Monday, January 7, 2013

Samsung introduces its CES audio hardware, claims a world first

Samsung introduces its CES audio hardware, claims a world first

Samsung's just unveiled its raft of audio products at CES and they're headlined by what the firm claims is a world's first: a sound bar to pack a built-in vacuum tube and Bluetooth for connecting to tubes of another kind (read: TVs). A portable wireless Bluetooth speaker (labeled the DA-F60), pumps out tunes with the apt-X audio codec and leverages NFC to connect to devices. Home theater buffs were also given a nod with a 7.1 channel surround sound system intended to be used with the firm's line of 2013 televisions. As for internals, the system relies on a Gallium Nitride amplifier for enhanced sound quality. If you're jonesin' for a new way to watch Blu-Rays to go along with the fresh audio hardware, Sammy's also unveiled a "premium" Blu-Ray player which upscales content to 4K. Head past the break for the press release and full set of glamour shots.

Continue reading Samsung introduces its CES audio hardware, claims a world first

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Source: Business Wire

Source: http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/05/samsung-ces-audio-hardware/

Felix Baumgartner Little Nemo gawker earthquake today earthquake today Romney Bosses Day 2012

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Commentary on NPRSR Operational Policy ? Rock climbing on ...

posted by Dave Reeve

The Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing (NPRSR) recently?released its new?Operational Policy - Rock climbing on QPWS managed areas. The document is dated 27th July 2012?and can be viewed here.

This document represents a significant milestone in the management of rock climbing by QPWS. Just how significant a step this is, I?ll endeavour to explain by examining the steps and mis-steps taken along the way, and the societal changes that influenced this outcome.

the changing demographic

Over the past fifty years, the trend in the climbing community has been one starting with a mere handful of climbers, anarchic by nature, certainly unmanageable by external dictate, and growing to a few thousand folk, individualistic, but receptive to appeals from reason. Indeed, it is good fortune that the vast increase in popularity of climbing has been accompanied by a shift to a demographic more understanding of the need for management.

Something else was changing as well over this period, and that was the very nature of the sport itself.? In the fifties and early sixties, rock climbing could best be considered as an extension of bush walking, steep bush walking if you like, where the object was to proceed from bottom to top overcoming such obstacles that lay on the chosen path. A form of adventure seeking that is still preserved on some routes today.

By the late sixties, however, non bush walking climbers were appearing on the scene. These newcomers were increasingly interested in climbing only for what it offered technically. The focus on technical ability, plus the impact of strong technical climbers from overseas rewrote in several decades what it meant to be a rock climber. Add to this process the recent explosive growth in indoor climbing, a substantial percentage of whose participants?will venture outdoors, and it is easy to understand that modern sport climbing brings a radically different demographic to the crags.

And, most importantly for the discussion in hand, sport climbing means bolted routes, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions. The vast majority of modern climbers will be climbing routes narrowly delineated by a line of bolts placed in the rock at roughly 2 to 3m intervals for a height of 20 to 30m.

Several other societal trends over this period play into the story. In the fifties, such National Parks as existed were managed by a state apparatus whose motivation was primary production and the exploitation of the state?s resources. Under these circumstances, located as they were on ?worthless? land, NPs inevitably acquired Cinderella status, and there was no clear vision and no underpinning legislation to guide their management.

However, with growing affluence came ?green? ideology, which began to impact the political discourse. In 1975 the National Parks and Wildlife Service was formed leading to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service a few years later. Although, no clear legislative framework was in place as to how QPWS should manage the parks under its supervision, a shift occurred within the public service whereby conservation values gained primacy in the formulation of management policy. There followed a phase of management best likened to locking the public library for fear of people damaging the contents through the willful act of reading.

In 1992, the Nature Conservation Act came into force, and for the first time, we see articulated in the state legislation a clear vision for the role of National Parks, and the principles by which they should be managed. Underlying this legislation, one of several eminently practical principles can be seen at play. Namely, the best outcome for the preservation of the natural environment within the National Parks will ensue if every effort is made to present to the public that which is considered worthy of preservation.

If management decisions are based on a logical appraisal of the balance between preservation and presentation, I believe, perhaps naively, that the Tragedy of the Commons can be averted. Where management chooses to present the conservation values of the park in a way that?engenders within park visitors a sense of stewardship, we begin to shift park visitors from being part of the problem to part of the solution.

