Saturday, August 16, 2008
Denver Democratic Convention
Gearing up to the event! Not sure what to expect, but I'll be in the midst of it all...
Allergic reaction to the Louis Vuitton leather...
Imagibe that! Carrying my Louis Vuitton hand bag on the inside of my forearm on a hot day, perhaps a bad combination, I broke-up in a rash! Perhaps a sign? Any comments?
Worrying invasive snail found in Lake Michigan
By DAVID MERCER, Associated Press Writer
Scientists worry that a rapidly reproducing, tiny invasive snail recently found in Lake Michigan could hurt the lake's ecosystem.
The New Zealand mud snail joins a long and growing list of nonnative species moving into the Great Lakes, threatening to disrupt the food chain and change the local environment.
Scientists checking Lake Michigan water samples earlier this summer found a population of the New Zealand mud snail, the Illinois Natural History Survey said. They grow to only a few millimeters — several dozen could sit on the surface of a dime — making them hard to spot.
The snails reproduce asexually and in large numbers, and have no natural predators in North America, Kevin Cummings, a scientist who works for the Natural History Survey, said Thursday.
That means they could quickly spread, at high enough densities to out-compete native invertebrates for food and living space, he and other scientists say.
"It's hard enough to contain a species once it makes its way into nonnative waters," Cummings said in a statement. "When each mud snail has the ability to produce large quantities of embryos without a partner, you've really got a problem."
Scientists won't know for some time how well the mud snail will do in Lake Michigan, but it has been in Lake Ontario since the early 1990s and lives in high numbers there and in Lakes Superior and Erie, said Rochelle Sturtevant, an ecologist with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich.
The snail is native to New Zealand but is now found in several western states and all the Great Lakes except Lake Huron. It is carried in ships' ballast water and, once in lakes and streams, hitches a ride on boats and even the clothes worn by human waders.
"Where they've gotten into streams in the western part of the country, they've caused a lot of problems," said Sturtevant. "They're taking over space that should have other native species living in it."
Plenty of invasive species have made homes for themselves in the Great Lakes. Zebra and quagga mussels are a threat to the region's $4 billion-a-year fishery, eating up algae that is the lowest link in the lakes' food chain.
And some invasive species make it possible for others to follow, Sturtevant said. The round goby, an aggressive fish native to Eurasia, now thrives in the Great Lakes because it eats zebra mussels.
Those are just a handful of what Sturtevant says are now at least 186 invasive species in the lakes.
Environmental groups are particularly critical of the role oceangoing ships play in introducing species like mussels to the lakes.
Ships that aren't loaded down with cargo fill their ballast tanks with water for better stability when they're on the ocean, then empty the tanks when they arrive in port. That ballast water often contains any number of species, from microscopic organisms to mussels and fish.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency introduced a plan earlier this summer that would require ships to dump ballast water at least 200 miles from shore. But the plan, called a permit, includes an exemption for loaded ships.
Environmental groups are particularly critical of the EPA's plan.
"I could sum it up in one word: nothing. The permit doesn't change a thing," said Joel Brammeier, vice president for policy at The Alliance for the Great Lakes.
The shipping industry, including the U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association, has said it supports the idea of treating ballast tanks to kill potentially invasive species. But industry officials say that while treatment is being researched, so far there isn't a feasible way to do it.
Scientists worry that a rapidly reproducing, tiny invasive snail recently found in Lake Michigan could hurt the lake's ecosystem.
The New Zealand mud snail joins a long and growing list of nonnative species moving into the Great Lakes, threatening to disrupt the food chain and change the local environment.
Scientists checking Lake Michigan water samples earlier this summer found a population of the New Zealand mud snail, the Illinois Natural History Survey said. They grow to only a few millimeters — several dozen could sit on the surface of a dime — making them hard to spot.
The snails reproduce asexually and in large numbers, and have no natural predators in North America, Kevin Cummings, a scientist who works for the Natural History Survey, said Thursday.
That means they could quickly spread, at high enough densities to out-compete native invertebrates for food and living space, he and other scientists say.
"It's hard enough to contain a species once it makes its way into nonnative waters," Cummings said in a statement. "When each mud snail has the ability to produce large quantities of embryos without a partner, you've really got a problem."
Scientists won't know for some time how well the mud snail will do in Lake Michigan, but it has been in Lake Ontario since the early 1990s and lives in high numbers there and in Lakes Superior and Erie, said Rochelle Sturtevant, an ecologist with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Mich.
The snail is native to New Zealand but is now found in several western states and all the Great Lakes except Lake Huron. It is carried in ships' ballast water and, once in lakes and streams, hitches a ride on boats and even the clothes worn by human waders.
