Stan Musial remembered during funeral Mass

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Stan Musial was remembered as a Hall of Famer on and off the field during a 2-hour funeral Mass.

Broadcaster Bob Costas, his voice cracking at times, pointed out during Saturday's lengthy tribute that in 92 years of life, Musial never let anyone down.

Among those in attendance were baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, former St. Louis standout Albert Pujols and Hall of Famers Bob Gibson, Lou Brock, Bruce Sutter and Red Schoendienst.

The 90-year-old Schoendienst once roomed with Musial.

Read More..

The Haggler: When Customer Service Is a Dead-End Street

SEVERAL readers have surprised the Haggler by rising to the defense of McDonald’s and its in-store ad for the McRib sandwich — “It’s real pork!” — as described in our last episode. The ad suggests that McDonald’s thinks that its customers have pathetically low expectations about the chain’s raw materials. Just as bad, it breaks the Haggler’s unwritten rule that companies should never boast about the realness of any product that consumers have every right to assume is real.

Au contraire, argued a fearless few. One reader said he thought McDonald’s might simply be trying to alert people who don’t eat pork — Muslims and kosher-observant Jews, for instance.

But would someone with a dietetic restriction against pork ever even consider ordering something called a McRib? Even if the answer is yes, there is another problem here. If the point of the ad is to give a heads-up to the pork-averse, it would need only say “It’s pork!” The world “real” in this context is unnecessary.

Of course, if McDonald’s posted ads for the McRib that merely stated “It’s pork!” the subtext of the ad would be, “We believe our customers are really stupid.”

Someone else argued that the ad helps because pigs aren’t the only animals with ribs that are barbecued. Beef ribs are popular, too. Fair enough. Yet, again, if the goal is to eliminate any doubts about the origins of the meat, “It’s pork!” would suffice. No need for “real.”

But another reader made a point that the Haggler believes must be shared.

“I thought you were going to note that there are no ribs in the McRib,” wrote Jack Schwartz of Baltimore. “It’s parts of the pig that have been formed to look like ribs.”

Actually, according to a McDonald’s spokeswoman quoted in a Business Insider article in December, the McRib is made of “simple ground pork.” Which sounds like a combination of pig parts that could very well include ribs. But the rib look of the McRib — that is indeed an illusion.

So perhaps a more illuminating slogan might be “McRib: Only the look is fake!” That might not sell as many sandwiches, but it is certainly more informative.

O.K., letter time.

Q. On May 9, 2012, a certificate of title was awarded to Bank of America as part of a foreclosure on property I own — a vacant lot that I had hoped to build on. But Bank of America has continued to report delinquent payments to credit-score agencies, like Equifax. This means that I could have bad credit reports for all eternity, with no hope of ever improving my credit score.

Rectifying this problem has proved impossible. The call-in procedure at Bank of America seems designed to frustrate. No one seems to know the correct number to call. When I finally reached service reps, they were not allowed to call me back and could only repeat a robotic litany: “We have no record of a foreclosure sale. Would you like to make a payment?”

 I finally reached a supervisor, but she would not provide me with a direct number.  I had to go  through another generic number.  Two people who answered said they did not know who my contact person was.  “We have no knowledge of a foreclosure sale,” onesaid. Round and round we go.

Can you help? CONRAD REVAK

Naples, Fla.

A. First, the Haggler would like to point out that this is the first mortgage-related question ever posted in this space. That seems crazy, given that millions of Americans have been complaining for years that their bank won’t return calls or has mishandled paperwork, entered incorrect data and so on. Mortgages surely have caused more consumer heartburn than anything else since the housing crisis began.

But for some reason, only a handful of people have ever thought the Haggler could help. And the other cases were either too convoluted or were resolved before interventions could be made.

So you think the Haggler can’t handle a mortgage? Phooey. If you’ve got a good, clear case and can summarize it in less than 300 words, do share.

In this instance, the Haggler wrote to Bank of America, which resolved the entire problem in about a day and a half. The details here are that Mr. Revak — or more specifically, his lawyer — asked a court to grant what is called a deed-in-lieu, a financial instrument that lets a borrower give the title of a property to a bank, bypassing the standard and more arduous foreclosure proceeding.

A spokeswoman at Bank of America, Jumana Bauwens, said the wheels were grinding slowly in Mr. Revak’s case because his deed-in-lieu approach was unusual, and the “bank’s legal team felt they needed to do some more research to ensure that we wouldn’t have title issues when we sold the property in the future.”

O.K., but what’s up with the Bank of America’s phone system, which runs customers from one dead end to another? Might the company want to rethink that issue?