If the climbing community wishes to access crags on the public estates, then all aspects of that access have to be evaluated within the context of the NCA. Like that for?any other visitor, climbing access needs to be managed?so that climbers?are empowered to become part of the solution. For those who love the great outdoors, I don?t think this is such a bad place to be after the decades of neglect.

A further societal trend worthy of comment is as follows.? With growing affluence there has been a parallel growth of the Nanny State, and with it, a shift in society?s perceptions of negligence and public liability. When I was a lad in the fifties, we were well warned of the hazards of diving into swimming holes, and yet everyone knew of someone, who knew of someone now wheelchair-bound, serving as testament to the folly of such actions. These people received no financial recompense, and nor did anyone think that they should?.. it was simply what happened when you did stupid things.

However, within a matter of decades the landscape shifted to embrace a new idea whereby people weren?t always responsible for their own judgment calls, and the land manager was negligent if he failed to warn of even the most clear and evident danger. Couple this with an unending supply of youth, a percentage of whom will always rise to the dare of their peers, and you have opened a channel by which the more entrepreneurial of the legal profession will help themselves to the largess of the state. A situation was created under which young men still continued to break their necks by diving into rock pools, but the state now compensated them and their families for those fleeting seconds of errant thought.

The debate about how much of a Nanny the state should be is not relevant here. What is relevant is the fact that the apparatus of state needs to manage the estates for which it is responsible in a way that does not result in a bleeding of the public purse through liability claims. As we will see, this one issue rose to dominate the discussion of management of climbing on the public estate.

enter the demon bolt

Up until the development of modern sport climbs within our parks, such hardware as was affixed to the rock for purposes of protecting the lead climber was removed by the seconder. Maybe the situation was not quite as cut and dried as this, but it suffices for the point I am making, which is that the advent of sport climbing with its dependence on permanently fixed bolts signalled a huge increase in the number of fixtures placed throughout the public estate, and a concomitant increase in the number of people placing their trust in a fixture not of their own devising.

The thought that there could be many hundreds of such bolts out there on the cliffs,?all of uncertain heritage and all deteriorating with each passing year, each and every one a possible magnet for a public liability claim, was certain, sooner rather than later, to ring alarm bells in the offices of the responsible state department.

In 1997 we see a the ?South East Queensland Rockclimbing and Abseiling Risk Management and Litigation Conference? being convened in Brisbane. Viewed today, perhaps a little unfairly because the intervening fifteen years grants me the luxury of hindsight, the published proceedings of this conference create a distinct impression that the layers of public servants really had no idea of what it was they were attempting to manage, but they were unified in the belief that, whatever the nature of beast, it needed regulating. Margaret Laurence, the then Principal Legal Officer, Queensland Dept of Justice and Attorney General, concludes her contribution -

This brief overview of the relevant legislation demonstrates the limited scope for allowing activities such as rockclimbing and abseiling on public land. ? Margaret Laurence1

I guess that it is always easier to shut something down? than make the effort to understand it. But, such an approach comes at a cost to the conservation values of the park, where the ever arising novelty of recreation must be embraced and integrated by management if damage is not to ensue.? I believe the public should call out such failures for what they are, ?lazy management?, and? demand better for our National Parks. I could elaborate, but there is an entire blog post waiting to be written here, so I?ll leave it for now and move on.

It was commendable that representatives of the climbing community participated in the conference. However, with the notable exception of Gordon Brysland, all seemed as incapable as the public servants of articulating what it was that everyone was intent on fixing. Fortunately, Gordon Brysland, being both an active climber and legal expert in matters of public liability, was able to ?bell the cat? in his awesome contribution,? ?Waiting for Romeo?.

