Source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e71da6690cacb720074c962a96b992b3
next iron chef meryl streep aquamarine iraq war iraq war jimmy fallon jimmy fallon
Friday, December 23, 2011
Japan Says Decommissioning Damaged Reactors Could Take 40 Years
[unable to retrieve full-text content]The government had previously predicted it would take 30 years to clean up after the accident at Fukushima, the world?s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Test your baseball knowledge with our comprehensive quiz
These comments are not screened before publication. Constructive debate about the above story is welcome, but personal attacks are not. Please do not post comments that are commercial in nature or that violate any copyright[s]. Comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence will be removed. If you find a comment offensive, you may flag it.
- If you have questions about comments or comment policy, check out our FAQ page.
- When posting a comment, you agree to our Terms of Service.
tom brokaw maria shriver andy irons ethan zohn jeremy mayfield occupy oakland general strike occupy oakland general strike
Monday, December 19, 2011
Pats end Broncos' 6-game streak
New England's 41-23 win halts Denver's win streak at six games
updated 7:28 p.m. ET Dec. 18, 2011
DENVER - Not this time, Tim Tebow.
Tom Brady and the New England Patriots shut down Tebow's late-game heroics and clinched a playoff berth with a 41-23 victory over the Denver Broncos on Sunday.
The Patriots (11-3) won their sixth straight game and another AFC East title by bouncing back from an early 17-6 deficit and an awful first quarter in which they were outgained on the ground 167 yards to 4.
This time, there was no last-minute magic from Tebow, who had guided the Broncos (8-6) to four straight fourth-quarter comebacks and six straight wins.
Instead of another slow start followed by a fantastic finish, the Broncos started out fast and then fizzled. They scored on their first three possessions and then were done in by a trio of second-quarter turnovers.
Champ Bailey had said the Broncos needed a big game against a big QB to prove to themselves and others that they were not just a curiosity but a contender.
They didn't get it on this day.
Denver has faced four quarterbacks currently ranked in the top-10 in yards passing ? Aaron Rodgers, Matthew Stafford, Philip Rivers (twice) and Brady. They're 1-4 in those games.
Brady, who was 23 of 34 for 320 yards with two TD passes and a touchdown run, made up for another bad day by the Patriots' defense to beat the Broncos for the second time in eight career starts ? the only team with a winning record against the three-time Super Bowl champion.
With its first loss since Oct. 30, the AFC West-leading Broncos face a tougher path to the playoffs, with a trip to Buffalo next week followed by a season finale against Kansas City, which ended Green Bay's 19-game winning streak Sunday behind Kyle Orton, the player Tebow replaced in Denver.
Tebow fell to 7-2 as Denver's starter.
The Broncos' 167 yards rushing in the first quarter ? 11 more than their league-leading per-game average ? represented the biggest output in any quarter of the Bill Belichick era in New England. They finished with 252.
Tebow slipped a tackle in the backfield by Rob Ninkovich and darted his way for a 9-yard TD on the game's opening drive. Lonnie Paxton's bad snap prevented Matt Prater from kicking the extra point.
Brady needed five snaps to put the Patriots ahead 7-6 with a 33-yard touchdown toss to Chad Ochocinco, his first score since Nov. 21, 2010, for Cincinnati at Buffalo.
The Broncos responded by going 80 yards in four plays and scoring again. Willis McGahee reeled off a 29-yard run and then retreated to the sideline with what appeared to be a left hamstring injury. Tebow hit Demaryius Thomas for 22 yards before tailback Lance Ball took it in from 32 yards out for his first TD run of his career to make it 13-7.
Denver's next drive stalled at the 8, and coach John Fox decided not to go for it and Prater's field goal made it 16-7.
That's when the Patriots went to the no-huddle and Brady capped an impressive drive with a 1-yard touchdown throw to Aaron Hernandez, who set career highs with nine catches for 129 yards. That made it 16-14.
The Broncos' ball-control offense stumbled after that.
Ball fumbled at his own 19 and Ninkovich recovered, leading to Stephen Gostkowski's 21-yard field goal put the Patriots up for good at 17-16.