The Haggler tried to get the spokeswoman to say anything about this subject, but with no success. Which is maddening. How about just telling the Haggler that it’s working on the phone problem, or wants to, or is really bummed that it hasn’t already? Anything would be better than ignoring the issue.

As for Mr. Revak, he wrote to say that Bank of America got in touch by phone with a whole new and far more helpful attitude. Apologies were offered, and a promise was made that the bank would contact the credit scoring agencies and correct the record.

If Bank of America follows through with that promise, Mr. Revak wrote, “I will consider the case closed. The big unanswered question, though, is how many Americans are taking a hit on their credit score for no reason?”

E-mail: haggler@nytimes.com. Keep it brief and family-friendly, include your hometown and go easy on the caps-lock key. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.

Read More..

From Front Lines, Women Offer Evidence on Ability in Combat

Stacy Pearsall

Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall, who was a photographer in Iraq, in a self-portrait over Baghdad during her first deployment in 2003.

During her second deployment to Iraq, Staff Sgt. Stacy Pearsall of the Air Force found herself attached to an Army ground unit that was clearing roadside bombs. They had just found their 26th device of the day when one of their armored personnel carriers exploded. An ambush was on.

The chaos that unfolded over the next few hours was not a typical day for Sergeant Pearsall. But under the Pentagon’s decision to allow women into front-line combat units, officially announced Thursday, it could become much closer to the norm for women in American uniforms.

As Sergeant Pearsall tells the story, her vehicle came under intense fire that day in 2007, near the city of Baquba. The male soldiers in her carrier had already dashed out to join the fight, so she jumped onto the machine gun and began returning fire.

Outside a soldier lay unconscious. Sergeant Pearsall opened the rear door and crawled to the man, who was 6-foot-2 and more than 200 pounds, twice her weight. From behind him, she clasped him in a bear hug and dragged him toward the vehicle. She fell once, then again. Somehow, she hauled him into the armored safety of the carrier.

After tearing off his protective vest, she realized his carotid artery had been torn by shrapnel. As blood spurted all over, she closed her eyes, stuck her fingers into his neck and squeezed. He screamed, and she thanked the heavens. He was still kicking.

What happened next seemed almost cinematic. Emerging from a purplish haze outside, a medic jumped into the carrier and set his kit beside her. “Are you a medic?” he asked.

Heck no, Sergeant Pearsall replied. “I’m the photographer.”

The question that now looms over the Pentagon as it moves toward full gender integration is whether female service members like Sergeant Pearsall, for all their bravery under fire, can perform the same dangerous and physically demanding tasks day in and day out, for weeks at a time, as permanent members of ground combat units like the infantry or armored cavalry.

Since 1994, women have technically been barred from serving in those front-line units. But throughout the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, women — working as medics, intelligence officers, photographers, military police officers and in a host of other jobs — have been routinely “attached” to all-male ground combat units, where they have come under fire, returned fire, been wounded and been killed.

To supporters of Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta’s decision to rescind the prohibition on women in combat, the experiences of those women proved that the distinction between being “attached” to a combat unit and actually serving in one was outdated, and pointless.

“When the military goes to full integration, it allows commanders to put the best person in the job, not just the best man,” said Greg Jacob, a former Marine Corps officer who is now policy director for the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for women in the military. “If the best shot in the platoon is a woman, I can make her a sniper. But until now, I couldn’t do that.”

But to skeptics of the policy change, it is one thing for women to perform well when they come under fire while temporarily attached to all-male combat units. It is a far different thing, they argue, to carry out the daily mission of hunting down and engaging enemy forces as an infantry soldier or tank commander.

Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and a Marine Corps veteran with combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, defines it as a difference between “incidental combat,” as women have faced in convoys or attacks on bases, and “the direct combat duties of our advanced and most elite ground operators.”

Representative Hunter said in a statement, “The question here is whether this change will actually make our military better at operating in combat, specifically finding and targeting the enemy.”

Ask Sergeant Pearsall, who was decorated for her actions in Baquba and received a medical retirement from the Air Force in 2008, and the answer is simple: Yes, women can do it, and I already have.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: January 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the standards that female service members have to meet to pass their physical fitness tests. They must meet the same sit-up standard as men, they are not allowed to pass with fewer sit-ups. Women are also allowed to run a slower 2-mile run, not a 1.5-mile run.

Read More..

Everything You Need to Know About Kim Dotcom’s Mega

Click here to view the gallery: Hands On With Mega

Mega — the long-anticipated file sharing and cloud storage site from Kim Dotcom — is now open to the public.

[More from Mashable: Google Glasses Spotted and Two Other Stories You Need to Know]

Thanks to its association with the now-defunct Megaupload — and the legal issues facing its founder Kim Dotcom — the amount of press, user interest and hype surrounding Mega is greater than any file hosting/cloud storage launch in recent memory.

