How To Cut An Onion Without Crying
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/chopping-onions-tear-free_n_1181225.html
waste management aaron rodgers two fat ladies dennys kindle fire glen davis kobe bryant
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/chopping-onions-tear-free_n_1181225.html
waste management aaron rodgers two fat ladies dennys kindle fire glen davis kobe bryant
What does 2012 have in store for giving, especially the impact-driven approach to it we call "philanthrocapitalism"? Having peered into our philanthrocrystal ball, we see giving becoming more dangerous, more controversial, and more political, among other things, as philanthrocapitalists find themselves at the centre of some of the year's biggest news stories.
Here are our 10 predictions for the coming year:
1. Greater scrutiny of the 1 percent. The role of the rich in setting the political agenda is going to be one of the big stories in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election in November. Philanthrocapitalists hungry for impact are increasingly looking to get leverage by influencing government policy, and this election will set the policy agenda for the next four years at a time when America (and, along with it, the world) faces some tough choices. We have been here before, of course, with George Soros' support for the "Move On" campaign in 2004, which was ultimately unsuccessful in unseating the incumbent president, George W. Bush. The influence of the Koch brothers on the right is already on the media's radar, but there are plenty more to be discovered. Expect donors of the left and the right to pitch in to this contest using political donations and philanthropic giving to support policy thinking on issues like budget priorities and health care and school reform. Is this philanthropy or plutocracy? We will all be talking about that this year.
2. Nation building is back. Politics will also be a big theme of philanthropy around the world, which may bring with it genuine danger for those involved. From the nations involved in the Arab Spring to Vladimir Putin's (for now) Russia, and maybe even North Korea, philanthropists are going to be getting involved far more than in recent years in supporting civic movements and even political movements in countries where there is a real opportunity to change the political balance, hopefully in a more democratic and just direction. As the year-end crackdown on various American-backed nonprofits by Egypt's military government should remind everyone involved, those threatened by this philanthropy are unilkely to take foreign interference in their countries lying down.
3. Crunch time for Muslim philanthropy. On a related point, 2012 is going to be a year of decision for Muslim philanthropists. There is a huge opportunity for them to strengthen civil society in the Arab Spring countries and work with the emerging entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs there. Pakistan and Afghanistan are both in need of high-impact philanthropy. Yet with the honorable exception of the Aga Khan Foundation, too much of the giving from Muslim donors, including by some of the multi-billion-dollar foundations set up by the rulers of Gulf countries and their leading businesses, is still focused on traditional welfare and charity rather than social change. Yet change seems likely to happen with or without them, and if they do not help it along, it may well be at the expense of the Muslim wealthy. Perhaps this is an area where Turkey's emerging philanthrocapitalists will show a lead to the rest of the Muslim world.
4. Occupy philanthropy. One of the big questions of the year will be whether the global Occupy movement will evolve from a necessary voice of protest into an effective force for change. There is an opportunity, and we believe an obligation, for philanthrocapitalists to help reform capitalism, so that it genuinely works in the interest of the population as a whole, not just a small subset of it. Andrew Carnegie understood the vulnerability of capitalism to the perception of it being inherently unfair; it is time today's successful capitalists did so, too. The gradually increasing pack of CEOs who get it, such as Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, Paul Polman of Unilever, and Sir Richard Branson of Virgin, have a huge opportunity to set the agenda for their peers, as long as they back up their words with serious action.
5. Steve Jobs, philanthropist. After spending his life being fairly dismissive of philanthropy, the late co-founder of Apple is likely to be one of the most prominent additions to the mega-giving scene in 2012. His widow, Laurene Powell Jobs, has long been involved in giving, having founded an organisation to get students from poor backgrounds into college, participating in the Clinton Global Initiative and Global Philanthropy Forum, and visiting Africa on a trip for philanthropists led by Ben Affleck. Now that she controls her late husband's fortune, expect her to start putting it to good use.
We can also look forward to some weird and wacky philanthropy from new donors from the social media generation. The Facebook IPO is going to make a lot of people very rich and, since its founder Mark Zuckerberg has already signed up to the Giving Pledge, we are hopeful that the new cohort of wealthy will turn to philanthropy as a priority. The most entertaining philanthropist of 2011 was Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who famously/notoriously offered $100,000 grants to get people to drop out of college and start a business, as well as supporting efforts to create new floating countries in international waters ("sea steading") and launching a science fund closed to university academics, a large proportion of the people we normally think of as scientists. Plenty of people think Thiel is nuts, which is great. Too much philanthropy today talks about risk-taking without being willing to court controversy. Expect the donors of the social network generation to have no such fears.
