owens said. "It's not a social welfare purpose to keep a campaign staff together and to promote the personal ideas of one individual."

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2011-12-24-Paul-Shadow%20Campaign/id-c1c897dd25044f2c9420c137dc785def

top model all stars americas next top model mark buehrle mark buehrle rick perry ad rick perry ad richard cordray

PhoneDog: Sony Tablet S, Tablet P to be bumped up to Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich http://t.co/QBrNW1Mr

  • Passer la navigation
  • Twitter sur votre mobile ? Cliquez ici m.twitter.com!
  • Passer cette ?tape
  • Connexion
Loader Twitter.com
  • Connexion
Sony Tablet S, Tablet P to be bumped up to Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich pdog.ws/v6mCGj PhoneDog

Pied de page

Source: http://twitter.com/PhoneDog/statuses/150351899130994688

great pumpkin charlie brown the strangers all hallows eve all saints day all saints day bernard madoff ct news

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Training stepped up for Afghan special forces (AP)

CAMP SCORPION, Afghanistan ? "Attention! Attention! You are surrounded by Afghan forces. Come out with your hands up."

The order barked by an Afghan soldier launched a training exercise last week that pitted members of the nation's growing elite force against actors posing as Taliban fighters.

Afghanistan and the U.S.-led coalition have stepped up training of the Afghan special forces unit to fill the vacuum that will be left by foreign troops slated to end their combat mission in 2014. In the future, it will be Afghan special forces countering insurgents in villages across the country.

As the force expands, they will also lead more of the controversial house searches ? something that could mitigate Afghan President Hamid Karzai's intense opposition to the nighttime raids by international troops that Afghans have found culturally offensive.

Even though Afghan troops have been along for the more than 2,800 raids during the past year, Karzai has argued that the teams often treat innocent Afghans as if they were insurgents and violate citizens' privacy in the conservative Afghan society.

Karzai wants all raids halted. He wants foreign troops to stop entering Afghan homes. The thorny issue is being negotiated by U.S. and Afghan officials crafting a strategic agreement that will govern how remaining American forces operate in Afghanistan after 2014.

A recent national assembly of elders advised the Karzai government to allow the raids to continue as long as they are conducted solely by Afghans. If so, many more Afghan special forces soldiers need to be trained.

Neither NATO nor the Afghan Ministry of Defense would disclose how many Afghan special forces had been trained or how large the force will become. Jalaluddin Yaftali, a special forces team leader at the training site, said the force currently numbered 1,000 to 1,500.

"It takes time. It's like nation-building ? an endless task. It will take years, but the will is there and right now the force is growing," said Afghan army Col. Mohammad Farid Ahmadi.

"The program started two years ago, but now we are jointly working with the coalition forces to Afghanize as soon as possible. We have already started. It's growing."

So far, most have been recruited from the Afghan National Army Commandos, a quick reaction force regarded as the most professional unit in the Afghan army. Commandos receive 10 weeks of training on top of the roughly 10 weeks they completed to become an Afghan soldier. Moreover, Afghan soldiers usually serve about four years as commandos before being selected for special forces training.

Their training is further refined while partnered with American forces. Eventually, they will be tasked with a variety of operational missions, including night raids, throughout the country.

"It not only takes a long time to select the right people for the job, but also to bring them through a training program so they are capable of operating with other special forces or on their own," German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a NATO spokesman, said at the training site on the outskirts of Kabul, the Afghan capital.

While some are already conducting solo operations, the Afghan special forces will continue to need coalition air power, intelligence and other support for years to come, he said.

Seth Jones, a RAND Corp. political scientist who advised the commander of U.S. Special Operations forces in Afghanistan, said it's hard to rush special forces training.

"The Afghan program, which was first conceptualized in 2009 and established in 2010, is relatively new. I remember participating in the brainstorming sessions as we helped build the Afghan special forces," Jones said.

"Focusing on numbers, rather than quality, and trying to mass produce Afghan special forces would be a serious mistake. I'm not suggesting anyone is doing this yet, but it should be monitored very closely."

