Tim Grobaty: A more perfect union, with fewer guns

A BETTER-REGULATED MILITIA: It is time, apparently, to ban rocks.

Rocks, tire irons, sections of 2x4s, arsenic, kitchen knives and iron skillets. All these things, in the wrong hands, can kill, we were reminded idiotically by way too many people last Friday and in the days following the massacre at Sandy Hook.

The level of debating-skill sophistication always plummets, along with the national mood, each time one of these assault weapon-enhanced mass killings takes place. The rapidity with which gun advocates remount their arguments in favor of their weapon of choice and in passionate defense of the breathtaking range of their killing efficiency makes one imagine that they're dispatched like an army by the National Rifle Association, even as the NRA stood semi-graciously mute for a while after the latest school murders.

The depthless observation that "guns don't kill, people do" is still hauled out after all these years as a reason to not regulate the innocent gun, which only wants to sit in a nice walnut case all day or maybe do a little varmint huntin' now and then.

The fact is, that guns really don't kill on their own. We'll give 'em that one. But a shooter can do a lot better job as a killer with a gun. And the more rounds that gun's magazine can hold, the easier it is for that person to kill more people. Make it a semi-automatic (full automatic is ideal, but, thanks to a stray bit of sanity, illegal for most of us to own) and you

can kill with your eyes closed. Guns don't kill, people do. Together, they make a great team.

The next level of deep thought is, again, woefully predictable and illogical. Stop us if you've heard it: Knives kill people (well, no, people kill people, but we get what you mean), tire irons kill people, rocks kill people. And here's the topper: Automobiles kill people. Are you going to outlaw knives and rocks and cars?

OK, no, we're not - nor is anyone, or hardly anyone - seeking to outlaw guns. After all, we need our well-regulated militia in order to defend ourselves against a government gone amok, as per the poor and abused Second Amendment, whose authors are kicking themselves in their graves for not having the foresight to anticipate an AR-15 assault rifle, never mind that weapon being maddeningly available at some 1,700 Wal-Marts, the nation's No. 1 seller of firearms in the U.S.

People - some of us - are merely seeking regulation. What kind of regulation? Anything at all would be nice: Banning assault rifles of any stripe would be a good start. Closing the second-market means of buying guns without so much as a cursory background check by purchasing firearms at guns shows and on the Internet. Limiting the capacity of the gun's magazine to however many rounds it takes to defend your home or kill a deer. Making background checks a tad more thorough - in some civilized countries you're required to have a couple of people vouch for you when you apply for a gun.

Gun control is not going to end killing. Killing will go on as a long as there's still a rock left on this planet. It's not going to end mass murders. But it will save lives. That's undeniable. How many lives will it save? We don't know. What's the number gun fanatics need to have in front of them before they'll agree that regulation is necessary?

Did we say "gun fanatics?" We meant "gun nuts." Too often these aren't mere Second Amendment defenders who cleave to every clause of the constitution. Here, we're talking about the people who fear that their prized arsenal of sophisticated weaponry will be snapped up by bellicose pacifists in Washington and who go into a hoarding frenzy at the first rumors of peace.

When our president gave his beautiful and gently stern eulogy in Newtown on Monday, you could hear pickups firing up all across the country as people flocked to gun stores and discount chains with smiley-face icons to pick up an armload of assault rifles and other firearms - and plenty of ammo, because those bad boys can spew out a couple hundred rounds per minute even if you have a lethargic trigger finger.

Gun sales spiked ferociously after the Aurora, Colo., theater slayings; they spiked when Obama was re-elected; they're spiking now.

And it's all because Obama is hinting that the country might be moving in the direction of compassion and common sense. For some people, that's a frightening prospect. For the rest of us, it's a reason for - what's the word that's always used? - hope.

tgrobaty@yahoo.com, 562-714-2116 or twitter.com/grobaty

Source: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_22218310/tim-grobaty-more-perfect-union-fewer-guns?source=rss

washington nationals Gary Collins bus driver uppercut Argo joe biden Alex Karras BCS Rankings 2012

Jeffrey Donovan Welcomes a Daughter

The Burn Notice star and his wife Michelle are proud parents of their first child, a rep for Donovan tells PEOPLE exclusively.