As a general proposition, it is arguable that in some cases the risk that a bolt may fail in the absence of negligence by anyone is an inherent risk of climbing. In others, a practice of land managers not to become involved in climbing may operate to protect them from liability. It is also possible that a greater proliferation of bolted routes will make it impossible in practice for a duty of care to be imposed which requires inspection and maintenance. There remains also the ability of land managers to avoid liability for bolts by entrenching appropriate policy decisions in management plans. ? Gordon Brysland2

Over a decade later, when Adam Gibson and I fronted up at our first meeting with DERM, having just kicked-off the fledgling ACAQ, it was clear that the cat was no longer belled, and quite a lot of time and effort was expended getting to the heart of the matter at this and the subsequent meetings. However, while attending a meeting some twelve months on, sudden inspiration moved me to ask,? ?Suppose for now we could wish away the problem of public liability that attaches to climber-installed bolts ? are there any other problems associated with climbing on the public estate that are intractable, or could not be managed by the available mechanisms?? People thought for a while and then one by one chimed in with a chorus of ?No, no there is nothing else that is a problem?. The sense of relief was palpable?.. yes, we can fix this, surely we can?

land managers go bolting

This heading is taken from Gordon Brysland?s? ?Waiting for Romeo?. In it he says -

Contracting recreational climbers to do the work, or permitting the same under familiar ?nod and wink? arrangements, would not shift legal liability from the land manager. Once a land manager makes an operational decision concerning climber safety, its duty of care is likely to be non-delegable. The duty is not just to take reasonable care, but to ensure that reasonable care is taken. ??. Were a climber to be injured as a result of bolt failure in these circumstances, and negligence was shown, the land manager could be legally liable, and damages awarded. ? Gordon Brysland2

The land manager is in a bind. In managing sport climbing he needs to be able to say ?don?t bolt there, bolt here instead? as a means of ensuring that impacts fall on areas where they can be best sustained. However, in prescribing where climbers may or may not bolt he is implicitly directing the placement of bolts and concomitantly increasing his exposure to the public liability they attract.? On the other hand, if he turns a blind eye to climbing activity at a particular crag, not only will he be willfully unaware of the placement of bolts , but also of the state of the environment at that particular site ? something that, under the NCA,?ought to be his primary concern.

three outcomes

It is not surprising, therefore, that we find a number of parks having management plans that take the option of proscribing rock climbing. At first brush, this makes sense in terms of the NCA, which makes it clear that in any contest between conservation and recreation, conservation wins (see section 17(a) of the act). Thus, if the only way of managing rock climbing is to turn a blind eye to it, with the consequent risk to conservation values, it might make more sense to ban climbing altogether. Such is the case for the latest Lamington NP management plan, and the blanket ban it places on all climbing within the park, including the substantial climbing resource of Poondarah. The ban on climbing at Poondarah works not because it is policed, but because the aspirations of the climbing community don?t extend to it. In fact it is largely unknown to the current generation of climbers. However, given that management plans run for 10 years, and in 10 years the aspirations of the younger generation will certainly have extended to Poondarah and beyond,? it is seems to me we have set the stage for a policy that serves neither the recreation nor the conservation values of the park. Thus are sown the seeds for future environmental damage at this site.

Where an area has a long and continuing tradition of climbing, it is not so easy for a land manager to shut-down climbing, especially when it is not proscribed by the existing management plan. Any new management plan attempting to do so is likely to be hit with a barrage of opposition during the public consultation phase. The Glasshouse Mountains NP is such an example, and with the exception of the ban on Mt Coonowrin, which is a matter apart, climbing has been managed in this park in a fairly hands-off manner. Here, on Mt Tibrogargan, the managers can quite reasonably claim ignorance of the host of climber-placed bolts, immersed as such bolts are, in a veritable sea of steep rock. Such distancing from the act of bolt placement carries the distinct disadvantage that the land manager is the last to know of damage being done by access to any recently opened sport crag.

The third type of outcome is illustrated by the unique situation that has occurred at Frog Buttress. Because this crag exhibits a very specific and unusual rock structure, one that favours a style of climbing where the use of bolts for protection is spurned, we have what is essentially a bolt-free climbing venue. Relieved of the bogeyman of bolt liability, the land manager has been able to step in and actively manage this park for climbing. This isn?t to say there aren?t ever issues between climbers and managers, but as someone who knew this crag from its inception 45 years ago, the positive benefits to the environment of managing visitor impacts is striking.

losing sight of what matters

To be sure, what matters is easy to grasp? our too few, too fragmented, National Parks ought not be trashed, or loved to death, by mismanagement of visitor traffic. Since 1992, land managers have had clear direction on this matter under the NCA. The spirit in which this act was drafted is abundantly clear. And yes, there is a pile of stuff in the act to?hold the rapacious and the exploitative elements in check, but none of this is germane to the current argument. What we are trying to hold in focus is the problem of managing visitors rightfully enjoying what is, after all, a publicly owned asset of the state. What the?NCA says about management of National Parks under sect 17,? is very straight forward -

A national park is to be managed to?