The Afghan soldiers conducting the training exercise crouched in shadows at the foot of man-made hills surrounding the practice compound. The residential compound resembled a western cowboy movie set.

"Drop your weapons!" the Afghan soldier barked into a bullhorn. "Keep your hands raised and come out."

Trying to give the occupants time to cooperate, the more than 20-man Afghan special forces team waited patiently, their guns drawn. When nobody came out, they tossed two harmless grenades that made loud bangs when they landed in front of the house.

A few minutes later, an actress covered in a red shawl slowly emerged with her hands raised. The soldier with the bullhorn asked her to reveal her face so the troops could be sure she was a woman and not a man. When it was clear that she was female, she was led away to be searched by a female Afghan soldier.

Having male troops search females is taboo in Afghanistan. So is touching a family's Quran, the Muslim holy book, or entering a home without being invited ? things that foreign forces have learned in the decade-long war.

Soon after the woman left, two men walked from the house with their hands held high. Making sure they weren't armed, the troops ordered them to lift their shirts and pant legs. The would-be Afghan suspects then were cuffed and taken away.

"We are asking the Defense Ministry to make one special forces platoon of just female soldiers so they can go talk to the families, the children, the women," Yaftali said. "If you are a female, you can talk openly with the family."

It was clear to onlookers that the more than 20 Afghan special forces soldiers who conducted the house search and did a live ammunition training exercise with M4 rifles and 9mm pistols were the best of the elite force. With their dark glasses, night vision headsets, microphones and radios, they looked just like their U.S. Special Operations forces counterparts.

Jones said the first Afghan special forces soldiers trained were very competent because they were recruited directly from the Afghan National Army Commandos.

"In practical terms, this suggests that there will be some variation in the competence of Afghan special forces by 2014," Jones said. "Some will be fully capable ... but others may struggle."

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/asia/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111225/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_elite_force

duke basketball brian williams patrice o neal patrice o neal paulina gretzky paulina gretzky wayne gretzky

Chris Weigant: My 2011 "McLaughlin Awards" [Part 2]

Welcome back to our annual year-end awards column!

In case you missed it, Part 1 of our "McLaughlin Awards" (named for the television show where we get these categories, of course) ran last week, so check it out.

Also for your convenience, here are all the previous years of these columns as well:

2010 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2009 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2008 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2007 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]
2006 -- [Part 1] [Part 2]

?

Trophy
???Destined For Political Stardom

From the Republican side of the aisle, Chris Christie springs to mind this year. So does Marco Rubio, but then we gave him this award last year (and we're still betting he's on top of every list of vice presidential running mates out there in RepublicanLand later this year).

This year, instead, we turn to the Democrats to find the winner of Destined For Political Stardom. If Elizabeth Warren manages to wrest Teddy Kennedy's old Senate seat away from the Republican usurper, she will indeed be on the road to Democratic stardom. So far, she's been extraordinarily effective on the campaign trail, and she seems to have a backbone of solid titanium.

Warren is the best the Democrats have seen since Bill Clinton at the ability to make complicated subjects easy to understand to average voters. She doesn't talk down to people, but she does talk in language just about everyone can understand.

Her campaign so far has been the populist model for every other Democrat to mimic if they want to catch the wave of anger at Wall Street, and use it to their benefit. Without question, Elizabeth Warren is Destined For Political Stardom.

?

Trophy
???Destined For Political Oblivion

There is certainly no lack of folks to choose from in this category. Anthony Weiner springs to mind, as does every politician caught in a sex scandal this year (more on that later). But this year, due to the nature of the open race on their side of the aisle, there are a whole bunch of Republicans who almost qualify for this award: Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich (one would hope), Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann all spring immediately to mind. The problem with each is that, phoenix-like, one could see them rising from the ashes to fight another day... or at least to rant and rave on their new Fox News show. Or even (shudder) run for office again.