Source: http://feeds.celebritybabies.com/~r/celebrity-babies/~3/D4pkxtqm-uE/

Sanya Richards Ross decathlon Honey Boo Boo Child marilyn monroe Nathan Adrian London 2012 Synchronized Swimming London 2012 hurdles

Radio host, former Major League Baseball pitcher Frank Pastore dead

Frank Pastore (Hand in Photo)

Christian radio show host and former Major League Baseball pitcher Frank Pastore died Monday from complications following a November motorcycle accident.

The death came nearly a month after the Nov. 19 crash on the Foothill (210) Freeway in Duarte. The accident occurred as Pastore was on his way home from his daily radio show at the studios of KKLA 99.5 FM in Glendale.

Officials at KKLA, which announced Pastore's passing on its website, could not be reached for comment late Monday.

A brief and prophetic audio clip from Pastore's final show accompanied the death notice.
?You guys know I ride a motorcycle, right? So at any moment ... I could be spread all over the 210,? Pastore said. ?But that's not me. That's my body parts.?

Pastore said that his faith in Christ left him with no doubts his soul would live on after physical death.
?I just lost my beautiful husband,? Pastore's wife Gina said. ?But it's comforting to know he's home with the Lord now.?

Gina didn't mourn alone Monday. KKLA was inundated with callers expressing their grief.

?People are calling in and crying and mourning with us,? she said. ?I want to thank so many people for their outpouring of love and support. ?That's really helped to sustain our family during this difficult time.?

Condolences and tributes also flooded the Internet in the hours after news

of Pastore's death broke.

Among those acknowledging the passing was national radio and television personality Hugh Hewitt.
?My friend and radio colleague Frank Pastore has died,? Hewitt posted in his Twitter account. ?He was a terrific man, a great broadcaster and a wonderful husband and dad, RIP.?

On his Facebook page, BIOLA University President Barry Correy remarked that, ?Frank Pastore had a heart for the Gospel and understood in the deepest ways the profound impact of a Christian worldview not only on our lives and on our educational institutions, but on our culture.?

?He was a voice of reason and of engagement, and he was able to articulate with clarity and listen with sensitivity. As a ?94 graduate of BIOLA's M.A. in philosophy program, we considered Frank part of our family. He will be profoundly missed, not only by BIOLA, but by countless others who depended on him day in and day out to help them think clearly and Christianly about the big issues of the day.?

Pastore had been in a coma since the accident and had been recently transferred to a hospital in Upland from Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center's intensive care unit, hospital spokeswoman Rosa Saca said.

A CHP investigation concluded that the crash was an accident, and nothing criminal such as impaired driving was suspected, CHP Officer William Bury said. The driver who hit Pastore was neither arrested nor cited.

On KKLA's website, the radio station asked listeners to ?Please continue to pray for Gina and the family.?

In addition to his wife, Pastore is survived by son Frank Jr. and daughter Christina.

The 55-year-old Upland resident, who played baseball at Damien High School in La Verne, graduated from BIOLA University in La Mirada in 1994 and from Claremont Graduate School in 2003.

Funeral services are pending.

?Frank was all about the Gospel,? Gina Pastore added. ?I just pray God will continue to use his legacy.?

brian.day@sgvn.com

626-544-0812

Source: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_22211350/radio-host-former-major-league-baseball-pitcher-frank?source=rss

gary johnson walking dead where do i vote dixville notch Remember Remember The 5th Of November African painted dogs What Time Do Polls Open

In decision-making, it might be worth trusting your gut

Public release date: 14-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: David Ruth
david@rice.edu
713-348-6327
Rice University

Researchers from Rice, George Mason and Boston College compare intuitive and analytical decision-making

Turns out the trope is true: You should trust your gut -- as long as you're an expert. So says a new study from researchers at Rice University, George Mason University and Boston College.

"How expert someone is within a particular domain has a positive impact on their ability to make an accurate gut decision," said Rice's Erik Dane, lead author of a study published last month in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. However, he added, "Even if you're an expert, intuitive decision-making is better for some types of tasks than others. Tasks that can be solved through predetermined steps, like math problems, are not as conducive to intuitive decision-making as less-structured tasks, which may include certain strategic or human resource management problems."