(a) provide, to the greatest possible extent, for the permanent preservation of the area?s natural condition and the protection of the area?s cultural resources and values; and

(b) present the area?s cultural and natural resources and their values; and

(c) ensure that the only use of the area is nature-based and ecologically sustainable.

(2) The management principle mentioned in subsection (1)(a) is the cardinal principle for the management of national parks.

- Nature Conservation Act 1992 sect 17

Note that visitor safety is not up there in bright lights. Note also that the cardinal principle is flagged, and it is not visitor safety. However, in providing for the chief executive to draft subsidiary regulations of the act for purposes of its administration, we do find visitor safety gets a mention. Under ?sect 175 2, we have -

(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations under this Act.

(2) A regulation may be made with respect to any of the following matters?

(a) access to protected areas by persons or animals;

(b) the use of land, and activities, in protected areas;

(c) providing for the safety of persons in protected areas, including the regulation of access to, and activities in, protected areas by persons or classes of persons; Example for paragraph (c) A regulation might regulate camping in a protected area by children, or adults accompanying children, to protect children from injury by animals.

- Nature Conservation Act 1992 sect 175

It has to be believed that such regulations, as are created under sect 175, are pursuant to the primary aims of sect 17, and not arbitrary or self-serving in any shape or form. However, as we shall see,? it was too much to hope that regulations, being the lantana of the public affairs landscape, would stay subservient to the primary legislation.

With the passage of time, various regulations accreted themselves to the NCA. No doubt all were borne out of good intentions to support sect 17, no doubt all were abundantly clear in their purpose, but, fourteen years after the NCA passed into law, when the Nature Conservation Regulations 2006 were signed off by the Governor in Council, one wonders how clear the intent of much of the minutia was to those authorising them. This four part gift-set for insomniacs includes amongst its number?Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2006 (NCR) .? In this we see formulated a number of mechanisms designed to regulate access to the public space. Two of them show that the bogeyman of public liability was causing the regulators to lose sight of what really matters.

Firstly, restricted access areas. Under NCR sect 74 we have -

(1) The chief executive may declare a protected area or a part of a protected area to be a restricted access area only if the chief executive reasonably believes the declaration is necessary or desirable?

(a) to secure the safety of a person or a person?s property; or ???

(c) to conserve or protect the cultural or natural resources of the area or native wildlife ??;

or??.

(f) for the orderly or proper management of the area.

- Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2006 sect 74

I can understand 1(c), but what is safety doing up there as the first point?? In what way does this regulation help management to carry out its obligations under sect 17 of the NCA? As the for the final point 1(f), this is the epitome of a self-serving regulation. It is laziness writ large.

Secondly, special activities. Under NCR sect 79 we have -

The chief executive may declare only 1 or more of the following activities to be a special activity for all or part of a protected area?
(a) an activity that will, or is reasonably likely to, have an unusual or significant impact on the cultural or natural resources of the area or part;
(b) an activity for which special training or supervision is needed before a person can safely engage in the activity;
(c) an activity that will, or is reasonably likely to, involve a risk to the public.
Examples of activities that may be declared as special activities?
rock climbing, white water rafting

- Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2006 sect 79

Again, I can partially understand point (a), though I am struggling to grasp exactly how any activity that causes ?unusual or significant impact on the cultural or natural resources? would ever be acceptable. But points b) and c)? Whatever has that to do with sect 17 of the NCA? And then to make rock climbing exemplar of a special activity? It is clear that the understanding of the true risks and attendant public liability exposure presented by sport climbing, as well as the appreciation of the aspirations of the burgeoning sport climbing community was at a nadir within the state bureaucracy when these regulations were drafted.