"Where they've gotten into streams in the western part of the country, they've caused a lot of problems," said Sturtevant. "They're taking over space that should have other native species living in it."
Plenty of invasive species have made homes for themselves in the Great Lakes. Zebra and quagga mussels are a threat to the region's $4 billion-a-year fishery, eating up algae that is the lowest link in the lakes' food chain.
And some invasive species make it possible for others to follow, Sturtevant said. The round goby, an aggressive fish native to Eurasia, now thrives in the Great Lakes because it eats zebra mussels.
Those are just a handful of what Sturtevant says are now at least 186 invasive species in the lakes.
Environmental groups are particularly critical of the role oceangoing ships play in introducing species like mussels to the lakes.
Ships that aren't loaded down with cargo fill their ballast tanks with water for better stability when they're on the ocean, then empty the tanks when they arrive in port. That ballast water often contains any number of species, from microscopic organisms to mussels and fish.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency introduced a plan earlier this summer that would require ships to dump ballast water at least 200 miles from shore. But the plan, called a permit, includes an exemption for loaded ships.
Environmental groups are particularly critical of the EPA's plan.
"I could sum it up in one word: nothing. The permit doesn't change a thing," said Joel Brammeier, vice president for policy at The Alliance for the Great Lakes.
The shipping industry, including the U.S. Great Lakes Shipping Association, has said it supports the idea of treating ballast tanks to kill potentially invasive species. But industry officials say that while treatment is being researched, so far there isn't a feasible way to do it.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Forgot their 3-year old daughter at the airport
Today's top travel story
An Israeli couple going on a European vacation remembered to take their duty-free shopping and their 18 suitcases, but forgot their 3-year-old daughter at the airport, police said today.
Couple's 18 suitcases make plane, but child doesn't
via www.chron.com
JERUSALEM — An Israeli couple going on a European vacation remembered to take their duty-free shopping and their 18 suitcases, but forgot their 3-year-old daughter at the airport, police said today.
The couple and their five children were late for a charter flight to Paris Sunday and made a mad dash to the gate. In the confusion, their daughter got lost.
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said a policeman found her wandering in the duty-free area at Ben-Gurion airport, Israel's bustling main international air portal. He said the officer alerted airline staff, but the flight had already taken off.
Israeli media said the parents were an ultra-Orthodox Jewish couple but did not give their names.
Rosenfeld said the parents were unaware they had boarded the aircraft with only four children instead of five until they were informed by cabin staff after 40 minutes in the air.
The child, accompanied by an airline staffer, took the next flight to Paris where she was safely reunited with her parents.
Rosenfeld said police would question the couple when they return from vacation, on suspicion of parental negligence.
An Israeli couple going on a European vacation remembered to take their duty-free shopping and their 18 suitcases, but forgot their 3-year-old daughter at the airport, police said today.
Couple's 18 suitcases make plane, but child doesn't
via www.chron.com
JERUSALEM — An Israeli couple going on a European vacation remembered to take their duty-free shopping and their 18 suitcases, but forgot their 3-year-old daughter at the airport, police said today.
The couple and their five children were late for a charter flight to Paris Sunday and made a mad dash to the gate. In the confusion, their daughter got lost.
Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said a policeman found her wandering in the duty-free area at Ben-Gurion airport, Israel's bustling main international air portal. He said the officer alerted airline staff, but the flight had already taken off.
Israeli media said the parents were an ultra-Orthodox Jewish couple but did not give their names.
Rosenfeld said the parents were unaware they had boarded the aircraft with only four children instead of five until they were informed by cabin staff after 40 minutes in the air.
The child, accompanied by an airline staffer, took the next flight to Paris where she was safely reunited with her parents.
Rosenfeld said police would question the couple when they return from vacation, on suspicion of parental negligence.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Celebrities Who Do Without!
By Elizabeth Woyke 06.12.08, 6:00 PM ET
In Pictures: Tech-Free Celebs
Most Popular Stories
Emma Thompson wields a fierce wand when co-starring in Harry Potter movies, jets around the world and hobnobs with Bill Gates at Davos. But don't ask her to reboot a laptop. The actress' favorite piece of technology, she told Forbes.com, is the fountain pen.
Thompson's in good company. There's no shortage of celebrities who disdain social networking sites, "don't do" e-mail and eschew even practical gadgets like computers and cellphones. Some, like President George Bush, are restricted by their office from indulging. Others see technology as yet another intrusion into their paparazzi-filled lives. And still others don't understand how to use gadgets or shun them as health hazards.