"Although there's been a lot of research on the concept of intuition, there's relatively little research directly comparing whether it's best to 'trust your gut' versus taking time to make a decision," said Dane, assistant professor of management at Rice's Jones Graduate School of Business. So the researchers took on the task of examining circumstances in which intuitive decision-making is effective compared with analytical decision-making.

They conducted two studies, one in which participants rated the difficulty of basketball shots and one in which participants judged whether designer handbags were real or fake.

In the first study, 184 undergraduate students (79 males, 105 females) watched 13 video clips of basketball shots taken during two college basketball games and were given 10 seconds after each shot to rate its difficulty on a scale from 1 to 10. Beforehand, the researchers had estimated the difficulty of the shots by collaborating with the men's basketball coaching staff (one head coach and three assistant coaches) at a highly successful NCAA Division I college basketball program.

Participants were assigned to either an "intuitive" group -- they based their decisions entirely on their first impression -- or an "analytical" group. The analytical group was given two minutes before the exercise to develop a list of factors that would determine the difficulty of a basketball shot, such as the number of defenders near the shooter, whether the shooter is stationary or moving, and the point value of the shot. They were told to base their decisions on these factors.

To measure participants' expertise with basketball, the researchers assessed (via a questionnaire) the extent to which they had played the sport. Given that the task entailed judging shots in the same manner as successful basketball coaches, the researchers wanted a measure that would separate those who had simply watched a lot of basketball from those who had actual experience playing the sport. They determined that playing competitive basketball for at least three years of high school classified participants as "experts"; the rest were classified as low in expertise.

They found that, indeed, intuition was more effective for those with high expertise. In the intuitive group, those who had played competitive basketball for three years in high school performed better on the task. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the analytical group between those with high and low expertise.

In the second study, the researchers turned to a different expertise domain: designer handbags. They recruited 239 undergraduate students (120 males, 119 females) to make decisions about whether designer handbags were authentic or counterfeit.

The participants made their decisions by looking at -- but not touching -- 10 designer handbags, including two authentic and three counterfeit Coach handbags and three authentic and two counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags. All handbags were either brand new or very lightly used.

Participants were again split into an intuitive group and an analytical group and instructed to judge whether the handbags were real or fake. The intuition group was given five seconds to view each handbag and told to base their decisions entirely on their first impression. The analysis group was told to ignore any first impressions or gut instincts and base their decisions on careful analysis. Prior to the task, participants in the analysis group were given two minutes to list the features they would look for to determine whether a given handbag was real or fake, such as material, stitching and color. This group was given 30 seconds to make their decision for each bag.

The researchers assessed the participants' expertise based on the total number of Coach and Louis Vuitton handbags each participant owned and determined that owning more than three made them an expert for this study.

Once again, the researchers found that intuition was more effective for those with high expertise. In the intuition condition, participants with high expertise demonstrated higher task performance. In the analysis condition, those with high expertise performed no better than those with low expertise.

Across both studies, participants who possessed expertise within the task domain performed on average just as well intuitively as analytically. In addition, experts significantly outperformed novices when making their decisions intuitively but not when making their decisions analytically.

###

Dane and his co-authors hope the research will advance scholarship on intuitive decision-making and help people understand when they should trust their gut to make decisions.

The research was funded by Rice University and co-authored by Kevin Rockmann, associate professor of management at George Mason University, and Michael Pratt, the O'Connor Family Professor at Boston College.

The study, "When Should I Trust My Gut? Linking Domain Expertise to Intuitive Decision-making Effectiveness," is available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812000994.

---

[ | E-mail | Share ]

?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Public release date: 14-Dec-2012
[ | E-mail | Share ]

Contact: David Ruth
david@rice.edu
713-348-6327
Rice University

Researchers from Rice, George Mason and Boston College compare intuitive and analytical decision-making

Turns out the trope is true: You should trust your gut -- as long as you're an expert. So says a new study from researchers at Rice University, George Mason University and Boston College.