So we see that by 2006, matters had come to a pass whereby land managers were losing sight of the cardinal principle. Fear of litigation and minutia of regulation having displaced the issues of rightful concern. Hindsight is a harsh judge, but I can?t help but think that a simple snapshot of the situation at climbing crags throughout Europe and the United States would have alerted all but the willfully blind to the recreational demand that was heading our way.

closing the gap

In the closing days of 1999, a profound hiatus opened between the climbing community and land managers when Mt Coonowrin, a major and unique facet of South East Queensland climbing, was closed to public access. The closure was pre-emptive, with no public consultation period, and I believe, without the knowledge of the public servants who were actively engaging the climbing community via the South East Queensland Rockclimbing and Abseiling Site Management Forum. This unfortunate mis-step destroyed the trust that had been built up, and pushed? the new surging interest in sport climbing ?underground?, with the subsequent development of sport crags being carried out ?below the radar? of the land management.

Such a situation was less than ideal in that management lost track of where new climbing development was taking place. Even more important was the fact that management was left nursing an increasingly irrelevant understanding of rock climbing, one that might be applicable to the ?bolt-free? climbing at Frog Buttress, but left them ill-equipped to cope with the burgeoning growth of sport climbing. ? This state of affairs persisted for ten years, and might have continued longer if it were not for an event that forced the climbing community to stand-up and be counted. A number of climbers were fined by QPWS for fixing bolts at Mt Flinders. The validity of using the NCR for this purpose is a subject apart. What matters for the purposes of this discussion was that it provided the catalyst for the formation of a climbers organisation capable of engaging the state bureaucratic apparatus. Thus, the ACAQ was born out of this one act of bureaucratic overreach, and formal communications with the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) commenced.

I don?t believe anybody, climber or public servant, wants to see the environment trashed, or more pointedly, wants to be the person responsible for a policy that has such an outcome. So, by keeping this one thing,? the only thing that really matters,? in the centre of the negotiating table,? progress was relatively straight forward.

Kudos should go to the public servants who took on board the new information ACAQ was able to provide, and to come up with a policy draft for cliff-based activities on the estates managed by DERM. And, it was with as much surprise as pleasure for me to discover that the many hours ACAQ had invested in reviewing drafts had finally made it into an official QPWS Operational Policy (OP) some three years later. All this despite hiccups along the way which included contention over the Draft Mt Coolum NP Management Plan, and tumultuous changes in the structure of state departments following the state elections.

where are we now?

There is plenty not to like, or to push back against in the new OP, but it would be churlish to do so without pausing to consider what is good, if not great, about this document.

This is the best bit ? right at the start, where it should be -

1.1 QPWS will allow rock climbing in appropriate areas, consistent with the protection of park values.
1.2 QPWS will accommodate a diversity and range of settings and opportunities for rock climbing activities at appropriate sites across the State.
- Rock climbing on QPWS managed areas 2012

Not impressed? Well you should be. Whilst most climbers have no doubt of their basic right to climb within a National Park, there are still? QPWS officers who view rock climbing as the deviant behaviour of a reckless minority.? In all fairness, in times past (I hope they are past) there were members of the climbing community whose cavalier behaviour showed they had no notion of the concept of a national park, so the above prejudice may well be justified. However, what this OP does, is provide guidance for QPWS officers on the ground, and right there at point 1, it is recognizing recreational rock climbing as a valid activity within the framework of the NCA sect 17. Beyond this point we are, as they say, just messing with the details.

The second best bit is here -

6.1 QPWS acknowledges that permanent fixed protection and other permanent climb aids (including anchors and chains) already exist at many sites within QPWS managed areas and that these are necessary for maintaining a range of climbing opportunities.

- Rock climbing on QPWS managed areas 2012

There, at last, they have gone and spoken the unspeakable. I guess this became easier with the realisation that with the growth of sport climbing came an evolution in safety systems. Bolts became much safer, and the exposure to single point failure diminished, taking it out of the extreme sport classification. Climbing no longer was the edgy, high stakes game it was decades ago.

So we come to a pass, exactly twenty years after a legislative mechanism suitable for the management of recreational climbing within the protected estates was signed into law, to a point where we can actually use its framework in a way that ensures the best for both climber and environment.