Ron Paul is in a class by himself in this category, as well. Paul is not running for his House seat next year, and has thus put all his chips on his presidential run. He may wind up being a kingmaker in the Republican race (if he captures enough delegates), or he might even make a third-party bid for the White House, who knows? Either way, he'll likely be off the stage (and off Fox News) by 2013. But he has a fervent set of followers, so "oblivion" is just too strong a word to use for Ron Paul's legacy, whatever it turns out to be.

One Republican candidate, though, is already in the Land Of Oblivion. His name is Tim Pawlenty. Surely you remember "TPaw"? Well, probably not. He dropped out of the Republican race way too early (look at some of the clowns who rose in the polls after his exit from the race, to prove this point), and is neither going to ever run again nor be given a cushy spot on Fox. Be honest with yourself, you had to think for a moment to even remember who he was, didn't you? Tim... Tim Pawlenty... um... oh, yeah, that guy! The very definition of Destined For Political Oblivion.

Heh.

?

Trophy
???Best Political Theater

If there was an award for "Most Political Theater" then the Republican debates would win it hands down. This may set a precedent for future primary campaigns, so beware of that.

Defining "best" is tricky, because it's tempting to go with "political theater I enjoyed the most" which would be a decision between Occupy Wall Street and the protesters in Wisconsin who "occupied" (before the word was even used in this political sense) the Madison statehouse last winter -- along with the Democrats fleeing the state to deny Republicans a quorum. Wisconsin showed people pushing back against the attack on Labor rights, and Occupy spread to hundreds of towns and cities, so both were powerful (and theatrical) statements in their own right.

But the Best Political Theater of 2011 was an idea proposed by the group Third Way and made real by Senator Mark Udall of Colorado -- to have both parties sit intermingled in the audience for the State Of The Union speech. This was in response to the horrific shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords, which had happened only days before. This political theater put an end (for at least one year's time) to the circus-like atmosphere of the "duelling standing ovations" which the State Of The Union speech had sunk to.

The media hated it, because they couldn't accurately give sports-like "stats" to how many times each party had applauded. It deserves some sort of award just for annoying the media, if for nothing else.

You can argue it was just a stunt. You can say it won't be repeated next month. It's easy to cynically dismiss, in other words. But, for me at least, this was the Best Political Theater of the year -- because watching a State Of The Union without the annual applause sideshow was indeed quite memorable.

?

Trophy
???Worst Political Theater

Lots of nominees in this category as well. There was the dynamic between Speaker John Boehner and the Tea Party -- where Boehner would cut a deal and then face open revolt by his own caucus. That was pretty bad theater, and it happened multiple times over the course of the year.

Since I forgot these last week (they really should have gone under the "Worst Photo Op" category), allow me to mention in passing: the U.C. Davis police pepper-spraying non-violent passive protesters, Christina Aguilera muffing the words to the National Anthem during the Super Bowl, and the spectacle of Tom Friedman being interviewed on the Arab Spring uprising in Egypt while wearing an expensive leather jacket in Davos, Switzerland at a confab of the bright-and-beautiful set at their annual "We're Important! Pay Attention To Us!" summit (or whatever it's called).

The obvious choice in this category would be to pick "shutting down the government" or perhaps "holding everything hostage and holding our breath until we're blue in the face" -- the tactic Republicans used over and over again throughout the year in a perpetual temper tantrum. In terms of "most significant" that would certainly qualify.

But instead we're giving the Worst Political Theater award to Congress (led by the Republicans) for their political theater of "reading the Constitution to open our session... except the parts that are embarassing." This was just pure hokum, on a P. T. Barnum-esque scale. Strict constructionalist? I hardly think so. If you can't read the words as they were originally written, then don't even bother wasting our time, folks. And obviously, the House Republicans who staged this stunt weren't even listening to it, because within three months they tried to mount a "coup" by decreeing the law of the land without benefit of the Senate voting or the president's signature. Next time, if you read the Constitution's text, maybe you should pay closer attention to what it actually says, guys.

?

Trophy
???Worst Political Scandal

Of course, when the word "scandal" comes up, we all immediately think "sex." The worst sex scandal in the political world last year was probably the man Doonesbury labeled the "Gropenfuhrer" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie's secret baby with his maid was definitely the most titillating scandal of the year, but Arnie was actually out of office when the story broke, so the story doesn't even really qualify. Also, Herman Cain wasn't in office yet, and was likewise passed over.