Then, defensive end Mark Anderson, subbing for Andre Carter, who injured his left knee earlier in the game, forced and recovered a fumble by Tebow at the Broncos 40. Six plays later, Brady took it in himself from a yard out to make it 24-16.
Brady audibled at the line and just inched the nose of the football across the goal line with 1:08 left in the first half, then celebrated his eighth career TD with a masterful spike.
After some questionable play calling by Broncos offensive coordinator Mike McCoy, the Broncos punted the ball back to the Patriots with 40 seconds left. They held, but Broncos punt returner Quan Cosby tried to field a punt on the run and muffed it with three seconds left. Dane Fletcher recovered for New England and Gostkowski trotted out for a 34-yard field goal to make it 27-16 at halftime.
After Danny Woodhead's 10-yard TD run made it 34-16, Tebow's 2-yard keeper with 8:41 left pulled the Broncos to 34-23, but Brady responded in a big way, leading the Patriots on another 80-yard scoring drive, this one culminating in BenJarvus Green-Ellis' 1-yard TD run.
Tebow was 11 of 22 for 194 yards and added 93 more on 12 carries. Late in the fourth quarter, he was dropped for a 28-yard sack by Ninkovich, a bad ending to a big week for the second-year pro from Florida.
During the week, Tebow cemented his role as a cultural phenomenon as he was the subject of a skit on "Saturday Night Live," his name was brought up in the GOP debate in Sioux City, Iowa, and two high school students were suspended for organizing several "Tebowing" kneel-downs in tribute to the Broncos QB.
? 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
advertisement
More newsGetty ImagesA vulnerable powerhouse?
PFT: Packers not only lost their first game of the season, they suffered two more important injuries on Sunday. This is crucial for the playoffs.
Chiefs ends Packers' perfect dream ? |? ??Video
The Green Bay Packers' perfect season came to a crashing halt on Sunday against the beleaguered Kansas City Chiefs, who rallied behind interim coach Romeo Crennel and new quarterback Kyle Orton to a shocking 19-14 victory.
Source: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45718058/ns/sports-nfl/
hunger games trailer hunger games trailer gabrielle giffords austin rivers austin rivers ows kindle fire review
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Zynga goes public - investors eye CEO, growth potential with doubts
Zynga was the talk of the New York Stock Exchange when they rank the?opening?bell but after taking an immediate 5 percent hit, investors are?reassessing?Zynga as being overhyped.
Online games developer Zynga Inc scored badly as it went public on Friday, dashing hopes for the year's hottest tech IPO, as investors frowned on its over-reliance on Facebook, dimming growth prospects, and outsized control by CEO Mark Pincus.
Skip to next paragraphZynga's stock fell 5 percent below its $10 initial public offering price to close at $9.50 on Nasdaq on Friday, dealing losses to IPO buyers used to racking up gains on a stock's first day of trading.
Investors had eagerly awaited the IPO as a way to get a slice of Facebook's growth before the leading social networking website goes public, possibly in 2012. Zynga makes money on Facebook by selling virtual items such as jewelry and poker chips in its games such as "FarmVille" and "CityVille."
At least one analyst said on Friday that some investors may have been turned off by Chief Executive Mark Pincus' large voting stake and control over the company. He has a special class of shares that grants him 37 percent voting power even though his equity stake is much lower, and public shareholders will have less than 2 percent of votes.
"We believe that having a CEO/owner-controlled board is particularly dangerous for investors in young companies," said Cowen and Co analyst Doug Creutz.
Creutz, who has a neutral rating on the stock, added that history is full of examples of CEOs who have built young companies but cannot manage them when they mature.
Asked about his voting shares, Pincus told Reuters he decided to retain such huge control over Zynga because he believed from the start that he was the best person to lead the company.
"Investors who want to see the company deliver long-term value are going to be better served by the fact that I can continue to ensure the company keeps its focus on the long term and we don't let short-term swings and opportunities reduce that," he said in an interview.