6. Celanthropy's new stars. Ben Affleck will become more prominent on the Hollywood philanthropy scene, though probably still lagging behind the likes of Brangelina, George Clooney, and Matt Damon. The celanthropist to watch, though, will be Lady Gaga, who we expect to take a big step forward in her giving, probably with a cause dear to the hearts of her "Little Monsters" (as she calls her young fans). Another celanthropist worth watching will be Ashton Kutcher, to see if he can recover as a force for good following a messy divorce and some unfortunate tweeting in 2011. Despite his and other bad celebrity experiences, the use of Twitter and other social media in philanthropy will continue to increase -- which should mean even more celebrity mishaps this year.
Some giving dynasties will also move more clearly into the limelight. Will Chelsea Clinton, as well as championing social causes in her new TV job, take a bigger role at the Clinton Global Initiative? Expect greater interest to be taken in Barbara Bush, daughter of George W., and her health care nonprofit, Global Health Corps. And now that he is focusing on philanthropy, expect some bold initiatives from Howard Bufffett, grandson of Warren Buffett. Also watch out for the House of Windsor, as Britain's Brangelina, Wills 'n' Kate, make a serious effort to build a celanthropic brand, hopefully learning from the ability of Princess Diana to draw attention to an issue and the underrated skills of Prince Charles as a social entrepreneur.
7. Deep impact. This will be a big year for "impact investing," which explicitly seeks both financial and social/environmental returns. So far, there has been much more talk than action, but the time has come for the money to back the ideas. The Omidyar Network has already taken a lead, but some other big philanthrocapitalists will join it this year. Enter the Gates Foundation?
8. The great extinction. Alas, it is going to be a tough year for many nonprofits. We are braced for more scandals about inspiring narratives unsupported by facts, along the lines of the 2011 Greg Mortenson expos?. The pain of government spending cuts will be felt widely, both directly, as many nonprofits rely on money from government, and indirectly, as cuts to government services will lead to greater demand pressure on non-government alternatives. We think that many nonprofits will be faced with serious shrinkage and, in many cases, extinction. Our hope is that smart donors will grasp the nettle and try to manage this culling process, encouraging mergers wherever possible, so that the best of the nonprofit sector is preserved or, better still, made stronger.
9. Philanthrocapitalism the Chinese way. There was some schadenfreude when the Gates-Buffett visit to China in 2010 failed to drum up new signatories to their Giving Pledge, although that was not the immediate goal of their mission. We expect philanthrocapitalism to become an increasingly important force in China in 2012, though it will have a distinctive local flavor. Instead of traditional, American-style, foundation-oriented philanthropy, we expect a wave of stories about corporates playing a key role in solving social and environmental problems through a version of "social investment." China is now hitting a difficult stage of economic development when it needs to manage its use of natural resources, stop competing on low labor costs alone, start tackling potential drags on its competitiveness, such as its rapidly aging population, and deal with rising expectations among the populations. All of this requires a wave of innovation, which China's philanthrocapitalists are well placed to lead.
10. Some good news. We are hopeful for some big breakthroughs that will prove that philanthrocapitalism works. Will some of the few remaining countries still hit by polio announce that they are free of the disease? Will the death toll from malaria plunge even further and faster? We think so, and that as it does, it will validate the "posse" approach to solving the world's problems at the heart of philanthrocapitalism. Expect more new posse partnerships to be announced, similar to the Malaria No More campaign led by Ray Chambers, which has galvanized a powerful coalition of the willing. This is a time of growing scepticism about the effectiveness of government, international aid, and even of giving. Yet clear evidence of results may start to change the mood and persuade a growing number of people that philanthrocapitalism is worth the risk.
Matthew Bishop and Michael Green are co-authors of Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World. Bishop is New York Bureau Chief of The Economist; Green is an independent writer and consultant.
?
?
?
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-bishop/philanthrocapitalism_b_1179952.html
los angeles weather big ten acc challenge scott disick kourtney kardashian kourtney kardashian lipitor lipitor
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan ? In what could be the biggest change in a decade in a relationship that has been a mainstay of U.S. military and counterterrorism policy since the 9/11 terror attacks, the United States and Pakistan are lowering expectations for what the two nations will do together and planning for a period of more limited contact.