Then there was Anthony Weiner's weener. This has to have been the "most memorable" sex scandal of the year, since no further explanation is necessary. Although we should all offer (ahem) congratulations to Weiner's wife, who just gave birth to a son a few days ago. Hoo boy....

In "most bizarre photo that looks Photoshopped but isn't" category, there was David Wu (Rowr!) of Oregon, who got bonus points for adding drugs into his increasingly-strange behavior. At the time I actually wrote the sentence: "His own staff reportedly confronted him days before the voters were to go to the polls, and tried to get Wu to check himself into a psychiatric hospital," which deserves some sort of recognition, for sure.

My favorite will go down in history as the "fastest sex scandal of all time" in Washington lore, no doubt. Remember the "Craigslist Congressman"? No? If not, it's because it happened with such blinding speed. The entire scandal -- from public exposure of Republican House member Chris Lee flirting online with women not married to him (complete with flexed-muscles photo), to a denial issued by his office (that he had just "sold some furniture" and his account had likely been hacked), to a gotcha interview with Fox News, to his resignation being read on the House floor (for making "profound mistakes") -- took only a gaspingly-swift three hours and twenty-seven minutes! I'd bet the farm nobody's ever going to top that record.

But, all salaciousness aside, I have to agree with the Republicans this year, and award the Worst Political Scandal the "Fast and Furious" program of allowing guns to be trafficked to Mexico by drug gangs. The Justice Department laid a big egg with this one. There's just no other way to say it. Eric Holder already missed his chance to gracefully step down over this fiasco, and one hopes that if Obama wins a second term, he'll decide to pick a new Attorney General.

?

Trophy
???Most Underreported Story

As always, plenty of these to choose from. The benefits of Obamacare slowly becoming real (such as free contraception pills for women). The rise in deportations of illegal aliens. The shameful fact that we haven't been processing visas fast enough so that Iraqis who helped the United States (by being translators, for instance) can move here -- and instead they now live in danger of their lives in Iraq because of aiding America. A likewise-shameful screwup with the green card lottery this year which left a whole lot of people thinking they had won green cards only to get a second letter saying "so sorry, we're holding the lottery all over again." The nuclear fallout from the Japanese reactor (the news media ran a lot of film of reactors blowing up, but virtually no solid information or data telling the public how much radiation had escaped and how far it had gotten). Right up until the Occupy Wall Street movement began, the refusal of the mainstream media to point out that raising taxes on millionaires polls incredibly favorably with the American public -- consistently getting around 75 percent approval. The Progressive "People's Budget" which was introduced this year in Congress -- and utterly ignored by the media. The story of the unemployment rate falling at a faster rate than it has since 1958 -- from 9.8 percent to 8.9 percent in only three months.

But, overall, the Most Underreported Story was the war in Libya. The American media perked up when the war began, and ran explosive footage, and then they quickly got bored. They stayed bored, occasionally running some footage of a few guys in a Jeep with a machine gun, using the dismissive "a ragtag band of rebel fighters" ad nauseam. At the very end, the media woke back up and covered the fall of Tripoli. They then got bored again, until the capture of Ghaddafi gave them the juicy footage they'd been waiting for all along.

The entire exercise was a pathetic and poor excuse for journalism. Other media outlets -- those outside the United States -- did a much better job, and thanks to the internet Americans could indeed stay informed if they put forth the effort. But the American media absolutely stunk in their coverage of the progress of the war -- the Most Underreported Story of the year.

?

Trophy
???Most Overreported Story

In my opinion, "class warfare" is vastly overreported. But then, when I think about it, it's more the "most overused trite nonsense term" which isn't exactly the same thing.

