Source: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2013/01/ashton-kutcher-as-steve-jobs-first-clip/
monta ellis wiz khalifa taylor allderdice mixtape reggie wayne taylor allderdice vincent jackson vicki gunvalson pierre garcon
Saturday, January 26, 2013
The Mobile Advantage of myDealCompass | MyDealCompass Blog ...
The typical method of the couponer is as follows:
- Purchase the local paper that contains the coupon circulars and advertisements for the week, or visit a pay per redemption site to find the desired deals.
- Clip or print and cut the coupon of choice.
- File the savings away for a time when it is useful.
- Forget about the coupon and let it pass the expiration date without being used.
The entire process is pointless, if in the end the coupon is never redeemed. So wouldn?t it be nice to have a service that offers the coupons you want, the day you want them, for the products or services you wish to purchase? Stop wishing and step into the reality of myDealCompass and learn about the innovative ways they help you save on your everyday purchases.
Simply log on to the myDealCompass site and search your local area. The deals and savings that are offered on this site are specific to your location and you can feel confident you will receive the savings you want. The mobile coupons that you will find here are specific to your needs and are offered at no charge for consumers, ever.
Once you have found the savings that appeal to your needs, simply redeem them and use the savings the same day. There is no waiting or lengthy process to go through. Additionally, you do not even have to print the savings to redeem the deal. Simply access the deal on your mobile device and redeem at the time of checkout for instant savings. myDealCompass is providing a new and innovative method to save that is benefiting both businesses and consumers.
Source: http://mydealcompass.com/blog/index.php/mobile-advantage-mydealcompass/
kowloon walled city ronda rousey vs miesha tate lindsay lohan snl lindsay lohan on snl real housewives of disney awakenings phantom of the opera
Friday, January 25, 2013
Stay Fit And Healthy With A Low Glycemic Diet
At the core of the low-glycemic diet is the dieter?s best friend, the Glycemic Index. ?The glycemic index, or glycemic index, (GI) provides a measure of how quickly blood sugar levels (i.e. levels of glucose in the blood) rise after eating a particular type of food.?
Different foods have varying effects on the body?s blood sugar level. In terms of the glycemic index, foods are evaluated with a high, medium or low level. The index measures the amount of available carbohydrates, which is calculated by considering the total carbohydrate value and deducting the fiber.
Scientists have long known that carbohydrates increase sugar levels in the blood. Sugar in the blood is called glucose, an important source of energy.
Weight Watchers say that, ?A practical limitation of the glycemic index is that it does not take into account the amount of carbohydrate actually consumed. A related measure, the glycemic load, factors this in by multiplying the glycemic index of the food in question by the carbohydrate content of the actual serving.?
The glycemic diet is not a traditional weight loss diet because subscribers can eat just about anything as long as the meals are balanced in terms of glycemic content. Thus, the importance of the index and knowing the glycemic ratings of foods that the individual consumes.
Once the dieter understands the glycemic values of food, the next step is to develop solid meal planning skills. Meals should contain protein, vegetables and starch.
Popular sources of protein are:
- Chicken
- Fish
- Lean red meats
- Soy products
- Eggs
- Nuts
There are a numbers of leafy green vegetables that are popular:
- Spinach
- Romaine Lettuce
- Brussels Sprouts
- Kale
- Many others
Popular starches are:
For maximum benefit, meals can be accompanied by fruits and a glass of milk. It is important to know that the glycemic index only evaluates the glycemic ratings of the carbohydrates that are digested. This means that only starches, vegetables, milk and fruits have glycemic values. These are the foods that affect the blood sugar reading.
In terms of the glycemic index, there are three measures:
- Low glycemic index ? a reading of 55 or less.
- Medium glycemic index ? a reading between 56 and 69
- High glycemic index ? a reading of more than 70
The glycemic index has a total range of 0 to 100. High glycemic foods are not necessarily unhealthy. Likewise, low glycemic foods can be unhealthy. The important thing with the glycemic diet is understanding the values of the carbohydrates you consume.
Please observe the glycemic values of these popular foods.
Food - Glycemic?Index # ? Measurement
- Peanut M&M?s ? 33 ? Low
- Snickers bar ? 43 ? Low
- Brown rice ? 48 ? Low
- Whole-wheat bread ? 52 ? Low
- Basmati white rice ? 57 ? Medium
- Spaghetti ? 58 ? Medium
- Plain bagel ? 69 ? Medium
- Watermelon ? 72 ? High
- Jasmine rice ? 89 ? High
- Baked potato ? 98 ? High
Surprised to see watermelon and baked potato with the same rating? This highlights the need to know the values of the carbohydrates used in your regular diet. Baked potatoes and watermelons both contain numerous vitamins, minerals and a good deal of fiber.