The change described by both Pakistani and U.S. officials follows a series of diplomatic crises over the past year that strained an already difficult partnership based around the U.S. goal of stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan and a reduction in Islamic-inspired terrorism.
For Pakistan, cooperation on that agenda was rewarded with billions in financial aid. The change means less cooperation with Washington and a willingness to swear off some aid that often made Pakistan feel too dependent, and too pushed around.
For the United States, scaling down an expensive military and economic program that has not met expectations could come at the cost of less Pakistani help in ending the war in next-door Afghanistan.
Both U.S. and Pakistani officials said the November killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a NATO airstrike and Washington's refusal to outright apologize for the deaths has been a game changer in a relationship characterized by mistrust and mutual acrimony.
In the United States, civilian and military officials have called the friendly fire incident a tragedy caused by mistakes on both sides, but insist that Pakistan fired first. Pakistan denies that, and has called the incident an unprovoked attack.
Pakistan's loudly angry reaction has, if anything, hardened attitudes in Congress and elsewhere that Islamabad is untrustworthy or ungrateful.
A senior Obama administration official conceded that the deaths made every aspect of U.S. cooperation with Pakistan more difficult, and that the distance Pakistan has imposed may continue indefinitely. The official, like most others interviewed for this story, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of ongoing discussions.
Pakistan has already stopped billing the United States for its anti-terror war expenses under the 10-year-old Coalition Support Fund, set up by Washington after the 9/11 attacks to reimburse its many allies for their military expenses fighting terrorists worldwide and touted by the U.S. as a success story.
"From here on in we want a very formal, business- like relationship. The lines will be drawn. There will be no more of the free run of the past, no more interpretation of rules. We want it very formal with agreed upon limits," military spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas told The Associated Press in an interview in the garrison town of Rawalpindi.
Pakistan will further reduce the number of U.S. military people in Pakistan, limit military exchanges with the United States and rekindle its relationship with neighbors, such as China, which has been a more reliable ally according to Islamabad. Earlier this year Pakistan signed a deal with China for 50 JF-17 aircraft with sophisticated avionics, compared by some, who are familiar with military equipment, to the U.S.-made F-16 fighter jets.
Pakistan retaliated for the friendly fire deaths by shutting down NATO's supply routes to Afghanistan and kicked the U.S. out of an air base it used to facilitate drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal belt. Both U.S. and Pakistani officials expect more fallout, most likely in the form of additional tolls or taxes on NATO supplies into Afghanistan through Pakistan. There could also be charges for use of Pakistani airspace, said some officials in Pakistan.
Pakistan also asked the U.S. not to send any high-level visitors to Pakistan for some time, the U.S. official said. After past crises, including the flare-up of anti-U.S. fervor following the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces in May, Pakistan had accepted top-level U.S. officials for a public peace-making session rather quickly. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the then- top U.S. military official visited Pakistan less than a month after the bin Laden raid, and pledged continued cooperation on several fronts.
U.S. officials said they would like to mend fences quickly, but the senior administration official and others said they assume there will be less contact, fewer high-profile joint projects and fewer American government employees living and working in Pakistan.
Since 2001, the U.S. has pumped aid to the country under both Republican and Democratic administrations with the expectation that Pakistan will be a bulwark against the spread of Islamic terrorism. Anti-American sentiment has only grown, and spiked in 2011. In Pakistan, both a military dictatorship and the elected civilian government that followed it have accepted the aid and pledged cooperation against terrorism and on other fronts.
The mutual conclusion that each side can live with a more limited relationship comes at a troubling time for Washington. It has suspended drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas since the NATO bombings, yet the unmanned drone is considered by many who are familiar with the conflict to be one of the most effective weapons against insurgents hiding in Pakistan's tribal regions.
With the clock ticking until its combat withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2015, Washington's battlefield strategy is to break the momentum of the Taliban in order to improve its negotiating position at the table. Pakistan is seen as crucial to the success of this effort.
Washington needs Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to the table. Senior Taliban leaders live in Pakistan, and mid- and low-level fighters who target U.S. troops in Afghanistan slip across the Pakistan border to regroup and rearm.
The United States has long pressed Pakistan to flush insurgents out of tribal safe havens along the border, with minimal success. While the Pakistan army denies giving direct aid to Taliban groups, particularly the Haqqani network, it also says it won't launch an offensive to kick them out.