According to Dotcom, more than 1 million users signed up for Mega in the first 24 hours. On Twitter, the larger-than-life entrepreneur has continued to share usage stats and traffic graphs that compare Mega with perennial cloud favorite, Dropbox.

[More from Mashable: 9 Fresh YouTube Shows You’ll Love]

If you’re curious about the inner workings of Mega, how it works and how it handles security, we’ve got you covered.

The Phoenix of Megaupload

Mega is the spiritual successor to Kim Dotcom’s last business, the insanely popular file-hosting service Megaupload. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice shut down Megaupload and pursued criminal charges against Dotcom. Dotcom, a New Zealand citizen, is actively fighting U.S. extradition orders.

Megaupload was targeted by the DoJ because of its role in illegally distributing copyright material — including digital copies of movies, TV shows, books, music and software.

Rather than try to start a new service eschewing the potential for copyright material to be uploaded and shared, Dotcom is positioning Mega as a service that cares about and protects its user’s privacy. In fact, Mega’s tagline is “the privacy company.”

How It Works

On the surface, Mega is a bare-bones cloud storage host. After signing up for accounts, users can upload files and folders of all types to the service. Those files can then be shared with others.

The free plan gives users 50GB of file storage. There are no hard limits on file size, meaning users can use Mega as a way to back up photos, documents and other data. Obviously, this means users can use Mega as a way to store media content — video files, music, DVD images — as well.

For now, Mega is optimized to work on desktop web browsers. Mega strongly encourages users to use Google Chrome. And while Mega has big plans for developers and client-side apps, for now, the only way to access files is via the web browser.

Files can be uploaded to the service using drag and drop or a file-upload menu. Users can create folders in the file manager.

Uploads and downloads take place in parallel. If you upload a large number of files at once, each file uploads one at a time. In the future, Mega says users will be able to change the upload order. If you need to upload or download multiple files at once, simply open a new Mega tab in your browser and select that file.

You can upgrade to a higher-tiered storage plan from within your account. Mega doesn’t sell these plans itself; instead it has resellers who sell vouchers for a service. A 500GB storage plan with 1TB of enhanced bandwidth is 9.99 euros a month or 99 euros a year (a little over $ 110 U.S. dollars). That’s cheaper than most of its competitors.

The Importance of Passwords

It’s very important to remember the password you select when setting up your Mega account. The password is a big part of how Mega encrypts data on both ends.

During the sign-up process, Mega uses your password to create a 2,048-bit RSA key. This is the key that tells the system you are who you say you are. If you forget your password, you’re not going to be able to get into your account.

Right now, Mega doesn’t even have a password reset or recovery feature. In the future, Mega says it will have a reset mechanism but it will only allow users access to files or folders they have file keys for (more on file keys below). Users won’t be able to access other files until or unless they remember their password.

Because your Mega password is also your master encryption key, it’s important that users choose a secure password. We recommend using a password manager and printing a copy of the password to store in a safe place.

Understanding File Security

Mega is focused on end-to-end encryption. This means that files are encrypted both on upload and on download. With most traditional file hosts or cloud storage lockers, a public link to a file also includes a file path. With Dropbox, for example, the public or shared link includes the file name.

With Mega, things are a bit different. While users can share specific files to other Mega users or via email, the URL to a file doesn’t contain a file name; instead, a cryptographic key is appended to the URL. Without this key, you can’t access the file. Once decrypted by the server, a user has the option to download the linked file.

Mega’s promise, in other words, is that users control who has access to their files and accounts and no one else.

For important files or folders, users might want to make a note of the file key and keep it in a safe place — if they are worried about getting locked out of their account.

How Safe Are Your Files

Since Mega is touting itself as “the privacy company,” it’s important to look at how the company stores files and content.

The end-to-end encryption scheme is only part of how Mega secures data. Still, some are already criticizing the service, noting that it’s not as secure as it says it is. An article for Forbes cites two professionals who have problems with Mega’s security.

Matthew Green, a cryptography professor at John Hopkins University, is particularly critical of the way Mega uses JavaScript to verify its encryption method telling Forbes that “it makes no sense.”

Mega has responded to Green’s claims on its own blog, noting that its scheme “basically enables us to host the extremely integrity-sensitive static content on a large number of geographically diverse servers without worrying about security.”

Meanwhile, at Ars Technia Lee Hutchinson raises concerns about how Mega comes up with its crypto key at sign-up, as well as how the company handles deduplication, or how it eliminates duplicate copies of data.

Again, Mega has taken to its blog to attempt to clarify its policies and the way it handles data.