Complying with a low glycemic diet mandates a pretty good understanding of proper portions. Given that the goal is a balanced approach, dieters must be careful with portion sizes. Eating large portions generally increases the glycemic load.
The dieter?s caloric intake for a specific day can be reliably determined by the size of the portions. If the meal contains a low glycemic value, it will not be affected appreciable if you consume more than planned. However, medium glycemic loads can rise appreciably by eating larger portions. The same is true for high glycemic portions.
The beauty of this diet is that the dieter controls their consumption and can quantifiably relate to a healthy portion and meal. Before committing to the glycemic diet, you should do a few test days to become accustomed to proper portions and preparation.
Source: http://www.hivehealthmedia.com/stay-fit-healthy-glycemic-diet/
palestine powerball winner powerball winner Zig Ziglar lunar eclipse alabama football florida lotto
Cancer expert remains to be convinced by breast screening review
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_udiDiiEMXWyPK4XJaOSx6j74hEWyOlCN5Yny1Xlyz-S9I2EcHbJm_1w_WgzE4ZCJHXg4uSgd3Wc_sVsydzhT2cOVkpLiXL9LS3WJE-04s=s0-d){kind=small}
Public release date: 24-Jan-2013[ | E-mail |
Share ] Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinson@bmjgroup.com
44-020-738-36529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included
Michael Baum, Professor emeritus of surgery at University College London says that, while deaths from breast cancer may be avoided, any benefit will be more than outweighed by deaths due to the long term adverse effects of treatment.
He estimates that, for every 10, 000 women invited for screening, three to four breast cancer deaths are avoided at the cost of 2.72 to 9.25 deaths from the long term toxicity of radiotherapy.
These figures contrast with an independent report on breast cancer screening, led by Sir Michael Marmot and published in November last year. Marmot and his committee were charged with asking whether the screening programme should continue, and if so, what women should be told about the risks of overdiagnosis.
They concluded that screening should continue because it prevented 43 deaths from breast cancer for every 10,000 women invited for screening.
The downside was an estimated 19% rate of overdiagnosis: 129 of the 681 cancers detected in those 10,000 women would have done them no harm during their lifetime. However, those women would have undergone unnecessary treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
But despite this higher than previous estimate of overdiagnosis, they concluded that the breast screening programme should continue.
The report also judged that screening reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer by 20%. But Professor Baum disputes these figures, saying the analysis takes no account of improvements in treatment since these trials were done, which will reduce the benefits of screening. Nor does it make use of more recent observational data.
With these data included, estimated rates of overdiagnosis as a result of screening increase to up to 50%, he argues.
This is important because it can change the decisions women make when invited for screening. In a study also published today, researchers at the University of Sydney explored attitudes to screening in a sample of 50 women. Many of the women were surprised when they were told about overdiagnosis and most said they would attend screening if overdiagnosis rates were 30% or lower, but a rate of 50% made most of them reconsider.
An accompanying editorial points out that the harms of screening will reduce as more effective diagnostic processes develop to inform less harmful and more personalised treatments. In the meantime, it says women need up to date and transparent information about the benefits and harms of screening to help them make informed choices.
###
[ | E-mail | Share ] ?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Public release date: 24-Jan-2013[ | E-mail |
Share ] Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinson@bmjgroup.com
44-020-738-36529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Harms from breast cancer screening outweigh benefits if death caused by treatment is included
Michael Baum, Professor emeritus of surgery at University College London says that, while deaths from breast cancer may be avoided, any benefit will be more than outweighed by deaths due to the long term adverse effects of treatment.
He estimates that, for every 10, 000 women invited for screening, three to four breast cancer deaths are avoided at the cost of 2.72 to 9.25 deaths from the long term toxicity of radiotherapy.
These figures contrast with an independent report on breast cancer screening, led by Sir Michael Marmot and published in November last year. Marmot and his committee were charged with asking whether the screening programme should continue, and if so, what women should be told about the risks of overdiagnosis.
They concluded that screening should continue because it prevented 43 deaths from breast cancer for every 10,000 women invited for screening.
The downside was an estimated 19% rate of overdiagnosis: 129 of the 681 cancers detected in those 10,000 women would have done them no harm during their lifetime. However, those women would have undergone unnecessary treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy.
But despite this higher than previous estimate of overdiagnosis, they concluded that the breast screening programme should continue.
The report also judged that screening reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer by 20%. But Professor Baum disputes these figures, saying the analysis takes no account of improvements in treatment since these trials were done, which will reduce the benefits of screening. Nor does it make use of more recent observational data.
With these data included, estimated rates of overdiagnosis as a result of screening increase to up to 50%, he argues.