In other words, celebrities are just like us--with two exceptions. Their wealth and status enables them to avoid technology with no ill consequences. (Can't reach Angelina by e-mail? Her people will make sure she gets the message another way.) The other difference: It's much more entertaining when celebrities complain about technology than when your mom does.
In Pictures: Tech-Free Celebs
Take Vince Vaughn. In November 2007, the actor told MTV that he doesn't own a cellphone, explaining he doesn’t like getting calls. Instead, he relies on the buddy system, borrowing a friend's cellphone when necessary. "I am an annoying friend that way," he confessed.
Some tech-free celebs are recovering tech addicts. Tyra Banks told New York Times Magazine that her BlackBerry habit caused her physical pain. She has since gone low-tech and jots her thoughts in a notebook.
Technophobia, of course, extends far beyond cellphones. Christopher Walken and David Sedaris don't use cellphones or e-mail. Simon Cowell says he doesn't know how to work a computer. President Bush was lampooned in 2006 for saying he uses "the Google" to look at maps of his Texas ranch. He reportedly doesn't use e-mail for fear that his messages might be subpoenaed. Recently, however, his 84-year-old father, George H.W. Bush Sr., said that he enjoys e-mailing.
Paul McCartney has admitted he doesn't know how to use ATMs and prefers writing letters over e-mail for "aesthetic" reasons. Elton John is nostalgic for the low-tech vibe of the 1970s. The singer frequently talks about the Internet's stifling effect on community and creativity and even suggested to U.K. paper The Sun that the Internet be shut down for five years to spark better quality art and music.
Technophobia isn't simply generational. Some young celebrities strive to be tech free, too. Thirty-one-year-old Orlando Bloom has revealed that he doesn't e-mail or own a computer, because he "just [doesn't] want to deal with it."
A few celebrities manage to be plugged in without being wired. Jolie often jokes about her lack of technology skills, saying that partner Brad Pitt helps her navigate computers. Jolie's admission is surprising, says Heather Dale, editor of gadget blog GeekSugar. "She's so up on the news and involved, and it doesn't seem like she would want to be dependent on anyone for tech help," explains Dale. "She must get her news from newspapers and other traditional media."
Larry King, despite knowledgeably chatting up guests every night on his talk show, says he has never done an Internet search. As if to prove his techno-ignorance, he once asked guest Roseanne Barr, "What do you punch [on the Internet], little buttons and things?"
Technophobia does have its benefits, at times. When Billy Bob Thornton's former sister-in-law accused him of harassing her via e-mail, his rep defended him by noting, "Billy doesn't use e-mail and never has."
Fictional celebrities can be technophobes, too. In the new Sex and the City film, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) fumbles with a borrowed iPhone before returning it, unused, out of frustration.
Some technophobes appear to be making their peace with gadgets. Jessica Alba famously said last year, "I don't have a MySpace thingy." But in January, she created a MySpace profile and began blogging sporadically on it. Since hooking up with husband Cash Warren, who heads an Internet video start-up called IBeatYou.com, Alba has ventured further online to help promote the venture. In one video, viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube, Alba gazes at a camera in a two-minute staring contest.
Still, there are lingering signs that Alba isn't completely tech fluent. Dale notes that Alba sometimes blogs in all capital letters. "That's a clear sign that she doesn't use a computer that much," says Dale.
Other selective technophobes include Liam Gallagher of U.K. band Oasis, who uses his computer to sate his eBay (nasdaq: EBAY - news - people ) addiction--but not for e-mail--and Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters, who owns a BlackBerry, but says he doesn't use its more advanced features.
Celebrities may find technology a grind, but they still exploit it for their own purposes. Tom Cruise, who proudly lives unencumbered by a cellphone or e-mail address, recently launched an official Web site to showcase career highlights. Susan Sarandon calls herself a Luddite, but eagerly signed on to star in the super-techie film Speed Racer. Actor Casey Affleck, a health-conscious vegan, said his fear that cellphones cause cancer caused him to pitch his handset into the Hudson River. But within a few days, Affleck admits, he headed back to a store for a new one.
In Pictures: Tech-Free Celebs
Also see:
Celebs Make A Statement With Cellphones
The World's Most Expensive Cellphones
Our Cellphones, Ourselves
In Pictures: Tech-Free Celebs
Most Popular Stories
Emma Thompson wields a fierce wand when co-starring in Harry Potter movies, jets around the world and hobnobs with Bill Gates at Davos. But don't ask her to reboot a laptop. The actress' favorite piece of technology, she told Forbes.com, is the fountain pen.