References:

1.? Laurence M. 1997, ?Common and Statute Law Relevant to the Management of Public Land?: in Proceedings of the South East Qld Rockclimbing and Abseiling Risk Management and Litigation Conference ISBN 0-7242-7992-X

2.? Brysland G. 1997, ?Waiting for Romeo?: in Proceedings of the South East Qld Rockclimbing and Abseiling Risk Management and Litigation Conference ISBN 0-7242-7992-X

Source: http://www.qldclimb.org.au/2012/12/commentary-on-nprsr-operational-policy-rock-climbing-on-qpws-managed-areas/

nicki minaj miguel cabrera Karrueche Tran dodd frank Lark Voorhies Jennifer Livingston Orlando Cruz

Source: http://kitchener-slabbing.blogspot.com/2012/12/commentary-on-nprsr-operational-policy.html

haywire dog the bounty hunter tacoma narrows bridge weather nyc open marriage department of justice doj

Source: http://clifford46.posterous.com/commentary-on-nprsr-operational-policy-rock-c

joe the plumber lra lra eric johnson eric johnson big east tournament ashley olsen

Farewell, Andy Reid

Andy Reid

Head coach Andy Reid of the Philadelphia Eagles walks off the field after the game against the New York Giants at MetLife Stadium on December 30, 2012 in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Photo by Elsa/Getty Images

For the second year in a row,?Slate?and?Deadspin?are?teaming up for a season-long NFL roundtable. Check back here each week as a rotating cast of football watchers discusses the weekend's key plays, coaching decisions, and traumatic brain injuries. And?click here to play the latest episode of?Slate?s sports podcast Hang Up and Listen.

So of course when the clock at last ran out on Andy Reid in Philadelphia, nobody knew what the heck was going on. He was fired before the final game Sunday and coached anyway. No, he wasn't fired till after the game Sunday. No, not that either; he wasn't fired till Monday morning. One last utter clusterfuck of an endgame for the Eagles, thank you very much, Andy Reid. For 14 years of service, here's a gold watch. When the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 1, next Sunday, it's nap time.

Bless his weird, stoic, confused heart, and off with his head. There will be plenty of people lining up to tell you that Reid was the worst fourth-quarter tactician in the league, a big-game choker, a bullheaded misuser of talent, a nincompoop, a slowly sinking barge to nowhere. Most of that is true. He was also a better coach than most franchises?and certainly the eternally scattershot and dysfunctional Eagles?usually see.

That is why Eagles fans hated him so. Andy Reid's Eagles were good. At times, they were very, very good. For 14 years?or rather for the greater part of 12 of those years?the Eagles were about as good as anybody else in the league. Sixteen times each season, or 17 or 18 or even 19 times, Reid's teams took the field with an undeniably plausible chance of winning.

It's a strange thing to be galled about, when you step back and consider it, but it was galling. The number of times they actually did win topped out in 2004-05, at 15: 13 regular-season victories, two playoff victories, and the ball in Donovan McNabb's hands with 5:40 to go in the Super Bowl, within striking distance of a beatable Patriots team. The Eagles needed two scores, and they got one of them?on that still-baffling three-minute-45-second slow march down the field, their relentless downfield progress matched by the even-more-relentless draining of the clock. It was the Andy Reid-iest sequence of Andy Reid's career; I watched it with a friend who hates the Eagles, and he abandoned his rooting interest and started yelling at the TV set in sheer objective disbelief and frustration. How could any team be so stupid with so much on the line?

Reid set the standard, and then Reid failed to live up to it. The nightmare of the Super Bowl aside, the indelible memory of the Reid era for me is a September 2006 home game in which the Eagles came out and battered the Giants all over the field, rolling up a 24-7 lead by early in the third quarter. It could easily have been 35-7, but it was such a mismatch, the Eagles mislaid a couple of easy scoring drives without putting the points on the board.

And then every single bounce started going the Giants' way, and the still-callow Eli Manning started making plays, and the Giants almost got close enough to tie it?and?then, with 10 seconds left, the Eagles committed a flagrant personal foul, moving New York into range to kick a tying 35-yard field goal. The Giants won in overtime, but not before Eagles defensive end Jevon Kearse suffered a season-ending knee injury.*

Two years ago, after what turned out to have been Reid's last playoff game with the Eagles, I concluded that Reid was best understood as a?powerful but slow football thinker?a coach with a rare gift for building sound, successful teams, but with no corresponding gift for rapid adjustment and decision-making. On balance, his strengths did outweigh his weaknesses. He had nine winning seasons and only three losing ones, for a .584 winning percentage. It's just that his weaknesses were on display in the 3 p.m. hour. Or in January.