"How expert someone is within a particular domain has a positive impact on their ability to make an accurate gut decision," said Rice's Erik Dane, lead author of a study published last month in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. However, he added, "Even if you're an expert, intuitive decision-making is better for some types of tasks than others. Tasks that can be solved through predetermined steps, like math problems, are not as conducive to intuitive decision-making as less-structured tasks, which may include certain strategic or human resource management problems."

"Although there's been a lot of research on the concept of intuition, there's relatively little research directly comparing whether it's best to 'trust your gut' versus taking time to make a decision," said Dane, assistant professor of management at Rice's Jones Graduate School of Business. So the researchers took on the task of examining circumstances in which intuitive decision-making is effective compared with analytical decision-making.

They conducted two studies, one in which participants rated the difficulty of basketball shots and one in which participants judged whether designer handbags were real or fake.

In the first study, 184 undergraduate students (79 males, 105 females) watched 13 video clips of basketball shots taken during two college basketball games and were given 10 seconds after each shot to rate its difficulty on a scale from 1 to 10. Beforehand, the researchers had estimated the difficulty of the shots by collaborating with the men's basketball coaching staff (one head coach and three assistant coaches) at a highly successful NCAA Division I college basketball program.

Participants were assigned to either an "intuitive" group -- they based their decisions entirely on their first impression -- or an "analytical" group. The analytical group was given two minutes before the exercise to develop a list of factors that would determine the difficulty of a basketball shot, such as the number of defenders near the shooter, whether the shooter is stationary or moving, and the point value of the shot. They were told to base their decisions on these factors.

To measure participants' expertise with basketball, the researchers assessed (via a questionnaire) the extent to which they had played the sport. Given that the task entailed judging shots in the same manner as successful basketball coaches, the researchers wanted a measure that would separate those who had simply watched a lot of basketball from those who had actual experience playing the sport. They determined that playing competitive basketball for at least three years of high school classified participants as "experts"; the rest were classified as low in expertise.

They found that, indeed, intuition was more effective for those with high expertise. In the intuitive group, those who had played competitive basketball for three years in high school performed better on the task. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the analytical group between those with high and low expertise.

In the second study, the researchers turned to a different expertise domain: designer handbags. They recruited 239 undergraduate students (120 males, 119 females) to make decisions about whether designer handbags were authentic or counterfeit.

The participants made their decisions by looking at -- but not touching -- 10 designer handbags, including two authentic and three counterfeit Coach handbags and three authentic and two counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags. All handbags were either brand new or very lightly used.

Participants were again split into an intuitive group and an analytical group and instructed to judge whether the handbags were real or fake. The intuition group was given five seconds to view each handbag and told to base their decisions entirely on their first impression. The analysis group was told to ignore any first impressions or gut instincts and base their decisions on careful analysis. Prior to the task, participants in the analysis group were given two minutes to list the features they would look for to determine whether a given handbag was real or fake, such as material, stitching and color. This group was given 30 seconds to make their decision for each bag.

The researchers assessed the participants' expertise based on the total number of Coach and Louis Vuitton handbags each participant owned and determined that owning more than three made them an expert for this study.

Once again, the researchers found that intuition was more effective for those with high expertise. In the intuition condition, participants with high expertise demonstrated higher task performance. In the analysis condition, those with high expertise performed no better than those with low expertise.

Across both studies, participants who possessed expertise within the task domain performed on average just as well intuitively as analytically. In addition, experts significantly outperformed novices when making their decisions intuitively but not when making their decisions analytically.

###

Dane and his co-authors hope the research will advance scholarship on intuitive decision-making and help people understand when they should trust their gut to make decisions.

The research was funded by Rice University and co-authored by Kevin Rockmann, associate professor of management at George Mason University, and Michael Pratt, the O'Connor Family Professor at Boston College.

The study, "When Should I Trust My Gut? Linking Domain Expertise to Intuitive Decision-making Effectiveness," is available online at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597812000994.

---

[ | E-mail | Share ]

?

AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert! system.