Based on Friday's closing share price, the value of Pincus' holdings fell to $1.05 billion from $1.1 billion at the IPO price.
Friday's flop stunned investors who had expected a strong showing because the company is profitable, unlike other recent high profile Internet IPOs such as Groupon and Pandora .
"I was stunned when I saw this. This is a disaster for them. The way you're supposed to price deals is to give investors a 15 percent IPO discount to compensate them for the risk of backing a relatively new company," said Dan Niles, chief investment officer of AlphaOne Capital Partners, who did not buy shares.
"It makes me wonder about the underlying health of the market. IPOs like this can change the whole tenor of the market," he added.
Investors said Zynga's stock performance could hurt other private companies in the pipeline such as Yelp and even Facebook. Some investors regard Zynga's IPO as a proxy for Facebook, because 95 percent of its $828 million in revenue in the past nine months comes from Mark Zuckerberg's social network.
krill oil black friday 2011 rhodium uppity uppity stuffing brandon mcinerney
Saturday, December 17, 2011
appleweblog: Calibra y repara el bot?n Home de tu iPhone o iPad http://t.co/GBnE3WG8
- Passer la navigation
- Twitter sur votre mobile ? Cliquez ici m.twitter.com!
- Passer cette ?tape
- Connexion
Calibra y repara el bot?n Home de tu iPhone o iPad cot.ag/sYqmXs 
appleweblog AppleWeblog
Pied de page
Source: http://twitter.com/appleweblog/statuses/147180838247870464
government shutdown sofia vergara jacksonville jaguars jacksonville jaguars iraq war over iraq war over maurice jones drew
Time names "The Protester" 2011 Person of the Year (Reuters)
NEW YORK (Reuters) ? From the Arab Spring to the Occupy Wall Street movement, "The Protester" was named Time magazine's 2011 Person of the Year on Wednesday.
Time defines the Person of the Year as someone who, for better or for worse, influences the events of the year.
"Is there a global tipping point for frustration? Everywhere, it seems, people said they'd had enough," Time Editor Rick Stengel said in a statement.
"They dissented; they demanded; they did not despair, even when the answers came back in a cloud of tear gas or a hail of bullets. They literally embodied the idea that individual action can bring collective, colossal change," he said.
On almost every continent, 2011 has seen an almost unprecedented rise in both peaceful and sometimes violent unrest and dissent.
Protesters in a lengthening list of countries including Israel, India, Chile, China, Britain, Spain and now the United States all increasingly link their actions explicitly to the popular revolutions that have shaken up the Middle East.
Admiral William McRaven, head of U.S. Special Operations Command and overall commander of the secret U.S. mission into Pakistan in May that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, came in at second place on the Time list.
Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, whose 81 day secret detention by authorities earlier this year sparked an international outcry, came in at No. 3, followed by U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan.
Britain's Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, who married Prince William in April, rounded out the Time short list.
(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Doina Chiacu)
graham spanier penn state board of trustees joe pa joe pa brett ratner jerry sandusky toyota recall
Friday, December 16, 2011
The individual mandate: Health-care's inherent controversy (The Week)
New York ? President Obama's health-care bill requires that every American have health insurance. Is that constitutional?
Who first proposed making health insurance compulsory?
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. In the late 1980s, when Democrats were pushing to require employers to provide health insurance, the foundation started thinking about ways to achieve universal coverage without placing a heavy burden on business. Its experts soon encountered the "free rider" problem: In a system where insurers are barred from refusing applicants with pre-existing conditions, many people ? especially the young and healthy ? would only buy a policy when illness struck. But if only sick people bought coverage, insurers would pay out more in doctors' bills than they received in premiums, and quickly go bust. To overcome this death spiral, the Heritage Foundation suggested that every American be required to buy health insurance, a requirement known as the individual mandate.
Which politicians took up that idea?