While Mega’s crypto system certainly doesn’t seem any less secure than any other file locker, we do agree with critics who note that the system might be more about giving Mega culpability against claims that it knows infringing content is on its servers, rather than about protecting that data itself.

The service is still in beta and much of its code is available via open source, so security purists might want to watch how Mega’s system evolves before trusting it with important, sensitive data.

Will Mega Stick Around?

While security experts can quibble and argue over the way Mega uses cryptography and how it stores data on its array of servers, the bigger issue, for us, is long-term survival.

While I would argue that most users who actively used Megaupload were not using it as a traditional cloud service, the fact remains that when the service was shut down, user files went with it.

Already anti-piracy groups are campaigning to shut down payment processors to Mega’s resellers. One of the reasons Mega isn’t taking payments itself and is instead using resellers is to prevent those groups from shutting down payment processors or trying to seize funds.

This is worrisome because in addition to outside capital, Mega needs professional accounts to keep its site working.

It’s too early to say if Mega will be around for the long haul or not, but our advice is not to use Mega as your only file storage solution. Keep backups of crucial files on disk or other cloud-based services.

What do you think of Mega? Let us know in the comments.

This story originally published on Mashable here.

Linux/Open Source News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Everything You Need to Know About Kim Dotcom’s Mega
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-kim-dotcoms-mega/
Link To Post : Everything You Need to Know About Kim Dotcom’s Mega
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

After beating Federer, Murray reaches Aussie final

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Andy Murray was sucking in deep breaths, trying to recover from his exhausting win over Roger Federer. Pain was very much on his mind.

The U.S. Open champion defeated Federer 6-4, 6-7 (5), 6-3, 6-7 (2), 6-2 in a four-hour Australian Open semifinal Friday night. It was Murray's first victory against the 17-time major winner at a Grand Slam event.

But with the clock about to strike midnight, Murray was already thinking about Sunday's final against two-time defending champion Novak Djokovic, who is on a 20-match winning streak at Melbourne Park. This will be a rematch of their U.S. Open final.

"Every time we play each other it's normally a very physical match," Murray said. "I'll need to be ready for the pain. I hope it's a painful match — that'll mean it's a good one."

Murray had a 10-9 record against Federer, but had lost his three previous Grand Slam matches to the Swiss star. One of those defeats came at Wimbledon last year. Murray says the disappointment of that loss triggered his run to the gold medal at the London Olympics, and then his drought-breaking triumph at the U.S. Open.

"You know, I've obviously lost some tough matches against him in Slams," Murray said. "So to win one, especially the way that it went tonight, yeah, was obviously nice."

Murray ended a 76-year drought for British men at the majors when he beat Djokovic in five sets in the final at Flushing Meadows.

He's hoping the step-by-step manner in which he has crossed career milestones off his to-do list will continue Sunday. He lost four major finals, including two in Australia, before winning a Grand Slam title. He lost three times to Federer in a major before beating him. Even then, he wasted a chance to serve out in the fourth set Friday night as Federer rallied.

"Those matches ... have helped obviously mentally," he said. "I think going through a lot of the losses that I've had will have helped me as well. Obviously having won against Novak before in a Slam final will help mentally."

Djokovic will not be the only defending champion this weekend playing for another title. Victoria Azarenka will face China's Li Na on Saturday night for the women's crown.

Azarenka hasn't added a major title since her breakthrough in Australia last year. She's coming off a semifinal victory over American teenager Sloane Stephens in which she had to answer a torrent of questions over her nine-minute medical timeout after wasting five match points and then dropping serve in the next-to-last game.

Li, who is seeded sixth, lost the 2011 Australian final before claiming her first major title months later at the French Open. She made the final with less commotion, beating No. 2 Maria Sharapova in straight sets.

The first title of the 2013 Australian Open, women's doubles, was decided Friday when top-seeded Sara Errani and Roberta Vinci of Italy beat unseeded Australians Ashleigh Barty and Casey Dellacqua 6-2, 3-6, 6-2.

That was a prelude to the night match, where 15,000 people packed Rod Laver Arena, including the great Laver himself, to see if Federer could reach a sixth Australian final. The 31-year-old Swiss has won four of his 17 titles at Melbourne Park.

He showed flashes of his customary genius, but also rare bursts of anger. Murray showed his frustration as well. The crowd started to turn on him after he challenged a call in the eighth game of the fourth set, booing each time he complained to the umpire. His unforced error into the net on the next point prompted a huge cheer.

In the 12th game of the fourth set, Federer appeared to yell across the net after Murray stopped momentarily behind the baseline during the rally.

Murray shrugged it off and seemed to dig in. He'd won that point but lost the game and was taken to another tiebreaker, which he lost.