With more than 3,000 Pakistani soldiers killed and thousands more injured in border fights with militants as part of the anti-terror war, Abbas said the Pakistan military has grown weary of Washington's repeated calls for Pakistan to do more.
Meanwhile some U.S. politicians are calling for an aid cut off to Pakistan, arguing that the U.S. has little to show for billions sent to Pakistan over the past decade. A total aid cutoff is extremely unlikely, but Congress has already trimmed back the Obama administration's latest request and is expected to demand less generosity and more strings over the coming year.
The U.S. official said the current political standoff has made the already difficult White House argument to Congress even harder to make. That argument basically holds that because of its geographic location, prominence in the Islamic world, past willingness to hunt terrorists and its nuclear weapons, Pakistan is a partner the U.S. may not fully trust but cannot afford to lose.
Pakistani military officials said a U.S. aid cutoff would suspend delivery next year of six refitted F-16 aircraft. Currently Pakistan currently has 47 F-16s, a small percentage of a fighter wing that also includes Chinese and European-made jets.
Abbas said U.S. cash payments, made through the Coalition Support Fund, have been erratic. In the last 10 years Pakistan's army has seen only $1.8 billion of $8.6 billion in CSF funds. The rest of the money was siphoned off by the military government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf to finance subsidies and prop up his government.
Currently the U.S. is withholding another $600 million in CSF that was promised last year.
"The equipment we have been getting from America over the last five years has been almost a trickle," said former national security advisor retired Gen. Mahmud Durrani.
He complained of "second-hand helicopters that were badly refitted."
Less aid might propel Pakistan toward greater financial independence, he added.
"If the money stops we can get our act together and manage. It is not the first time that American money has dried up and maybe we need to go cold turkey. Maybe in the long term we will be saying, "Thank God this happened.'"
___
Kathy Gannon is The AP Special Regional Correspondent for Pakistan and Afghanistan and can be reached at www.twitter.com/kathygannon.
Gearan reported from Washington.
the temptations prime rib recipe norad santa tracker vince carter sweet potato casserole jerome simpson safeway
The biopic of former porn star-turned-activist Linda Lovelace has added three new cast members. Chief amongst the new stars announced on Monday is Demi Moore, who will play the role of feminist and women's liberation activist Gloria Steinem.
Moore will get a short cameo in the film, which will star Amanda Seyfried as Lovelace and Peter Sarsgaard as her ex-husband and porn production manager Chuck Traynor. It is a bit ironic that she'll play Steinem, as one of her best known roles is that of a stripper in "Striptease." Featuring as Lovelace's co-star in "Deep Throat," the iconic porn film that shot Lovelace to film, will be Adam Brody, who is best known for his work on "The OC." Eric Roberts has also been added to the cast as a lie detector expert.
In December, James Franco was reported to be in talks to join the film as Hugh Hefner another celebrity cameo. Hank Azaria in December signed on to play Jerry Damiano, the director of "Deep Throat."
Last seen in the ensemble financial drama "Margin Call" and the Sam Levinson-directed drama "Another Happy Day," Moore will next be seen alongside Miley Cyrus in the comedy "LOL."
For more, click over to The Hollywood Reporter.
Related on HuffPost:
'; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/demi-moore-to-play-gloria-steinem_n_1180142.html
cadillac xts rambus rambus pabst blue ribbon pabst blue ribbon mac miller omarion
My mom was recently diagnosed with ?cervical? cancer; what does this mean for my Gardasil shots?
- Samurai
Don?t get that shot. It has killed many.
Be warned.
- Chase
I think that Gardasil (the first poster is right, there has been a lot of deaths and complications but that?s usually after the first shot so you?re probably good) protects against a kind of cervical cancer caused by an STD. I?m sure WebMD can give you a more comprehensive answer.
Now what I?d be wondering about is if the Dysplasia is genetic. That might indicate a higher chance of getting cervical cancer but that doesn?t sound like a big deal. Go get a test once in a while and monitor it and if you get the dysplasia then you can do something about it.
You?ve probably read this but cancer survival rates are increasing year by year. Through new medication, new treatments, and just more information. If in ten or twenty years you do get cancer, medical science might have gotten to the point where its seen like an irritating ailment. Like a planters wart.