Source: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-12/ru-idi121412.php

marion barry virginia beach jet crash ridiculously photogenic guy amanda bynes dui ghost ship tiger woods masters jet crash virginia beach

Player suspensions tossed out in bounty case

NEW ORLEANS (AP) ? Four players embroiled for nearly 10 months in the NFL's bounty investigation of the New Orleans Saints no longer have to worry about suspensions or fines, and can try to move on with their careers on the field.

Off the field, the fallout from the dispute could endure for some time, particularly in federal court.

In a surprising rejection of his successor's overreaching punishments, former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue threw out "all discipline" current Commissioner Roger Goodell had imposed on two current Saints, linebacker Jonathan Vilma and defensive end Will Smith, and two players no longer with the club, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita and free-agent defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove.

Tagliabue, appointed by Goodell to handle player appeals in the matter, essentially absolved Fujita, but agreed with Goodell's finding that the other three players "engaged in conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football."

The 22-page ruling Tuesday allowed both sides to claim victory more than nine months after the league first revealed the Saints' bounty scandal to shocked fans, describing a performance pool operated by former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams that, among other things, rewarded hits that injured opponents.

The four players punished by Goodell have maintained they were innocent of taking part in bounty program from the beginning, saying they never intended to injure anyone on the field. Vilma even has filed a defamation lawsuit against Goodell in U.S. District Court in Louisiana, and his lawyers, Peter Ginsberg and Duke Williams, said they intend to continue to pursue those claims "vigorously."

"Commissioner Tagliabue's rationalization of Commissioner Goodell's actions does nothing to rectify the harm done by the baseless allegations lodged against Jonathan," Vilma's lawyers said a statement. "Jonathan has a right and every intention to pursue proving what really occurred and we look forward to returning to a public forum where the true facts can see the light of day."

While no other players have yet filed similar lawsuits, Hargrove's agent, Phil Williams, said this week that "the NFL dragged (Hargrove's) name through the mud and lied about him," costing him an entire season of his career.

Hargrove was cut by Green Bay shortly before the regular season. His agent said a number of other teams inquired about signing him, but only after they were confident that bounty matter had been resolved. That has finally happened, as far as the NFL is concerned, but there are only three weeks left in the regular season.

Vilma, suspended by Goodell for the entire current season, and Smith, suspended four games, have been playing for the Saints while their appeals were pending. Fujita who was facing a one-game suspension, is on injured reserve. Hargrove's suspension initially stood at eight games but was reduced to seven with credit for his first five games missed as a free agent, essentially reducing the ban he'd been facing to two games.

Appearing on "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday, NFL Players Association chief DeMaurice Smith said the NFL should issue an apology to the players.

"The investigation that the League did was sloppy, the investigation that they did was more outcome-focused than frankly process-focused," Smith said. "First and foremost, they should say they're sorry because they've maligned the character of good players."

Tagliabue's ruling did nothing to vindicate Saints coaches or the organization. Rather, the former commissioner criticized the Saints as an organization that fostered bad behavior and tried to impede the investigation into what the NFL said was a performance pool designed to knock targeted opponents out of games from 2009 to 2011, with thousands of dollars in payouts.

A "culture" that promoted tough talk and cash incentives for hits to injure opponents ? one key example was Vilma's offer of $10,000 to any teammate who knocked Brett Favre out of the NFC championship game at the end of the 2009 season ? existed in New Orleans, according to Tagliabue, who also wrote that "Saints' coaches and managers led a deliberate, unprecedented and effective effort to obstruct the NFL's investigation."

The former commissioner did not entirely exonerate the players, however.

He said Vilma and Smith participated in a performance pool that rewarded key plays ? including hard tackles ? while Hargrove, following coaches' orders, helped to cover up the program when interviewed by NFL investigators in 2010.

"My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell's findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines," Tagliabue said in his ruling. "However, this entire case has been contaminated by the coaches and others in the Saints' organization."

Tagliabue said he decided, in this particular case, that it was in the best interest of all parties involved to eliminate player punishment because of the enduring acrimony it has caused between the league and the NFL Players Association. He added that he hoped doing so would allow the NFL and union to move forward collaboratively to the more important matters of enhancing player safety.

"To be clear: this case should not be considered a precedent for whether similar behavior in the future merits player suspensions or fines," his ruling said.