"We were just checking each other out for bit," Federer said. "That wasn't a big deal for me — I hope not for him."

Murray said "stuff like that happens daily in tennis," and added that it was "very, very mild in comparison to what happens in other sports."

When Federer got break point with Murray serving for the match at 6-5, the applause was so prolonged Murray had to wait to serve. And when Federer got the break to force a tiebreaker, the crowd stood and roared as Murray slammed a ball into the court in anger.

The crowd cheered for every Murray error in tiebreaker. One man yelled, "Andy, don't choke."

He didn't.

Rather than wilting under the pressure in the fifth set, Murray hit his stride. He allowed Federer only four points in the first three games of the fifth set, bolting to a 3-0 lead and carrying it through to the end.

"It's big. I never beat Roger in a Slam before. It definitely will help with the confidence," Murray said. "Just knowing you can win against those guys in big matches definitely helps."

Federer could see improvement in Murray's approach in the tough situations.

"With the win at the Olympics and the U.S. Open, maybe there's just a little bit more belief," Federer said. "Or he's a bit more calm overall."

Djokovic already owns three Australian titles and is aiming to be the first man in the Open era to win three in a row. The 25-year-old Serb was nearly flawless in his 89-minute disposal of No. 4-ranked David Ferrer in Thursday night's semifinal, and said he was hoping Murray and Federer would go to five sets.

"Obviously, Novak goes in as the favorite, I would think, even though Andy beat him at the U.S. Open," Federer said. "Novak is the double defending champion here. He's done really well again this tournament. Obviously a tough match again, and give a slight edge to Novak just because of the last couple of days."

Read More..

F.D.A. Panel to Vote on Restricting Hydrocodone Products Like Vicodin

Trying to stem the scourge of prescription drug abuse in the United States, an advisory panel of experts to the Food and Drug Administration plans to vote Friday on whether to toughen restrictions on hydrocodone products like Vicodin, the most widely used narcotic painkillers in the country.

The recommendation, which the F.D.A. would likely follow, would limit access to the drugs by making them harder to prescribe, a major policy change that advocates said could help ease the growing problem of addiction to painkillers.

The change would have sweeping consequences for doctors, pharmacists and patients. Under the new rules, refills without a new prescription would be forbidden, as would faxed prescriptions and those called in by phone. Only written prescriptions from a doctor would be allowed and pharmacists and distributors would be required to store the drugs in special vaults. The vote comes after similar legislation in Congress failed last year, after intense lobbying by pharmacists and drugstores.

Prescription drugs account for about three-quarters of all drug overdoses in the United States, with the number of deaths more than tripling since 1999, according to federal data. Since 2008, deaths from overdoses have outpaced deaths from car accidents.

The F.D.A. convened the panel, made up of scientists and other experts, after a request by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which contends that the drugs are among the most frequently abused painkillers in the country.

“This is the federal government saying, ‘we need to tighten the reins on this drug,'” said Scott R. Drab, associate professor of pharmacy and therapeutics at the University of Pittsburgh. “Pulling in the rope is a way to rein in abuse, and consequently, addiction.”

At a two-day hearing at F.D.A. headquarters in Silver Spring, Md., many speakers opposed the change, including advocates for nursing home patients, who said older, frail residents needing pain medication would be required to make the arduous trip to a doctor’s office to continue using hydrocodone products. Other experts questioned how effective the change would be. Oxycodone, another highly abused painkiller, has been in the more restrictive category since it came on the market, but the limited access does not seem to have stemmed abuse, they said.

But others including parents who had lost their children to prescription drug abuse, as well as doctors and pharmacists, testified, sometimes emotionally. Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat of West Virginia, where the scourge has been particularly deadly, made an impassioned plea for tougher restrictions.

“When I go back to West Virginia, I hear how easy it is for anybody to get their hands on hydrocodone drugs,” Mr. Manchin said on Friday. “For underage children, these drugs are easier to get than beer or cigarettes.”

He added that the current, less restrictive status “is fueling the prescription drug epidemic today.”

Dr. James P. Rathmell, chief of the division of pain medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, said hydrocodone products have similar biological effects as oxycodone products, and should unquestionably be in the same category of restrictiveness.

“Knowing what we know today, it was a mistake,” Dr. Rathmell said, referring to hydrocodone products being placed in the looser category when they came to market. “It should be corrected.”

Dr. Timothy Deer, chief doctor at the Center for Pain Relief in Charleston, W.Va., said that he feared for older patients, particularly in rural areas, who would have to drive great distances to get prescriptions renewed. But, he said, hydrocodone products have been by far the most widely prescribed painkiller because the restrictions were so loose. And on balance, particularly in a hard-hit state like his, the public health benefits of a recommendation to toughen restrictions on the drug probably outweigh the harm of additional burdens on legitimate pain patients.