So we're just going to go with the obvious, and award Most Overreported Story to Donald Trump. On what planet could this man be considered material for President of the United States? I mean, really, what planet would this actually happen upon? Sheesh. Maybe it's just because he has an outsized presence in New York City, and most all of the national media types live there. Or something. It's hard to figure why anyone takes this buffoon so seriously. From his birth certificate demands of President Obama, to his flirtation with the Republican primary race in order to gain a better contract for his television show, to his debate that nobody was going to show up at --- why, precisely, is this man news anymore?

?

Trophy
???Biggest Government Waste

Well, there's always "congressional vacations." Or maybe that should just be "congressional pay." Sigh.

But instead of money, this year we're going to hand out Biggest Government Waste for the biggest time waster of the year -- the soi disant "Supercommittee." What an enormous waste of time that was, eh?

?

Trophy
???Best Government Dollar Spent

If I wanted a sweeping award here, I'd give it to "unemployment insurance payment extensions" since every economist agrees this is the best "bang for the buck" government spending there is under the sun.

But we're going microscopic on this category. A close runner-up this year was the guy at the Centers for Disease Control who wrote an amusing (and informative!) official C.D.C. blog post explaining how Americans can prepare for (are you sitting down?) immanent zombie apocalypse. For sheer entertainment value, this was the Best Government Dollar Spent last year, bar none. But it narrowly misses winning our award this year, because of the misstep on timing. The blog post appeared in May. Just imagine how much more effective (and how much more amusing for the news media) should it have appeared in... oh, I don't know... late October?

Heh.

Seriously, though, we are going to get microscopic and it is in the entertainment realm. The winner of the Best Government Dollar Spent this year is the National Jukebox. I even titled the article I wrote about this project "Tax Dollars Well Spent." The Library of Congress worked out a deal with Sony to put thousands of pre-1925 recordings online, for free public access. This represents a treasure trove of all kinds of recordings, and is my hands-down winner for best usage of my tax dollars.

?

Trophy
???Boldest Political Tactic

Ron Paul announced his candidacy for president this May... on Friday the 13th. That's pretty darn bold, right?

Kidding aside, though, President Obama's decision to center his campaign around populism was pretty bold -- if only because he's been a reluctant populist, at best, so far.

Realistically, we had three strong contenders. The first runner-up was the Occupy Wall Street folks for trying to replicate the energy of the Arab Spring people power here in America. The jury's still out on how history will see the 99 Percent movement, but already it has injected several important subjects into the political debate which were previously being conveniently ignored by the inside-the-Beltway crowd.

The second runner-up was the concept of shutting down the government. Both sides took part in this, the Democrats up in Wisconsin, and the Tea Partiers in the U.S. House. But in neither case was it very successful, in terms of concrete results. In both cases, however, it did energize the party base, which could turn out to be more important in the end.

But the real winner of the Boldest Political Tactic was the reason why people occupied Madison, Wisconsin in the first place -- the coordinated attack by newly-minted Republican governors across the land on public-sector Labor. The Unions were under full-scale siege by the governors, who decided this was the time for overreaching. It wasn't just Scott Walker, it was a whole bunch of others who began demonizing Labor with a ferocity not seen in years. The backlash against this extremism is building, but you have to hand it to the governors -- whether it ultimately fails or not -- attacking Unions in this fashion was admittedly bold.

?

Trophy
???Best Idea

How about letting The Onion compete for a Pulitzer Prize? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

Making the insurance industry provide The Pill to all women for free was a good idea whose time has come.

But the Best Idea of 2011 came from the voters in California. They passed a referendum which mandated that the state budget be passed on time -- if not, then lawmakers' pay would be immediately cut off. No budget? No pay. Simple as that.

Previously, California had been known for budgets that were seven, eight, or even nine months late. This year, the budget did not pass on time. Or, rather, they tried to pass a piece of garbage and call it a budget. The state's top paymaster ruled that it wasn't a real budget, and the paychecks stopped. Within two weeks a real budget was in place. That is a damn good idea, and the best one of the year. You don't do your job? Then you don't get paid, Jack.

?

Trophy
???Worst Idea

There were almost too many of these to keep track of.