I had a friend though who had throat cancer of some sort. It was serious. He went through the chemo and surgery and all of that but he accredits his survival to his change of diet. He tailored his diet to boosting his immune system, cut out all the bad stuff that tastes so good but he made a speedy recovery and he?s still with us. So that?s another thing that you might want to look into.
- BIG FAT MJ LOVER
Oh?so these (and many other vaccines) contain mercury?
so how much mercury is it going to take to (a) give you cancer (b) cause nerve damage (c) lower your quality of life?????? (d) cause an autoimmune dysfunction
I guess you?ll just have to try and find out?
NOOOOO?I said NO amount of mercury is good for you. Taking care of your health through food that is good for you; clean air; clean water and sunshine is all you need to be healthy.
Yes, you have genes. But what you do and what you eat controls the *expression* of those genes.
Good luck
- Denisedds
I debated on answering this question until I read the answers you received. They are so ridiculous and they do not address your questions. I feel obligated to answer you. Gardasil has not killed anyone. It does not contain mercury and it doesn?t protect you against cervical cancer. It protects you against 4 strains of HPV. What you eat does not affect cervical cancer.
Dysplasia is an abnormality in maturation of cells within a tissue. It is not the cause of cervical cancer it is part of the process and it may or may not progress to cancer. Regardless of what caused your mother?s cancer it is very unlikely to have anything to do with if you develop cervical cancer or not. It is very rare for this kind of cancer, and really most cancers, to be hereditary. You have far more influence over whether or not you get it by having the HPV vaccine.
Yes you are still at risk for cervical cancer even with the vaccine, but it is far less a risk and it has nothing to do with your mother. The vaccine protects you against 4 strains of HPV, not cancer. About 30% of cervical cancers are related to HPV therefore, it is still possible to develop it.
Related Articles:
Source: http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?r5691226475
marco rubio no shave november miranda lambert kim kardashian divorce generators generators lesean mccoy
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> -->
*
Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IphoneIpadBlog/~3/oI4T93JU1xk/
widespread panic richard stallman richard stallman williston north dakota williston north dakota kody brown transylvania
?
When oil leaking from a faulty well bubbled to the surface of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Brazil recently, it caused a stir throughout the country.
There were obvious environmental concerns. And Chevron, the U.S. company operating the well, faced accusations of misleading the government even after immediately accepting responsibility for the spill.
But perhaps the biggest reason for the flurry of activity was that for Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, smoothly functioning wells are essential to its plans for deep-water oil extraction in the coming years. The country is counting on vastly expanding its oil production to boost the momentum it has enjoyed while other nations have struggled through the worldwide economic crisis.
Brazil's economy already has powered forward, even as the U.S. and Europe faltered, buoyed by exports of commodities such as iron ore and soybeans to Asia. That, combined with moderate social programs and a consumer spending boom, has lifted tens of millions of Brazilians out of poverty in recent years.
Now the state-run oil company, Petrobras, is beginning to embark on one of the world's most difficult deep-water oil extraction projects. Analysts say that Brazil, the world's 13th largest oil producer, could push into the top 5 by 2020.
The discovery in 2007 of pre-salt reserves, so called because they lie under a hard-to-penetrate layer of salt and rock deep below the ocean's surface, gave Brazil the chance to more than double oil production. Last year, Petrobras ? which by law must head every project but will also work with other companies ? completed the largest share issuance in history to prepare for investments that will total up to $224 billion over the next five years. Total investments could surpass $1 trillion over a decade.
"This will be one of the largest investment projects in all of human history," said Pedro Cordeiro, an oil expert at the Bain & Co. consultancy in Sao Paulo. "Putting a man on the moon, for example, cost 30% less in current terms than will be spent [on Brazil's oil project] in just the next five years."
Petrobras is widely regarded as a worldwide leader in the very complicated business of deep-water oil extraction. For this type of operation, there is probably no better or technologically advanced company, analysts say. But the mission will be difficult.
"This is a new frontier," said Mauro Yuji Hayashi, head of planning for the pre-salt project at Petrobras.
There are an estimated 50 billion to 70 billion barrels of oil in the explored areas of the pre-salt region, on top of the 17 billion of reserves that Brazil already knew about. Analysts think that investment plans should have the country pumping out about 5 million barrels per day by 2020, more than Venezuela, currently the oil powerhouse in Latin America.
The oil and gas sector makes up about 10% of Brazil's economy, now the sixth-largest in the world. By 2020, the sector could account for 25% of the economy, making it the largest.