This is important because it can change the decisions women make when invited for screening. In a study also published today, researchers at the University of Sydney explored attitudes to screening in a sample of 50 women. Many of the women were surprised when they were told about overdiagnosis and most said they would attend screening if overdiagnosis rates were 30% or lower, but a rate of 50% made most of them reconsider.
An accompanying editorial points out that the harms of screening will reduce as more effective diagnostic processes develop to inform less harmful and more personalised treatments. In the meantime, it says women need up to date and transparent information about the benefits and harms of screening to help them make informed choices.
###
[ | E-mail | Share ] ?
AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.
Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/bmj-cer012413.php
Helen Gurley Brown Kathi Goertzen Johnny Pesky spice girls justin theroux Bumbo recall USA Basketball
Debt limit extension bill passes House
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a Republican plan to allow the federal government to keep borrowing money through mid-May, clearing it for fast enactment after the top Senate Democrat and White House endorsed it.
The vote in the Republican-controlled House was 285-144, with no votes coming from 33 Republicans and 111 Democrats.
The measure avoids for the time being a repeat of the 2011 debt ceiling standoff that rattled markets and resulted in a downgrade of the government's triple-A credit rating. The Treasury is expected to exhaust remaining capacity under the $16.4 trillion debt limit between mid-February and early March.
The House vote marked a sharp departure from Republican vows to use the debt ceiling issue as a way to extract spending cuts from President Barack Obama.
But House Speaker John Boehner warned immediately after Wednesday's vote that Republicans would take the next opportunity - automatic budget cuts set for March - to demand "reforms" from Obama.
The automatic cuts, which were temporarily set aside earlier this month in a fiscal deal between the White House and Congress, are "going to go into effect" unless Obama makes concessions, Boehner said.
The bill aims to draw Senate Democrats into the debate by requiring both chambers to pass a formal budget resolution by April 15. If either the House or Senate fails to meet this deadline, lawmakers' pay is suspended until they pass a budget.
Republicans have named the bill the "No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Democratic-controlled Senate would take up the bill and pass it without changes. He and other top Senate Democrats praised the Republican plan for not requiring spending cuts to match the increase in borrowing authority.
Both Reid and President Barack Obama have called for a "clean" debt limit increase. The White House said on Tuesday that Obama would not stand in the way of the bill if it was passed by Congress.
"This proposal gives us something we can work with here in the Senate," added Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat.
Republicans backed the bill in the face of polls showing Americans blaming them, rather than Democrats, for the uncertainty surrounding the so-called "fiscal cliff" that was resolved around New Year's Day by raising taxes on the wealthy.
House Democrats who voted against the bill complained that it was a politically motivated gimmick that created a new "fiscal cliff" in the spring.
BREATHING SPACE
The bill avoids an immediate threat of U.S. default by suspending limits on the government's ability to borrow until May 19. It does not specify a dollar amount for debt ceiling increase, but allows borrowing as needed to meet federal obligations that must be paid by that date.
Congress would then have to agree on a new, longer-term debt ceiling increase around that time - a deal that would not likely come without a more comprehensive deficit reduction plan.
Boehner, who unveiled the short term extension plan last week, said he and fellow House Republicans were committed to passing a budget that would be balanced in 10 years.
According to budget experts, achieving such a goal, especially in the absence of additional tax hikes, would require massive cuts in federal spending beyond any envisioned in previous Republican-backed budgets or in the deficit-reduction plans of panels such as the bi-partisan Bowles-Simpson commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
The government is currently on track for its fifth straight fiscal year with a deficit exceeding $1 trillion - a trajectory widely viewed as eventually leading to a debt downgrade.
"My goodness, we ought to be able to balance the budget over the next 10 years," Boehner said on the House floor.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who was the Republican vice presidential nominee in the 2012 election, said the measure was aimed at prompting a robust debate in Congress over how to achieve a more sustainable fiscal path.
"We see this as a very defining moment for this session of Congress and our caucus on getting a down payment on the debt crisis, on averting it," Ryan said at a media breakfast sponsored by the Wall Street Journal.
But House Democrats objected, saying it was irresponsible to set short-term debt limit deadlines that would keep a cloud of uncertainty hanging over financial markets and cause volatility and higher interest rates.
"This legislation sets up another fiscal cliff, another financial nightmare, another problem for the American people that we should avoid," said Representative Rob Andrews, a Democrat from New Jersey.
Representative Sander Levin, the senior Democrat on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, told reporters: "We should not continue to have this sword of default over the heads of Congress and the American economy."
SEQUESTER SHOWDOWN
The vote shifted the budget debate to the March 1 start of automatic spending cuts for military and domestic programs, and the March 27 expiration of funding needed to keep federal agencies operating.