Would it have been better to have spent the past decade-plus rooting for the Cleveland Browns? Philadelphia got its answer this year. Actually, at 4-12, the Eagles were a game worse than the Browns. It was miserable and humiliating. They went out with a 42-7 beating by the Giants, leaving them with the third-worst scoring differential in the league.

There's no vindication for Eagles fans in this. Reid's world had been wobbling on its axis ever since the resignation and cancer death of his defensive coordinator, Jim Johnson, in 2009. His once-chosen quarterback, McNabb, was traded and faded away; the miraculous revival of Michael Vick flatlined.

And his son Garrett died of a drug overdose during Eagles training camp this year. For another coach, at another point, with another team, that could have been a storyline or an explanation or a point of sympathy. It's hard to imagine that the coach's unthinkable personal tragedy didn't have something to do with his team's complete disorder and unpreparedness this year. But the relationship between Reid and Philadelphia was already too embittered and exhausted for anyone to do anything with the sad fact but leave it there.

Correction, Jan. 1, 2013: This article originally misstated the first name of former Philadelphia Eagles defensive end Jevon Kearse. (Return.)

Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=5c514da58cab850e5147bf035b03d3ed

ny times paul mccartney Sandy Hook Victims new york times columbine breaking news Google News

Chelsea Stunned By Queens Park Rangers: Shaun Wright-Phillips Goal Seal QPR Win (VIDEO)

By Sam Wells, Goal.com

Queens Park Rangers stole a shocking win against Chelsea as former Blue Shaun Wright-Phillips scored the only goal of a game dominated by the home side.

The away team barely troubled all night but Benitez's men were unable to capitalize on their possession as, without Eden Hazard and Juan Mata, they struggled to create against a stout QPR defense all game long.

The relegation strugglers managed to make Chelsea pay for its profligacy as, after a corner broke to Wright-Phillips on the edge of the area, the winger made no mistake and fired an effort into the bottom corner.

Rafa Benitez's penchant for squad rotation continued as the manager made five changes from the team that beat Everton 2-1. Marko Marin replaced Ramires to make his first Premier League start of the season, while Ross Turnbull, Ryan Bertrand, Victor Moses and Oscar all also started in place of Petr Cech, Ashley Cole, Eden Hazard and Juan Mata.

Meanwhile, the visitors also made four changes from the side that succumbed to a disappointing 3-0 defeat at home to Liverpool, as Fabio, Shaun Derry, Esteban Granero and Junior Hoilett replaced Armand Traore, Djibril Cisse, Samba Diakite and Wright-Phillips.

Just three minutes in, Chelsea could count itself lucky to still have 11 players on the pitch after Marin, clearly eager to impress after being awarded a rare start, put in a dangerous challenge on Stephane Mbia. But fortunately for the German, Lee Mason deemed it worthy of just a booking.

The intensity of that opening incident was, however, not often replicated in the remainder of the first half as, with the away side sitting deep and Chelsea without Mata and Hazard, chances were few and far between for either side.

The only real chance of the first half came just two minutes before the break as an Oscar shot deflected on its way by Lampard required a smart save from Julio Cesar to keep the first half goalless.

After that fairly tepid start to the game, the opening of the second half brought a welcome increase in tempo as Chelsea began to create clear-cut chances. First, Moses was unable to meet a delightful Marin cross and then minutes later an Ivanovic header from a Marin corner clipped the bar on its way over.

The early second-half onslaught reached its peak with an excellent chance for Fernando Torres. A deflected David Luiz effort fell to the striker ten yards out but the Spaniard could only fire straight at Cesar.

The home side's pressure almost told after 65 minutes as the ball fell to Lampard, who after duly firing into the bottom corner was deemed just offside by the linesman.