"This [oil extraction project] will reaffirm and amplify considerably the changes that are taking place," said Peter Hakim, president emeritus at Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank focusing on hemispheric affairs. "Brazil has emerged as a global power."
As it turned out, the Nov. 7 accident that caused the spill 230 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro proved fairly small, less than 3,000 barrels, and relatively easy to contain. Brazil's federal prosecutor, nevertheless, said in mid-December that the country wanted Chevron and Transocean Ltd., which operated the rig responsible for drilling the well that resulted in the leak, to shut down their operations. The companies are being sued for billions of dollars as a consequence of the accident, apparently caused by underestimating pressure.
Chevron is accused of editing video of the spill to hide its severity from the government, and of informing the government that the company was embarking on a cleanup process without mentioning that the tool they needed to do so wasn't even in the country.
The petroleum spilled never reached the shore, and the event was minuscule compared with the 2010 BP catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, which at its worst was gushing more than 60,000 barrels per day. But the Brazilian government ? which has stricter environmental regulations for oil extraction than the U.S. ? is coming down hard on Chevron.
"We may be a tropical country, but we're not a banana republic," Carlos Minc, Brazil's environment minister, told the Financial Times. "Everyone wants to come to Brazil, and if we're not strict with [Chevron], this place is going to turn into a pool of oil."
Petrobras' Hayashi said the spill, which did not involve the pre-salt project, was a reminder that there is no such thing as an infallible or risk-free activity in any industry.
The potential upside to the pre-salt project for Brazil is huge, and many analysts think the country is likely to pull off more or less what officials say it will. But the risks are not only environmental.
The Brazilian law that requires Petrobras to lead all the projects could stretch the company thin and make foreign companies less willing to provide the help it may need, said Christopher Garman, director for Latin America at Eurasia Group in New York.
Brazil seems more concerned about maintaining national control and avoiding the "Dutch disease," in which new oil-exporting countries become dominated by the industry and an overvalued currency kills off other sectors.
The government is counting on a set of laws to also build up a national oil services industry, providing things like ships and platforms, as well as plans for a sovereign wealth fund, to spread around the benefits of the oil. Since the Brazilian economy is so big, it's unlikely to be dominated by oil in the way that Venezuela is, but Brazil is looking closely at oil success stories such as Norway, analysts said.
"One nightmare scenario is that Brazil misses production targets because of a framework that makes it less attractive for other companies to participate," Garman said. "Or the government may say, 'We're going to go a bit more slowly so we can develop a local oil service industry.' This is a fair trade-off, but there are still risks there, too.
"The pre-salt discovery," he said, "is not as simple as finding a winning lottery ticket."
Bevins is a special correspondent.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45838065/ns/local_news-anchorage_ak/
reggie bush ufc 137 boston news matilda new jersey weather halloween movies halloween movies
The requirement is to create an IPAD application for an electronics company. The applications should be a product gallery and also act as a customer service tool through which they can select the electronic/electrical item they are looking for. For example a customer needs an airconditioner but do not know which one to choose from. So instead of a sales person helping them out, the IPAD application will ask a series of questions and help them to choose the right A/C for them. A sample flow is shown in this link :http://www.logicworkspace.com/alhafidh-present/ , but we need to change the design as well as the UI completely.
Please bid if you have prior experience on creating IPAD/IPHONE application for electronics company before. Bid with your portfolio
0
Reviews
0
Total Projects
Clarity in Specification
Communication
Payment Promptness
Professionalism
Would work for Again
Open Projects
Active Projects
Closed Projects
THE VILLAGES, Fla. ? Singer and actress Kaye Stevens, who performed with the Rat Pack and was a frequent guest on Johnny Carson's "The Tonight Show," has died at a central Florida hospital. She was 79.
Close friend Gerry Schweitzer confirmed that Stevens died Wednesday at the Villages Hospital north of Orlando following a battle with breast cancer and blood clots.
Stevens, a longtime South Florida resident, performed with Rat Pack members including Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr. and Joey Bishop. She also sang solo at venues like Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas and the Plaza Hotel's Persian Room in New York City.
During the Vietnam War era, Stevens performed for American soldiers in the war zone with Bob Hope's USO tour.
According to a handout from friend Rhonda Glenn, Stevens was born Catherine Louise Stephens in Pittsburgh. Her family eventually moved to Cleveland, where a teenage Stevens got her start as a drummer and singer. She later married now deceased bandleader and trumpet player Tommy Amato, and the couple performed throughout the eastern U.S.