Thompson's in good company. There's no shortage of celebrities who disdain social networking sites, "don't do" e-mail and eschew even practical gadgets like computers and cellphones. Some, like President George Bush, are restricted by their office from indulging. Others see technology as yet another intrusion into their paparazzi-filled lives. And still others don't understand how to use gadgets or shun them as health hazards.
In other words, celebrities are just like us--with two exceptions. Their wealth and status enables them to avoid technology with no ill consequences. (Can't reach Angelina by e-mail? Her people will make sure she gets the message another way.) The other difference: It's much more entertaining when celebrities complain about technology than when your mom does.
In Pictures: Tech-Free Celebs
Take Vince Vaughn. In November 2007, the actor told MTV that he doesn't own a cellphone, explaining he doesn’t like getting calls. Instead, he relies on the buddy system, borrowing a friend's cellphone when necessary. "I am an annoying friend that way," he confessed.
Some tech-free celebs are recovering tech addicts. Tyra Banks told New York Times Magazine that her BlackBerry habit caused her physical pain. She has since gone low-tech and jots her thoughts in a notebook.
Technophobia, of course, extends far beyond cellphones. Christopher Walken and David Sedaris don't use cellphones or e-mail. Simon Cowell says he doesn't know how to work a computer. President Bush was lampooned in 2006 for saying he uses "the Google" to look at maps of his Texas ranch. He reportedly doesn't use e-mail for fear that his messages might be subpoenaed. Recently, however, his 84-year-old father, George H.W. Bush Sr., said that he enjoys e-mailing.
Paul McCartney has admitted he doesn't know how to use ATMs and prefers writing letters over e-mail for "aesthetic" reasons. Elton John is nostalgic for the low-tech vibe of the 1970s. The singer frequently talks about the Internet's stifling effect on community and creativity and even suggested to U.K. paper The Sun that the Internet be shut down for five years to spark better quality art and music.
Technophobia isn't simply generational. Some young celebrities strive to be tech free, too. Thirty-one-year-old Orlando Bloom has revealed that he doesn't e-mail or own a computer, because he "just [doesn't] want to deal with it."
A few celebrities manage to be plugged in without being wired. Jolie often jokes about her lack of technology skills, saying that partner Brad Pitt helps her navigate computers. Jolie's admission is surprising, says Heather Dale, editor of gadget blog GeekSugar. "She's so up on the news and involved, and it doesn't seem like she would want to be dependent on anyone for tech help," explains Dale. "She must get her news from newspapers and other traditional media."
Larry King, despite knowledgeably chatting up guests every night on his talk show, says he has never done an Internet search. As if to prove his techno-ignorance, he once asked guest Roseanne Barr, "What do you punch [on the Internet], little buttons and things?"
Technophobia does have its benefits, at times. When Billy Bob Thornton's former sister-in-law accused him of harassing her via e-mail, his rep defended him by noting, "Billy doesn't use e-mail and never has."
Fictional celebrities can be technophobes, too. In the new Sex and the City film, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) fumbles with a borrowed iPhone before returning it, unused, out of frustration.
Some technophobes appear to be making their peace with gadgets. Jessica Alba famously said last year, "I don't have a MySpace thingy." But in January, she created a MySpace profile and began blogging sporadically on it. Since hooking up with husband Cash Warren, who heads an Internet video start-up called IBeatYou.com, Alba has ventured further online to help promote the venture. In one video, viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube, Alba gazes at a camera in a two-minute staring contest.
Still, there are lingering signs that Alba isn't completely tech fluent. Dale notes that Alba sometimes blogs in all capital letters. "That's a clear sign that she doesn't use a computer that much," says Dale.
Other selective technophobes include Liam Gallagher of U.K. band Oasis, who uses his computer to sate his eBay (nasdaq: EBAY - news - people ) addiction--but not for e-mail--and Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters, who owns a BlackBerry, but says he doesn't use its more advanced features.
Celebrities may find technology a grind, but they still exploit it for their own purposes. Tom Cruise, who proudly lives unencumbered by a cellphone or e-mail address, recently launched an official Web site to showcase career highlights. Susan Sarandon calls herself a Luddite, but eagerly signed on to star in the super-techie film Speed Racer. Actor Casey Affleck, a health-conscious vegan, said his fear that cellphones cause cancer caused him to pitch his handset into the Hudson River. But within a few days, Affleck admits, he headed back to a store for a new one.
In Pictures: Tech-Free Celebs
Also see:
Celebs Make A Statement With Cellphones
The World's Most Expensive Cellphones
Our Cellphones, Ourselves
Sea Pirates Bloody Growth
The rise of high crime on the high seas.