As Chelsea was unable to capitalize on its pressure, the second half wore on and, with 10 minutes remaining a rare corner led to a shock opener for the away side. After the corner was cleared at the near post, Taarabt deftly laid the ball into Wright-Phillips' path and the former Chelsea player found the corner of the goal from 25 yards out.

Chelsea's response was frenetic but chances remained hard to come by, the best chance falling to Ivanovic as he headed a Mata cross just over the bar.

Follow @GoalUSA on Twitter.

"; 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/2013/01/02/chelsea-qpr-shaun-wright-phillips-goal_n_2399627.html

brad miller chandler jones peyton hillis fletcher cox charlotte bobcats new york rangers nfl mock draft 2012

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Obama hails cliff deal (CNN)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories Stories, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/274296997?client_source=feed&format=rss

Chopper Live Johnny Manziel jerry brown michael buble michael buble brandi glanville Jenni Rivera Alive

Details of Senate bill averting 'fiscal cliff'

Highlights of a bill Congress passed Tuesday aimed at averting wide tax increases and budget cuts scheduled to take effect with the new year. The measure would raise taxes by about $600 billion over 10 years compared with tax policies that were due to expire at midnight Monday. It would also delay for two months across-the-board cuts to the budgets of the Pentagon and numerous domestic agencies.

The House and Senate passed the bill on Tuesday and sent it to President Barack Obama for his signature.

Highlights include:

?Income tax rates: Extends decade-old tax cuts on incomes up to $400,000 for individuals, $450,000 for couples. Earnings above those amounts would be taxed at a rate of 39.6 percent, up from the current 35 percent. Extends Clinton-era caps on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.

?Estate tax: Estates would be taxed at a top rate of 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates. In 2012, such estates were subject to a top rate of 35 percent.

?Capital gains, dividends: Taxes on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for families would increase from 15 percent to 20 percent.

?Alternative minimum tax: Permanently addresses the alternative minimum tax and indexes it for inflation to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills averaging almost $3,000. The tax was originally designed to ensure that the wealthy did not avoid owing taxes by using loopholes.

?Other tax changes: Extends for five years Obama-sought expansions of the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and an up-to-$2,500 tax credit for college tuition. Also extends for one year accelerated "bonus" depreciation of business investments in new property and equipment, a tax credit for research and development costs and a tax credit for renewable energy such as wind-generated electricity.

?Unemployment benefits: Extends jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed for one year.

?Cuts in Medicare reimbursements to doctors: Blocks a 27 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors for one year. The cut is the product of an obsolete 1997 budget formula.

?Social Security payroll tax cut: Allows a 2-percentage-point cut in the payroll tax first enacted two years ago to lapse, which restores the payroll tax to 6.2 percent.

?Across-the-board cuts: Delays for two months $109 billion worth of across-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the Pentagon and domestic agencies this week. Cost of $24 billion is divided between spending cuts and new revenues from rule changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Associated Press

Source: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2013-01-01-Fiscal%20Cliff-Glance/id-f4de12c06f9545cd8971ffe2a1d83be9

paulina gretzky paulina gretzky toy story 4 toy story 4 steam kristin chenoweth Robert Blake

Sony Xperia Z shown off again in leaked press image

Sony Xperia Z

Ahead of its rumored CES release, we've got a new look at the Sony Xperia Z (aka "Yuga") in a proper press image, shown above. We saw a pretty grainy angled view of the device a few days back, but this one gives us a much better look at the front of the device. We're looking at proper on-screen navigation buttons and Sony's UI customizations here, as you would expect, as well as the power and volume button layout poking out of the right of the device.

Android Central @ CES

The reported specs are the same as we saw in the initial leak as well. We're looking at a 5-inch 1080P display, massive 13MP camera and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean on the software front. It also looks like we'll see another variant in the form of the Xperia ZL, aka "Odin." (Earlier Sony naming schemes suggest that the ZL might be an LTE-capable version for certain markets, though we're speculating here.)

The devices are supposed to make their debut at CES 2013, which is just a week away, and hopefully Sony will bring more details on this device at that time as well.

Sources: XperiaBlogUnwiredView



Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/androidcentral/~3/3iKELXsZKM0/story01.htm

madonna madonna papa johns guacamole recipe ufc 143 results kickoff time super bowl 2012 superbowl national anthem