The Paul Ryan budget. Shutting down the government. The House Tea Partiers attempting a coup of the legislative process. "9-9-9." Overturning the F.D.A. on over-the-counter Plan B sales. Attacking the legal medical marijuana industry in California (and elsewhere) in ways not even George W. Bush attempted.

Then there was always the first slogan the Obama-in-2012 people came up with: "Winning The Future." I mean, really, guys... WTF?

But again I'm going to go micro, here. The Worst Idea of 2011 was the post office's decision to allow live people to appear on U.S. stamps. This doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is. Read my whole rant on the subject, if interested. Only three stamps have ever had live Americans depicted on them, and two of those were the same image (the Iwo Jima flag-raising -- the other image was of a post-9/11 flag-raising). Those are the only types of live Americans I ever want to see on stamps -- anonymous heroes. If you think I'm overreacting, consider this: what kind of battles will be waged over which live U.S. politician gets a stamp while they're still around? Or sports figures? Or pop musicians? You really want to see a Kardashians stamp -- or a Snooki stamp? The whole thing is an easily-avoidable nightmare.

?

Trophy
???Sorry To See You Go

Always a sad category. Before we get to deaths, I'd like to note two things I'll be sorry to see go:

Jim Lehrer as full-time anchor on the PBS NewsHour program.

Herman Cain as a Republican candidate -- because he brought a certain upbeat spark to the race which is now notable in its absence. Seriously, don't any of the Republican candidates ever smile? Even once?

And, finally, the space shuttle program.

On to notable human passings...

Andy Rooney (secret confession: I've always wanted his job).

Geraldine Ferraro, barrier-breaker extraordinaire.

Anne McCaffrey, the MasterWriter of Pern.

Steve Jobs (full disclosure: I once worked for him, indirectly, at Apple).

And Corporal Frank Buckles, the last surviving American veteran of World War I (who was, quite shamefully, not allowed to lie in state in the U.S. Capitol's Rotunda, which is just inexcusable).

?

Trophy
???15 Minutes Of Fame

One could make the case for Chris Lee, for his three hours and twenty-seven minutes of infamy (see scandals, above). It's certainly closest to the literal meaning of the phrase.

One could also make a case for Occupy Wall Street (note: not the larger 99 Percenter movement it spawned), but they may return like robins in the spring weather, so we'll just have to wait and see.

Although the competition was tight in the Republican presidential race wannabe class of folks, we're going to have to hand the 15 Minutes Of Fame award to none other than the pizza man himself, Herman Cain. It was a wild ride, and we'll all remember "9... 9... 9!!" for years to come, that's my guess.

?

Trophy
???Best Spin

This one is relatively easy. While the Republicans masterfully spun the fact that they were injecting a monstrous amount of uncertainty into the world's markets and economies with their political tactics this year -- by, in true Orwellian fashion, saying they were fighting against such "uncertainty," even this whopper wasn't good enough to win Best Spin this year.

The Best Spin of the year came from the Republicans -- calling millionaires and billionaires "job creators." Seriously, I had never heard the term a year ago, and now it's everywhere. I would send this award straight to Frank Luntz, if I had any proof he were behind it, but whoever dreamed this nonsense spin up truly deserves the Best Spin of 2011.

?

Trophy
???Most Honest Person

I'm going to have to give this one to Ron Paul. Love him or hate him, he usually says exactly what's on his mind, and it's usually the same exact thing he's been saying for roughly three decades. That's a whale of a lot more honest than most, in the swampland that is our Nation's Capital.

?

Trophy
???Most Overrated

Charlie Sheen.

Sigh... oh, OK, I'll bring it back to politics.

There were plenty of overrated Republican candidates this year, most prominent in the media itself being Jon Huntsman. More stories were written about Huntsman's magic chances for winning than I've ever seen someone who consistently polls at two percent or less.

If there were a "Most Overrated Within His Own Mind" award, Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich would be fighting it out this year. We could have it on pay-per-view, even. The ratings would be huge!

Heh.