By William Pentland | Forbes.com
Jun 12, 2008 | Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Jun 12, 2008
On April 4, 2008, the luxury French yacht Le Ponant was crossing the Gulf of Aden between Yemen and Somalia when a swarm of speed boats surrounded the 32-cabin, three-masted vessel. A band of Somali pirates stormed the yacht, hijacking the vessel and taking all 30 of its crewmembers hostage.
A week of intense negotiations followed, ending with the release of the hostages to French military officials on April 11 in exchange for an undisclosed ransom. Shortly after the exchange, a team of French commandos tracked the pirates to a remote location in the Puntland, a breakaway region in northern Somalia. The commandos overtook them on an open stretch of desert road, attacking from helicopters and capturing six of them.
In Pictures: America's Most Dangerous Jobs Somalia is only the latest hot spot in a worldwide renaissance of sea piracy that began a decade ago. The growth of global commerce in the past two decades crowded the oceans with cargo vessels, dry-bulk carriers and supertankers loaded with every good imaginable. The world currently transports 80% of all international freight by sea. More than 10 million cargo containers are moving across the world's oceans at any one time.
The heavy ocean traffic (and its cargo) spawned a surge in sea piracy and a new breed of pirates, the bloodiest the world has seen. More than 2,400 acts of piracy were reported around the world between 2000 and 2006, roughly twice the number reported for the preceding six-year period. Although pirate attacks have at least tripled during that time period, the actual number of attacks remains unclear. Shipping companies frequently do not report attacks out of concern that it could increase insurance premiums.
And nearly every group of government monitoring sea piracy believes that number is seriously undercounted. The Australian government estimates the actual number of piracy attacks is 2,000% higher. Piracy is estimated to cost between $13 and $16 billion every year and could cost substantially more in coming years.
"Piracy is not going away," says Peter Chalk, an international security analyst at the RAND Institute. "In fact, its getting more serious and more violent, and its only a matter of time before you need to take it more seriously."
That's starting to happen. The potential of a disastrous environmental spill resulting from an attack finally forced the international community to clamp down on sea piracy. International law allows any government vessel to repress an act of piracy in international waters. On October 30, 2007, two American destroyers, the USS Porter and the USS Arleigh Burke, attacked and sank two Somali pirate vessels after the pirates captured the Japanese tanker, Golden Mori.
In Pictures: The World's Most Dangerous Waters
By William Pentland | Forbes.com
Jun 12, 2008 | Updated: 11:33 a.m. ET Jun 12, 2008
On April 4, 2008, the luxury French yacht Le Ponant was crossing the Gulf of Aden between Yemen and Somalia when a swarm of speed boats surrounded the 32-cabin, three-masted vessel. A band of Somali pirates stormed the yacht, hijacking the vessel and taking all 30 of its crewmembers hostage.
A week of intense negotiations followed, ending with the release of the hostages to French military officials on April 11 in exchange for an undisclosed ransom. Shortly after the exchange, a team of French commandos tracked the pirates to a remote location in the Puntland, a breakaway region in northern Somalia. The commandos overtook them on an open stretch of desert road, attacking from helicopters and capturing six of them.
In Pictures: America's Most Dangerous Jobs Somalia is only the latest hot spot in a worldwide renaissance of sea piracy that began a decade ago. The growth of global commerce in the past two decades crowded the oceans with cargo vessels, dry-bulk carriers and supertankers loaded with every good imaginable. The world currently transports 80% of all international freight by sea. More than 10 million cargo containers are moving across the world's oceans at any one time.
The heavy ocean traffic (and its cargo) spawned a surge in sea piracy and a new breed of pirates, the bloodiest the world has seen. More than 2,400 acts of piracy were reported around the world between 2000 and 2006, roughly twice the number reported for the preceding six-year period. Although pirate attacks have at least tripled during that time period, the actual number of attacks remains unclear. Shipping companies frequently do not report attacks out of concern that it could increase insurance premiums.
And nearly every group of government monitoring sea piracy believes that number is seriously undercounted. The Australian government estimates the actual number of piracy attacks is 2,000% higher. Piracy is estimated to cost between $13 and $16 billion every year and could cost substantially more in coming years.
"Piracy is not going away," says Peter Chalk, an international security analyst at the RAND Institute. "In fact, its getting more serious and more violent, and its only a matter of time before you need to take it more seriously."
That's starting to happen. The potential of a disastrous environmental spill resulting from an attack finally forced the international community to clamp down on sea piracy. International law allows any government vessel to repress an act of piracy in international waters. On October 30, 2007, two American destroyers, the USS Porter and the USS Arleigh Burke, attacked and sank two Somali pirate vessels after the pirates captured the Japanese tanker, Golden Mori.
In Pictures: The World's Most Dangerous Waters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