Tagliabue oversaw the second round of appeals by players, who initially opposed his appointment.

The former commissioner found Goodell's actions historically disproportionate to past punishment of players for similar behavior, which had generally been reserved to fines, not suspensions. He also stated that it was very difficult to determine whether the pledges players made were genuine, or simply motivational ploys, particularly because Saints defenders never demonstrated a pattern of dirty play on the field.

"The relationship of the discipline for the off-field 'talk' and actual on-field conduct must be carefully calibrated and reasonably apportioned. This is a standard grounded in common sense and fairness," Tagliabue wrote in his 22-page opinion. "If one were to punish certain off-field talk in locker rooms, meeting rooms, hotel rooms or elsewhere without applying a rigorous standard that separated real threats or 'bounties' from rhetoric and exaggeration, it would open a field of inquiry that would lead nowhere."

Saints quarterback Drew Brees commented on Twitter: "Congratulations to our players for having the suspensions vacated. Unfortunately, there are some things that can never be taken back."

The Saints opened the season 0-4 and are now 5-8 and virtually out of the playoffs after appearing in the playoffs the three previous seasons, including the franchise's only Super Bowl title to conclude the 2009 season.

Shortly before the regular season, the initial suspensions were thrown out by an appeals panel created by the NFL's collective bargaining agreement. Goodell then reissued them, with some changes, only to have them overturned.

"We respect Mr. Tagliabue's decision, which underscores the due process afforded players in NFL disciplinary matters," the league said in a statement.

"The decisions have made clear that the Saints operated a bounty program in violation of league rules for three years, that the program endangered player safety, and that the commissioner has the authority under the (NFL's collective bargaining agreement) to impose discipline for those actions as conduct detrimental to the league. Strong action was taken in this matter to protect player safety and ensure that bounties would be eliminated from football."

The players have challenged the NFL's handling of the entire process in federal court, but U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan had been waiting for the latest appeal to play out before deciding whether to get involved. The judge issued an order Tuesday giving the NFLPA and Vilma until Wednesday to notify the court if they found Tagliabue's ruling acceptable.

The NFLPA indicated that it was largely satisfied by how the process worked out, so some federal court claims against the NFL could be dropped on Wednesday, even as Vilma's defamation claims remain.

"We are pleased that Paul Tagliabue, as the appointed hearings officer, agreed with the NFL Players Association that previously issued discipline was inappropriate in the matter of the alleged New Orleans Saints bounty program," the NFLPA said in a statement. "Vacating all discipline affirms the players' unwavering position that all allegations the League made about their alleged 'intent-to-injure' were utterly and completely false."

NFL investigators had concluded that Vilma and Smith were ringleaders of a cash-for-hits program that rewarded injurious tackles labeled as "cart-offs" and "knockouts." Witnesses including Gregg Williams said Vilma made a $10,000 pledge for anyone who knocked Favre out of the NFC title game in January 2010. However, Tagliabue found it was not clear if the pledge was genuine or simply a motivational tactic.

"There is more than enough evidence to support Commissioner Goodell's findings that Mr. Vilma offered such a bounty" on Favre, Tagliabue wrote. "I cannot, however, uphold a multigame suspension where there is no evidence that a player's speech prior to a game was actually a factor causing misconduct on the playing field and that such misconduct was severe enough in itself to warrant a player suspension or a very substantial fine."

The NFL also concluded that Hargrove lied to NFL investigators to help cover up the program. The players have from the beginning denied they ever took the field intending to injure opponents, while Hargrove has said he never lied about a bounty program, because there wasn't one.

Goodell suspended Gregg Williams indefinitely, while banning Saints head coach Sean Payton for a full season.

Tagliabue's ruling comes after a new round of hearings that for the first time allowed Vilma's attorneys and the NFLPA, which represents the other three players, to cross-examine key NFL witnesses. Those witnesses included Williams and former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo, who was fired after the 2009 season and whose email to the league, accusing the Saints of being "a dirty organization," jump-started the probe.

Smith said he was pleased that Tagliabue vacated his suspension.