Many Republicans did in the early 1990s, after President Clinton introduced a plan that would have forced companies to cover employees. "I am for people, individuals ? exactly like automobile insurance ? having health insurance and being required to have health insurance," said Newt Gingrich, then House minority whip, in 1993. When the Clinton plan collapsed in 1994, talk of the individual mandate died with it. But a decade later, Mitt Romney, then the governor of Massachusetts, resurrected the concept for his state health-care plan, which requires residents to buy health insurance or pay up to $1,212 in annual penalties. "It's a Republican way of reforming the market," Romney said when the law debuted, in 2006. "[To have] people show up [at a hospital] when they get sick, and expect someone else to pay, that's a Democratic approach."
SEE MORE: The Supreme Court and 'ObamaCare': A concise guide
?
So why did Obama adopt a Republican proposal?
At first, he didn't want to. During his 2008 campaign for the Democratic nomination, Obama ran a TV ad criticizing rival candidate Hillary Clinton's support for a mandate, saying she would force everyone "to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." But after President Obama and the Democratic Congress began to construct his health-care plan, advisers warned that free riders would undermine the objectives of extending insurance coverage to anyone who wanted it. For health reform to work, young, healthy people had to be pushed into the pool, to spread cost and risk. So the president allowed his 2010 Affordable Care Act to incorporate a provision that, by 2014, all Americans must have health coverage or face a tax penalty. Conservatives decried that directive as a gross infringement of individual liberty, and their anger helped fuel the rise of the Tea Party. Twenty-six states and the National Federation of Independent Business are now challenging the mandate's constitutionality at the Supreme Court, which will make a final judgment by June.
How has Obama responded?
His administration argues that the mandate is authorized by the Constitution's commerce clause, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate economic activity. Several conservative judges agree. In a November appeals court decision that upheld the mandate, Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee, declared that Congress must "be free to forge national solutions to national problems." And this summer, Judge Jeffrey Sutton ? a George W. Bush appointee to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ? concluded that the individual mandate is a legally sound way to prevent taxpayers and hospitals from having to pick up the cost of treating the uninsured. "Not every intrusive law is an unconstitutionally intrusive law," he wrote.
SEE MORE: A conservative judge's 'compelling' defense of 'ObamaCare'
?
Haven't other judges disagreed?
Yes. In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that it could find no precedent for ordering Americans to buy health insurance. "Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment," the majority wrote, "Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods." Other federal judges and critics of "Obamacare" warn that the mandate sets a dangerous precedent that the government could use to make citizens purchase whatever it deems good for them ? or for the economy. "Congress could require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year," said a 2009 Heritage Foundation report.
What happens if the individual mandate is voided?
It depends. If the Supreme Court decides that the Affordable Care Act can't function without the individual mandate, it could strike down the entire law. But it might declare the mandate "severable," and remove that particular part of the law, while letting the rest of it limp along, with far fewer uninsured people covered and less ability to rein in costs. Some experts have proposed that instead of the uninsured being required to buy insurance, they could be "nudged" into the health-care system by giving them a window of time during which they could buy insurance relatively inexpensively; once that window closed, the cost would rise sharply. The problem with any alternative to the individual mandate, said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, is that it would have to be approved by the bitterly divided Congress. "You can't expect that in these times," he said. "People don't work on these compromises too readily anymore."
SEE MORE: The 'ObamaCare' case: Should Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas sit out?
?
How the Supreme Court could punt
Next year's Supreme Court hearing has been billed as judgment day for Obama's Affordable Care Act. But it might end with no judgment at all. Before the justices rule on the individual mandate's constitutionality, they will first have to decide whether the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act bars the claimants' challenge. That law prevents citizens from challenging the legality of a tax before it goes into effect. If the court finds that the penalty for defying the Affordable Care Act's mandate is a tax, they could push a legal challenge back to 2015, when the first fines will be levied. And that, said Simon Lazarus, an expert at the National Senior Citizens Law Center, might "be a good solution for a court that doesn't really care to be Public Issue No. 1 in an election year."
View this article on TheWeek.com
Get 4 Free Issues of The Week
Other stories from this topic:
Like on Facebook?-?Follow on Twitter?-?Sign-up for Daily Newsletteroakland texas judge texas judge tom brokaw maria shriver andy irons ethan zohn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)