Ryan said he believed that the automatic cuts, known as a sequester, would likely proceed without changes, because no alternatives have been advanced by Senate Democrats or the Obama administration.
The House last year passed two bills to replace the sequester cuts for fiscal 2013, sparing any reductions for military programs, while shifting more of the cuts onto many domestic programs aimed at aiding the poor, including the Medicaid healthcare program and social services block grants.
After the "fiscal cliff" deal, signed by Obama on January 2, raised taxes on the wealthy and delayed the start of automatic cuts, Congress faces about $85 billion in cuts for the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends on April 14.
The budget plans that the legislation aims to enforce would set discretionary spending levels for fiscal 2014, which starts on October 1.
(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan; Editing by Fred Barbash and Paul Simao)
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/debt-limit-extension-bill-passes-house-002236821--business.html
kevin youkilis Tropical Storm Debby legend of korra lebron james magic mike trailer Alan Turing brave
A Necessary Change to the CFAA - Internet Law Blog
As all now know, Aaron Swartz took his own life recently. Common sentiment is that his death was a result of an oppressive federal lawsuit, over a victim-less crime, which would have meant a multi-decade prison sentence for the computer genius if he lost. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren wants to change the law to ensure nobody else in Aaron?s position feels forced to make the same ultimate sacrifice. So the congresswoman from California introduced Aaron?s Law, an amendment to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Aaron?s Story: Genius with a Yen for Information
Ever used an RSS feed? You can thank Aaron Swartz for that. As a teenager, when peers were hanging out at the mall, he was creating the RSS specifications. He was also one of the big brains credited with getting Reddit.com off the ground.
Aaron got into some trouble with the government. Without rehashing the long and technical story, suffice it to say that Aaron set up a computer that downloaded a whole lot of data from the M.I.T. JSTOR database. Even though the university declined to prosecute, the government decided to bring him up on wire and computer fraud charges anyway. The Feds wanted to use Aaron as an example of what could happen if you hack or crack networks.
It was a David v. Goliath legal showdown; Aaron represented himself against an army of federal attorneys; he wasn?t successful like David and potentially faced 35 years behind bars. Instead of going to jail, he decided to take his own life.
Zoe Lofgren?s Proposal: Aaron?s Law
Aaron?s death pierced the tech community?s collective soul. Few people doubted that the Digital Age had lost one of its most creative ? albeit melancholy ? minds. Perhaps as a means to cope and honor Aaron?s significant contribution to our times, his passing reawakened a movement to amend outdated Internet law regulations that call for ?outlandishly severe penalties? in victimless online intellectual property cases.
As a tasteful homage to Swartz, Lofgren introduced a bill on Reddit ? a bill that Lofgren explained was written with the intention of preventing ?what happened to Aaron from happening to other Internet users.? She also explained there was a ?simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations.?
Lofgren?s proposal does exactly what Harvard law professor Laurence Lessig has been touting for a while ? it prevents ??crimes? that are nothing more than a breach of contract? from being prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Specifically, Lofgren?s law would annotate the CFAA?s definition of ?authorized access? to:
?[Unauthorized access] does not include access in violation of an agreement or contractual obligation, such as an acceptable use policy or terms of service agreement, with an Internet service provider, Internet website, or employer.?
About The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) passed in 1984 as a way to prosecute high-level computer cracking and espionage. The law was updated in 1988, 1994, 1996, 2001, 2002 and 2008.? As of 2012, the CFAA has been used to combat foreign cybercrimes, computer espionage, computer trespassing, computer fraud, password trafficking and malicious virus spreading. A felony offense, first time offenders convicted under the CFAA can be thrown in jail for 5 years per charge. Defendants convicted twice can receive double the sentence. Currently, the act?s only limitation is monetary in that the action in question must involve a direct cost greater than $5,000.
Since some of the information that lands on ?hacktivist? sites is obtained by cracking and hacking, in recent years the government has attempted to make the CFAA stricter as a way to shut down sites like Wikileaks. Department of Justice Computer Crime Chief Richard Downing claims it will be impossible ?to deter serious insider threats through prosecution? if the CFAA is not made stricter.
Prediction: Who Will Be For Aaron?s Law & Who Will Be Against It?
Now that Lofgren?s bill is on the table, representatives will review the language and get down to the business of ?yay-ing? or ?nay-ing.? Expect push-back from law enforcement agencies and groups that have an interest in mitigating piracy (think RIAA, MPAA and the politicians on their side). The same communities that organized against SOPA, in addition to constitutional advocates on the lookout for statutes with unreasonable punishments, will probably support Lofgren?s proposal.
Kelly / Warner deals with cases involving Internet law matters. If you need to speak with an attorney well-versed in online regulations, feel free to contact us anytime.
?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)