"I continue to maintain that I did not participate in a pay-to-injure program or facilitate any such program," he added. "I appreciate that Mr. Tagliabue did not rush to judgment, taking into consideration all facts presented to him, before ruling ? something that was clearly not done by Commissioner Goodell in previous hearings."

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/player-suspensions-tossed-bounty-case-090530053--nfl.html

memorial day ivan rodriguez planetary resources mothers day gift ideas natalee holloway scotty mccreery megan fox pregnant

Long-Lasting Love: Celeb Couples Who've Made It Work

Not all Hollywood romances fizzle under the spotlight -- check out pairs (SJP & Matthew! Gwen & Gavin!) who've stood the test of time

Source: http://www.ivillage.com/long-lasting-celebrity-couples/1-b-351031?dst=iv%3AiVillage%3Along-lasting-celebrity-couples-351031

big east tournament ashley olsen new apple tv sun flare love hewitt new ipad solar flare

Facebook ignores 'minimal' user vote, adopts new privacy policy

21 hrs.

Wilson Rothman , NBC News

As we reported Monday, Facebook users' seven-day voting period on the new privacy policy came to an end with far less than the 30 percent required to sway Facebook's opinion. Yes,?668,872 people voted, and of those,?589,141 said they were opposed to the new documents. But Facebook confirmed today in a blog post that it had "decided to adopt the proposed updates" to the?Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) and Data Use Policy.

There was, however, a silver lining for the?Facebook activists who spelled out their beefs in comments. Facebook says it?amended the documents based on user?feedback. "For example,?we added new language to clarify our proposed updates on sharing information with our affiliates and our privacy controls," wrote Elliot Schrage, VP of?communications, public policy and marketing for Facebook. (You can see more of the changes made by Facebook following user comments here.)

"While participation in the vote was minimal, this experience illustrated the clear value of our notice and comment process," Shrage wrote.

If you've been following along, this means that Facebook will definitely?discontinue votes of this kind, though presumably it will keep asking for feedback in the form of likes and?comments.

The whole process was a stark reminder of how huge Facebook is, not to mention how ineffective the 30 percent vote?policy was from the start. As Shrage wrote:

We made substantial efforts to inform our users and encourage them to vote, both through emails and their news feeds.?Despite these efforts and widespread media coverage, less than one percent of our user community of more than one billion participated. As stated in both policies, the results are advisory unless more than 30 percent of users vote.

Now that the policy is going into effect, it's high time you read it over. Right here is Facebook's?full text of the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, and here is its full data use policy.?

If you don't have a magnifying glass and a lawyer handy, start with this brief explanation, from our very own Helen Popkin:

The new policy will allow Facebook to obtain data about you "from our affiliates or our advertising partners" (with whom you've already shared your personal info, such as websites, memberships, etc.), to "improve the quality of ads."?

Plenty of sites already do this, matching your info (which you've provided, technically of your own free will) to show you ads your most likely to respond to, and to report to those ad partners how you did respond.

Among other concerns are those outlined by the?Electronic Privacy Information Center?not-for-profit group, which focuses on emerging?privacy issues: less control over the kinds of messages users let Facebook send via @facebook.com?email, potentially leading to increased spam; sharing of user?data with "affiliates" such as the Facebook-owned Instagram; and the removal of the user voting policy, despite the fact that it was impossible for users to reach the high bar.

"Although Facebook?s existing voting mechanism set an unreasonably high?participation threshold, scrapping the mechanism altogether raises questions about Facebook?s?willingness to take seriously the participation of Facebook users," wrote EPIC, in an open letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

As always, it's important to try and grasp as much of this stuff as possible, but it's also vital that you take care what you post on any social network. And if you don't like it, the best way to show that is to not use it.

This episode's final question, which we have put to Facebook, is if they'll do away with the ballot-inspired governance?logo (seen above), now that user?balloting will no longer be part of the site's governance.

Wilson Rothman is the Technology & Science?editor at NBC News Digital. Catch up with him on Twitter at @wjrothman, and join our conversation on Facebook.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/facebook-ignores-minimal-user-vote-adopts-new-privacy-policy-1C7559683

walking dead comic kratom broncos broncos lehigh walking dead season finale matt flynn