“At the end of the day, the benefits of reducing abuse will outweigh the harm to legitimate pain patients,” he said. “This will likely reduce the amount of drug falling into the wrong hands.”

Read More..

DealBook: Rumble on Basic Cable, as Ackman Takes On Icahn Live

For about 15 minutes on Friday afternoon, all of Wall Street was tuned into the battle that everyone wanted to see: William A. Ackman taking on Carl C. Icahn, live on air.

And the battle proved even stranger than anyone would have expected: Profanities were dropped; old battles were refought; taunts were slung.

Years of bad blood between the two hedge fund magnates spilled publicly onto CNBC’s airwaves, with Mr. Icahn deriding his younger counterpart as a “crybaby,” and Mr. Ackman declaring the veteran investor a “bully.” It was a smackdown that regularly prompted whoops from traders on the New York Stock Exchange floor, especially on the occasions that Mr. Icahn flung an occasional reference to bovine excrement.

Nominally, the two were set to talk about Herbalife, the health supplements company in which Mr. Ackman has publicly bet against. Speculation has ripped across Wall Street that Mr. Icahn has taken a contrary bullish bet on the company.

Of course, that’s not all that they argued about.

Instead, the two men squabbled over a nearly decade-old court case involving a real estate company, where Mr. Ackman sold his investment to Mr. Icahn. (You can read all about the lengthy battle here.) Mr. Ackman to this day alleges that Mr. Icahn reneged on a deal to share profits from a stock sale; the elder investor sees things differently.

How did that shape the battle between the two rich men? It became perhaps the financial world’s most-watched schoolyard match, in which Mr. Icahn shouted repeatedly and Mr. Ackman passionately argued his position at length.

Mr. Icahn dubbed Mr. Ackman “the crybaby in the schoolyard” and called his opponent “the quintessential example of on Wall Street, if you want a friend get a dog.” Clearly the more inflamed combatant, Mr. Icahn declared to his foe, “I wouldn’t want to invest with you if you were the last man on Earth.” He even picked a fight with CNBC host Scott Wapner, declaring him the bully. “I don’t give a damn what you want to know, I came on to talk about what I want to talk about,” the investor thundered, refusing to declare his position on Herbalife. [That said, Mr. Icahn mused that Herbalife could be "the mother of all short squeezes."]

For his part, Mr. Ackman repeatedly argued that Mr. Icahn was a bully who had taken advantage of a young investor stumbling in the early part of his career. The younger hedge fund manager repeatedly defended his bet against Herbalife, positing himself as the target of a major campaign by the health products marketer.

“He’s not an honest guy, he doesn’t live up to his word, and he takes advantage of little people,” Mr. Ackman flatly declared of Mr. Icahn.

Later in the exchange, Mr. Icahn sneered to his opponent, “I appreciate you called me a great investor.” Then he added, “I can’t say the same about you.”

And based on the reaction on Twitter, viewers could not get enough:

@CNBC you can’t end this. Noooooo. Who was that masked interviewer who Icahn shredded?

— @mdecambre (@mdecambre) 25 Jan 13

Gotta believe trading volume is very low right now. #ackmanvsicahn

— Lou Whiteman (@lwhiteman_TD) 25 Jan 13

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen! I love it!

— Paul Vigna (@paulvigna) 25 Jan 13

This better become a daily lunchtime feature, #CNBC. #JerkyHedgies

— John Shipman (@jhcshipman) 25 Jan 13

We are breathless over here. ^DW MT @CNBCSocial: If tweeting about Icahn vs. Ackman while #WatchingCNBC, use hashtag #BillionaireShowdown.

— E*TRADE (@etrade) 25 Jan 13

Couldn’t agree more with Cramer. This was journalism at its highest level. Not a joke.

— Joseph Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) 25 Jan 13

Just when that Cramer “they’re nuts” clip was getting a little long in the tooth, we get this decade’s new most popular CNBC segment.

— Nick Montoya (@montoyan) 25 Jan 13

Read More..

India Ink: India Rape Trial Starts With Renewed Ban on Media Coverage

The trial of five men accused in the gang rape of a 23-year-old woman in a moving bus in New Delhi is being watched closely as a symbol of India’s commitment to justice for women, but information about the ongoing court proceedings may be scarce.

As court proceedings began Thursday, the presiding judge said  there would be a blanket ban on reporting on the trial. The judge, Yogesh Khanna,  also warned defense lawyers, who have been openly speaking about the case, not to provide information about the proceedings to the press.