But the real Most Overrated award goes to Rick Perry, or (as we should all start calling him forever more) "George W. Bush Lite." Perry was supposed to be the Republican messiah who could tie together the Tea Partiers, the religious Right, and the establishment Republicans who run the party. He was billed as the ultimate Anti-Romney.

All of this was before (of course) the man actually opened up his mouth. The shock and horror which quickly followed in the Republican Party earns Rick Perry the Most Overrated this year.

?

Trophy
???Most Underrated

Two names spring to mind from the Obama administration: Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta. Both are fairly low-key and consistently competent in what they do. Clinton, in particular, had a lot on her plate this year. Panetta flawlessly extricated the troops from Iraq -- in what was billed as the biggest logistical move the Pentagon has made since World War II. Both Clinton and Panetta never sought the limelight, either. Plus, there's a great clip of a guy in a loincloth running behind Clinton this year that I somehow forgot for last week's Best Photo Op (heh).

But the true winner of Most Underrated this year is Occupy Wall Street and the 99 Percenters. Constantly brushed off by most media as nothing more than a bunch of dirty hippies, these protesters have completely changed the dynamic in the power halls of Washington and the media. The Occupiers have their problems, to be sure, but they have blazed a trail through the wilderness that others are now following. While an argument can be made that the Unions and others in Wisconsin started the spark this year among the Left, Occupy Wall Street successfully got the world's attention turned towards the shameless collusion between Big Business and the politicians they bribe to do their bidding. Because of this, the populism momentum has shifted from the Right's Tea Party to the Left's 99 Percenters. While it's too early to see how it'll all play out, that's an enormous accomplishment already. For this achievement, the Occupiers are the Most Underrated of 2011.

?

Trophy
???Predictions

As always, I like to review my predictions from last year first, to see how I did in 2011. Here goes:

The Tea Party and establishment Republicans are going to battle about what to do in Congress, reminiscent of the Blue Dog battles on the Democratic side.

Two-parter: Congress will get more done than anyone expects, and the battleground will be in the House, not the Senate.

Obama's approval rating will rebound, and finish the year "above water" (better than his job disapproval rating), ending months of being "underwater."

Haley Barbour, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin will all run for the Republican nod.

President Obama will not get any serious primary challenge.

Let's just score that, shall we? The first I was right on the money (see: Boehner and Tea Party, last week). The second and third (the two-parter), well I blew the first half, didn't I? Congress got next to nothing done. The battleground was in the House, for the most part, though. The jury's still out on the next one, but Obama's approval rating at RealClearPolitics is indeed approaching the breakthrough point, after being underwater for months. But we won't know until the year ends whether he makes it or not. I was only right on one out of three predictions for the Republican race, but I was right about Obama not facing any primary challenge. So, by my count, three-and-a-third right, one-and-two-thirds wrong, and one still in abeyance. That's better than last year, when I got zero out of seven right!

OK, on to next year. In 2012:

Unemployment will fall below eight percent in the summer, and the economy will be less of an issue in the fall election than anyone now believes.

Ron Paul will win Iowa. The media will continue to ignore him. He'll place in the top three in New Hampshire. The media will collectively yawn.

Newt will crash and burn before Super Tuesday. He'll say something so outrageous, so outside mainstream Republican thought that his poll numbers will tank.

Mitt Romney will win the nomination by mid-April.

He will choose as his running mate Marco Rubio, in a bid to attract the Tea Party and win Florida. Republicans will regretfully close ranks around Romney.

The Americans Elect "online convention" will overwhelmingly vote for Ron Paul to head their third-party ticket. Americans Elect's board will overrule this decision and nominate Bloomberg. Ron Paul will be offered the Libertarian Party's ticket instead, making it a four-way race for November.

Barack Obama will win a second term. Republicans will vent their fury on the Ron Paul supporters, much as Democrats did to Ralph Nader voters.

See you next year!

Or, in keeping with the official McLaughlin protocol, I bid you:

"Bye-bye!"

?

Chris Weigant blogs at:
ChrisWeigant.com

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

?

?

?

?

Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/my-2011-mclaughlin-awards_1_b_1168251.html

mayan calendar tcu xfactor frankincense cloudy with a chance of meatballs the hobbit movie orcl

Earth-like planets: How will we know if they can sustain life? (VIDEO)

The Kepler spacecraft has made two landmark discoveries of Earth-like planets this month. But determining whether such planets can sustain life would require years of additional study.?

What makes for a potentially livable planet? That question moved center stage this month as NASA's Kepler mission passed two milestones.

Skip to next paragraph

On Tuesday, the Kepler team announced the discovery of two truly Earth-size planets orbiting another star ? but too close to the star for life to emerge. This followed an announcement on Dec. 5 that the Kepler team had found a planet?in the host star's habitable zone, but?2.4?times larger that Earth.

The findings move the Kepler team closer to its goal of finding other planets like ours. The spacecraft is searching 150,000 stars to see how many are like the sun and have planets roughly the same size and distance away as Earth.

But researchers caution that even when Kepler eventually scores a direct hit, that will not be the end of the story. Astronomers will have to answer many more questions about such planets before they can suggest that any of them may be Earth-like, let alone livable for some form of life.

According to Yale University astronomer Debra Fischer, three important pieces of this habitability puzzle begin with: a planet's distance from its sun, its mass, and the shape of its orbit.

Watch video aboot the newly discovered habitable planet Kepler-22b?here:

Other traits come into play, but "if we can find 100 planets that meet the three conditions, we will have have gone a long ways in our search for life," she writes in an e-mail exchange.

Distance is most straightforward for Kepler to gauge.?The distance from the sun to the Earth is about 93 million miles, or 1 Astronomical Unit (AU). By some estimates, the habitable zone around a sun-like star ??where with a little help from an atmosphere, water can exist on the surface as solid, liquid, and gas ? is between 0.95 and 1.37 AU.

The planet announced Dec. 5, Kepler 22b, is almost exactly 1 AU from its star.?But its mass has yet to be confidently established.

Mass is important, because if a planet is a lightweight, with less than about half Earth's mass, it won't have enough gravity to retain much of an atmosphere. Mars, at 10 percent of Earth's mass, has had much of its atmosphere stripped away.

"Too big is harder to quantify," Dr. Fischer adds.

If a planet has only a few times Earth's mass, it might still be potentially habitable. But if a planet becomes too massive, its gravity could be too strong, meaning that it builds a thick, deep atmosphere, resulting in crushing atmospheric pressures on the surface.?

For Kepler 22b, the best the Kepler team can do at the moment is give an upper limit to the mass ? 124 times Earth's mass.?The reason: Kepler's technique for pinpointing planets. It does this by gauging how they?briefly dim the light of their host star when they pass in front of it.

While the team can make some rough estimates about a planet's mass from this technique, the best information on mass, as well as the shape of the orbit,?comes from a different technique used by ground-based astronomers. This approach measures the wobble the planet imposes on host star's spectrum as it orbits.?

Knowing the planet's mass and its volume, researchers can also estimate its density, and so glean something about the planet's general composition by comparing its density with that of water. If the density is relatively small, it could be more gaseous, like a mini-Neptune. If the density is larger, it could suggest a denser, rocky planet.?

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/science/~3/E9BectjgzVY/Earth-like-planets-How-will-we-know-if-they-can-sustain-life-VIDEO

derek fisher rumpelstiltskin rumpelstiltskin occupy oakland occupy oakland yahoo.com/mail david nelson

dcjohnson: RT @thinkprogress: FACT: Obama's job-crushing economic policies have created 1.67 million private sector jobs in 2011 #bestof11

  • Passer la navigation
  • Twitter sur votre mobile ? Cliquez ici m.twitter.com!
  • Passer cette ?tape
  • Connexion
Loader Twitter.com
  • Connexion
FACT: Obama's job-crushing economic policies have created 1.67 million private sector jobs in 2011 #bestof11 thinkprogress

ThinkProgress

Pied de page

Source: http://twitter.com/dcjohnson/statuses/150709663426547713

pearl harbor alec baldwin alec baldwin rock and roll hall of fame erin andrews erin andrews blagojevich sentence