During a gig in New Jersey, Stevens was discovered by Ed McMahon, Carson's longtime sidekick, which led to new bookings. Her big break came when she was playing a lounge at The Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas. Debbie Reynolds became ill and was unable to perform in the main room. Stevens filled in and was an instant hit.
Besides singing, Stevens also acted in film and television. She appeared in six movies, earning a Golden Globe nomination in 1964 for "The New Interns." She was a regular celebrity player on game shows and appeared as a regular on "Days of Our Lives" from 1974-79.
During the past two decades, Stevens started her own ministry and began performing only Christian and patriotic music. She staged benefits to help build St. Vincent Catholic Church in her longtime home of Margate, Fla., where city officials named a park in her honor.
mash alec baldwin kicked off plane alec baldwin kicked off plane mumia mumia uss arizona memorial uss arizona memorial
HONOLULU (AP) ? Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers accomplish little in 2012.
Absent any major policy pushes, much of the year will focus on winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy.
Partisan, down-to-the-wire fights over allowing the nation to take on more debt and sharply reducing government spending defined 2011. In the new year, there are almost no must-do pieces of legislation facing the president and Congress.
The one exception is the looming debate on a full-year extension of a cut in the Social Security payroll tax rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Democrats and Republicans are divided over how to put in place that extension.
The White House believes GOP lawmakers boxed themselves in during the pre-Christmas debate on the tax break and will be hard-pressed to back off their own assertions that it should continue through the end of 2012.
Once that debate is over, the White House says, Obama's political fate will no longer be tied to Washington.
"Now that he's sort of free from having to put out these fires, the president will have a larger playing field. If that includes Congress, all the better," said Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary. But, he added, "that's no longer a requirement."
Aides say the president will not turn his back on Congress completely in the new year. He is expected to once again push lawmakers to pass elements of his jobs bill that were blocked by Republicans last fall.
If those efforts fail, the White House says, Obama's re-election year will focus almost exclusively on executive action.
Earnest said Obama will come out with at least two or three directives per week, continuing the "We Can't Wait" campaign the administration began this fall, and try to define Republicans in Congress as gridlocked and dysfunctional.
Obama's election year retreat from legislative fights means this term will end without significant progress on two of his 2008 campaign promises, an immigration overhaul and closing the military prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Presidential directives probably won't make a big dent in the nation's 8.6 percent unemployment rate or lead to significant improvements in the economy. That's the chief concern for many voters and the issue on which Republican candidates are most likely to criticize Obama.
In focusing on executive actions rather than ambitious legislation, the president risks appearing to be putting election-year strategy ahead of economic action at a time when millions of Americans are still out of work.
"Americans expect their elected leaders to work together to boost job creation, even in an election year," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Still, Obama and his advisers are beginning 2012 with a renewed sense of confidence, buoyed by a series of polls that show the president's approval rating climbing as Congress becomes increasingly unpopular.
They believe his victory over Republicans in the payroll tax debate has boosted his credentials as a fighter for the middle class, a theme he will look to seize on in his Jan. 24 State of the Union address.
Obama's campaign-driven, domestic-travel schedule starts in Cleveland on Wednesday, the day after GOP presidential hopefuls square off in the Iowa caucuses. He will also keep up an aggressive re-election fundraising schedule, with events already lined up in Chicago on Jan. 11.
Campaign officials say Obama will fully engage in the re-election campaign once the Republicans pick their nominee. He will focus almost exclusively on campaigning after the late summer Democratic National Convention, barring unexpected developments at home or abroad.
Among the issues that could disrupt Obama's re-election plans: further economic turmoil in Europe, instability in North Korea following its leadership transition and threats from Iran.
The president's signature legislative accomplishment will also come under greater scrutiny in the new year, when a critical part of his health care overhaul is debated before the Supreme Court.
Obama's foreign travel next year will be limited mainly to the summits and international gatherings every U.S. president traditionally attends. He's expected to travel to South Korea in March for a nuclear security summit and to Colombia in April for the Summit of the Americas. He's also likely to visit Mexico in June for the G-20 economic summit.
Two other major international gatherings ? the NATO summit and the G-8 economic meeting ? will be held in Chicago, on home turf.
___
Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC
Associated Pressfree shipping free shipping esophageal cancer extreme makeover home edition marfan syndrome marfan syndrome britney spears engaged