The five men accused in the Dec. 16 rape and murder of a physiotherapy student were ushered into the special fast-track court in South Delhi on Thursday at noon, flanked by policemen, with their faces were covered with gray woolen caps. During the two-hour court proceedings, the prosecution used the opening arguments to lay out charges against the men, which include gang rape, murder, robbery and destruction of evidence.

The police allege that the five accused men and a sixth teenager, who is being tried as a juvenile, committed a premeditated, vicious crime that included plans to kill their victim. The woman died nearly two weeks after the rape from injuries suffered during the attack, which included an assault with an iron rod. Her companion, a 29-year-old man, was also beaten, and is expected to testify  at the trial.

The court proceedings took place in room 305 of the Saket District Court complex, a small wood-paneled chamber. The next hearing will be on Monday, when the defendants’ lawyers will respond to the charges the prosecution has laid out.

Separately on Thursday, India’s Juvenile Justice Board rejected a plea that the juvenile, who according to school records is 17 years old, be tried as an adult. The petition, filed by Subramanian Swamy, president of the Janata Party, claimed that the extreme malice of the alleged actions of the juvenile showed that he was not of the “tender age and mind” of a juvenile.

Indian law requires that rape cases be held “in-camera,” allowing only those directly connected with the case to be present in the courtroom, to protect the victim’s identity, and bans publishing of information about the proceedings. The victim has not been named by the media, but her family has spoken openly to the press about her life and their willingness to let her name be used if it were for something that benefitted the public, like new legislation to protect women.

Some are agitating for the proceedings of this trial to be made public, because of the high profile nature of the case. “In this case, what is on trial is the criminal justice system — investigating agencies, the administration and the judiciary,” said Meenakshi Lekhi, a Delhi-based lawyer who has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the media ban.  The case has “brought women’s rights to the center stage of public discourse,” she said. “This would not have been possible without the media,” she said.

The High Court will hear the petition on February 13.

The new fast-track court will try only cases related to crimes against women, and once trials have started, they will not adjourn for weeks or months, as is common in other courts. Several fast-track courts have already  been set up in Delhi to hear crimes against women in the wake of the Delhi gang rape, which brought thousands of protesters to the streets demanding justice for the victim and other victims of sexual assault.

Judge Khanna ordered  Monday that all court proceedings in ths current case would take place “in camera,” allowing only those directly connected with the case to be present in the courtroom, reiterating an earlier magistrate’s order on the case. He also renewed a blanket ban Monday on the printing or publishing of any information relating to the case’s proceedings.

Defense lawyers were instructed by the court during the proceedings to “honor the spirit” of the gag order, they said, after the special public prosecutor Dayan Krishnan said he would file a petition of contempt of court if lawyers for the defendants continued to brief the media on developments.

V. K. Anand, the lawyer for Ram Singh, one of the accused, confirmed Thursday that he would now also represent Mr. Singh’s brother Mukesh. Mr. Anand and Vivek Sharma, a second lawyer for accused, told the media after Thursday’s court proceedings that they could not answer any further questions.

Read More..

Women in Combat Stoke Twitter Debate

The Pentagon’s decision to allow women in combat has elicited some strong and controversial words from opponents of the move.

First, Tucker Carlson. Last night, the Daily Caller publisher tweeted: “Feminism’s latest victory: the right to get your limbs blown off in war. Congratulations.”

This drew some swift criticism on Twitter, and a counterpoint from The Week’s Marc Ambinder, who noted that one woman who lost limbs in combat, Tammy Duckworth, is now serving as a Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Then, Politico reported that Allen West, the former GOP congressman and Army lieutenant colonel, tweeted this morning: “Women in combat billets? Another misconceived lib vision of fairness and equality.”

West is already getting trashed on Twitter by users who took offense. After the controversial remarks made by Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s and Rick Santorum last year, it’s no surprise that the Pentagon’s decision is stirring debate.

Also Read
Social Media News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Women in Combat Stoke Twitter Debate
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/women-in-combat-stoke-twitter-debate/
Link To Post : Women in Combat Stoke Twitter Debate
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Azarenka eludes chokehold, gains Australian final

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Sloane Stephens sat for nine minutes, mostly staring at the court and trying to forget the curious timing of Victoria Azarenka's medical timeout. She may have been the only one trying to ignore it.

The 19-year-old American had just saved five match points and broken Azarenka. But she knew she had to hold serve to stay in her first Grand Slam semifinal whenever Azarenka — the No. 1 player and defending Australian Open champion — returned to Rod Laver Arena.

The restless murmuring in the crowd gave way to slow claps. Why had Azarenka chosen that very moment for a medical break?

Azarenka eventually hustled onto the court, and Stephens won only three more points, losing 6-1, 6-4.

"I almost did the choke of the year," Azarenka said in a frank admission during an on-court interview. "At 5-3, having so many chances, I couldn't close it out."

The crowd that had cheered wildly for Stephens, only 25 hours after she ousted an injured Serena Williams, gave Azarenka tepid applause as she left the court. She'll face 2011 finalist Li Na in the final Saturday night. Given the support Li enjoyed in her 6-2, 6-2 win over No. 2-ranked Maria Sharapova, there's no question which player the crowd will favor in the title match.

Azarenka's immediate post-match remarks suggest she panicked after failing to convert five match points, her forehand misfiring. She had little trouble finishing the match after she came back, and the No. 29-seeded Stephens had cooled off.

"I just felt a little bit overwhelmed. I realized I'm one step away from the final and nerves got into me for sure," Azarenka said.

The 23-year-old Belarusian said she was later compelled to explain that she misunderstood the question in the on-court interview, and she wanted to dispel the perception that her medical timeout amounted to little more than gamesmanship.

"I understand the point of people maybe not understanding what I said; me not understanding what I've been asked," she said during an official news conference more than two-thirds devoted to questions on her medical timeout. "So I'm just glad that I'm here, you know, to make everything clear.

"You know, I think you cannot really judge by (a) few words. The situation had to be explained."

Medical staff said Azarenka had timeouts for treatment of left knee and rib injuries. The rib needed to be manipulated because it was affecting her breathing. Tournament director Craig Tiley said Azarenka hadn't broken any rules.

Azarenka hadn't helped herself in a second television interview after the match when she said she couldn't breathe.

"I had chest pains," she said. "It was like I was getting a heart attack."

She tried to allay any negative perception with her explanation that the choking was related to shortness of breath from the rib injury, not her faltering game.

"When you cannot breathe you start to panic," she said. "I was really panicking, not because I couldn't convert my match point. That's not the case. I mean, I'm experienced enough to go over those emotions. But when you cannot breathe, when something's really blocking you, the stress — that was the stress I was talking about.

"What I said — that I was stressed out and choked — was not because I couldn't finish my shot. It was just so stressing me out the pain that I had that, maybe it was overreaction, but I just really couldn't breathe."

Azarenka had retired during previous Grand Slam matches, including a fourth-round match against Serena Williams at the 2009 Australian Open. But with a second major title so close, and the fact she needed to reach the final to retain the No. 1 ranking, she desperately didn't want to quit this time.

For her part, Stephens seemed sympathetic. She had to wait through a medical timeout Wednesday when Williams received treatment for a sore back — the 15-time major winner injured herself after leading by a set and a break. Another rival earlier in the tournament took a long break between sets for other reasons.

"I mean, when you take a medical break or timeout, obviously it's for a reason," she said. "I mean, just another something else that happens. If it was one of my friends, I would say, 'Oh, my God, that sounds like a PP, which is a personal problem. Other than that, it's just unfortunate."

Besides, Stephens said, it didn't affect the outcome of the match.

"No, not at all. She played obviously a really good match," she said. "First set she played awesome; got close in the second. It didn't go my way, but I wouldn't say at all what happened affected the match."

Novak Djokovic dispensed with No. 4-seeded David Ferrer 6-2, 6-2, 6-1 in the night match, saying he "played perfectly" to reach his third consecutive Australian Open title match. Then he dispensed some medical advice of his own.

The Serb, who won the Australian titles in 2008, 2011 and 2012, wore a white shirt with a red cross on the back, pretending to be a doctor to treat Henri Leconte during a legends doubles match at Rod Laver Arena.

He's relaxed now that he has an extra day to prepare for Sunday's final. Djokovic will next play the winner of Friday's semifinal between No. 2 Roger Federer, a four-time Australian Open champion, and No. 3 Andy Murray, the U.S. Open champion.

Djokovic lost only seven points in 11 service games against Ferrer, and hit 30 crisp, clean winners in an almost flawless performance.

"I cannot remember the last time I played so well," Djokovic said. "I've played many great matches, but this one stands out. Hopefully, I can play the same level on Sunday."

He played confidently in the first two sets, and was sublime in the third. Even Ferrer, who has now lost five Grand Slam semifinals and never reached a championship match, was surprised.

After hitting a forehand a fraction wide of the line and losing his challenge in a review, Ferrer double-faulted to give Djokovic match point. The errors were a measure of just how much pressure Djokovic was applying.

Right after his semifinal, Djokovic started playing mind games leading to the final.

"Federer-Murray, when they're playing it's always very close," he said, confirming he'd be closely watching the match. "I wouldn't give the role of the favorite to either of them. I expect to enjoy it. Whoever I play against, I'm going to be ready."

Read More..