9 years agosxg40oz
The nurse captured in the iconic 1945 photo of her kissing a U.S. sailor in New York's Times Square at the end of World War II has died at age 91, her family said.
The photo shows Edith Shain, dressed in her white nurse's uniform, being dipped and kissed by a jubilant U.S. sailor as V-J Day celebrations roar around them. The image by photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt became one of the most famous photos of the WWII era, and was published in Life magazine.
Time Life Pictures / Getty Images
Edith Shain, the nurse in this iconic photo taken in Times Square as thousands celebrated the end of World War II, died Sunday at age 91.
But the young nurse's identity was a mystery until the 1970s, when Shain wrote the photographer and said she was the nurse in the photo, taken on Aug. 14, 1945, while she was working at the Doctor's Hospital in New York City. The sailor's identity is still unknown.
Shain died Sunday at her Los Angeles home, her family announced Tuesday on her website. She was a registered nurse, kindergarten teacher and public access cable television producer who became famous late in life once her identity in the photo was revealed. She participated in ceremonies on the 50th and 60th anniversaries of V-J Day in 1995 and 2005.
Her son Michael Shain described Eisenstaedt's photo as having captured "an epic moment in American history, one that inspired patriotism, unity, joy and a spontaneous national pride in victoriously ending the war."
As a WWII celebrity later in life, Shain devoted herself to helping veterans. "My mom was always willing take on new challenges and caring for the World War II veterans energized her to take another chance to make a difference," another son, Justin Decker, said on the website.
Shain is survived by three sons, six grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.
Source - AOL
9 years agosxg40oz
Recent studies of the effects and usage of red light cameras at intersections in Texas brought the website The Newspaper to the same conclusion that many motorists have: it's about revenue.
First let's look at some numbers: according to the NHTSA there were 34,017 fatal crashes in 2008, with 11,179 of them - and more than 800,000 injuries - attributed to speeding. Most of those fatalities occurred somewhere other than the Interstate, where the speed limit was under 55 miles per hour. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there were 260,000 "vehicle incidents" from people running red lights, resulting in almost 900 deaths.
That's 11,179 deaths vs. 900 deaths. In 2006, when traffic fatalities were higher, speeding was deemed the number one cause of death for people ages four to 34.
Yet the IIHS reports that as of December, 2009 only 52 communities use speed cameras. The number of communities that use red light cameras: 442. Almost nine times as many cities employ red light cameras for the stated goal of increasing safety even though speeding appears to be far more deadly.
The problematic issue with red light cameras brings up the same word that describes the problem with speed cameras: "trap." In the case of Texas, short yellow light times have been found to make it more likely someone will enter the intersection after the red begins to glow - and therefore make it easier to issue ticket.
In one case the length of a yellow light in El Paso was shortened by just a four-tenths of a second and citations jumped by 132%. In another case, a yellow light at a 45-mph intersection in Houston that lasted 3.6 seconds rang up 341% more tickets than the yellow lights at other, similar 45-mph intersections.
Opponents of the red light cameras point to the fact that the duration of yellow lights in these scenarios is often less than the minimum durations proposed by national and state traffic engineering bodies. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has a formula for determining how long a yellow light should stay illuminated, but intersections boasting red light cameras rarely follow those informal guidelines.
In 2003, a study by two researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute published a study that resulted in these findings: "(1) an increase of 0.5 to 1.5 s in yellow duration (such that it does not exceed 5.5 s) will decrease the frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent; (2) drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration; and (3) increasing a yellow interval that is shorter than that obtained from a proposed recommended practice published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is likely to yield the greatest return (in terms of a reduced number of red-light violations) relative to the cost of re-timing a yellow interval in the field."
In plainer English: increase the time of a yellow light, reduce the number of accidents. A one-second increase in the yellow light time duration resulted in a 40-percent reduction in crashes and a 53% drop in violations.
Never mind the fact that many red light cameras are not installed at the intersections with the highest accident rates. And never mind the fact that while cameras are said to capture up to 90% of their violations in the first second of a light going red, the large majority of accidents due to people running red lights happens five seconds after a light has turned red.
What makes it easy for to ignore that facts is the huge amounts of money involved. In Coppell, one of those Texas towns studied, one red light camera issued $862,275 in tickets during a 1-year span. That's a healthy addition to the coffers in a town of just 39,000 people. Other, larger cities are known to reap millions from red light camera revenue.
And when it comes to short yellows, statistics and studies will pale in the face of the most important number of all: millions. Given the chance to address a municipal budget - and safety - the length of yellow lights is almost the same as a game of limbo: how low can you go?
Source - AOL
9 years agosxg40oz
AN Australian television cameraman apologised to his news director for missing images of a baby rescue in Haiti.
He had put his camera down to help the infant, it has emerged.
Channel Nine's Richard Moran heard the desperate cry of 18-month-old Winnie beneath some rubble on Saturday and decided to start to digging to rescue her.
"He was up to his waist, lifting out pieces of concrete," Nine reporter Robert Penfold, who was with him, told The Australian.
"And then, out of the ruins came this little girl, and I will never forget it. She did not cry.
"She looked astonished, almost as if she was seeing the world for the first time."
When the child was free Moran and the network's interpreter David Celestino handed her to Channel Seven reporter Mike Amor.
Images from the dramatic rescue were broadcast on both networks on Saturday night - with both channels saying they helped bring the little girl out.
However, the footage showed only Channel Seven's Amor, standing above the hole in the ground.
He reaches forward to take the dusty little girl, pours water over her head to clear away dust, and then gives her something to drink.
Nine did not get the footage because of Moran's heroics - and he later rang his head of news Mark Calvert in Sydney to explain why.
Amor said: "That moment, it was beyond news."
Source - themercury.com
9 years agosxg40oz
Insurance companies want us to be healthy. Really, they do. They have our interests at heart, and they defend those interests with an unusual zeal. This is why I am wondering which details might be missing from the tale of Natalie Blanchard.
According to the Associated Press, Blanchard, a 29-year-old IBM employee from Bromont, Quebec, was suffering from depression and took time away from work, relying on sick-leave benefits from her insurer, Manulife Financial.
The monthly payments were suddenly halted. When she called Manulife to ask why, she says she was told that it had espied photos on her Facebook page that showed her cheerful. Ergo, the argument allegedly went, she was able to work. Which led to the second ergo: no more payments.
The pictures, about which I am sure you are already wondering, were of her at a show featuring those tensing torsos, the Chippendales, as well as at a birthday party and on a beach holiday.
Depression is a nasty business. Cures are not exactly logical. And Blanchard says she went on three trips, each of a four-day duration, after consulting with her psychiatrist.
Manulife, while confirming (footage from Sky News embedded here) that it does use social-networking sites to, well, check up on its customers, also said, "We would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on Web sites such as Facebook."
Perhaps you, too, have some questions. What sort of a life is it when you spend your days trawling social-networking sites to sniff around your customers' personal existence? How is it that Manulife observed Blanchard's photos? Did she leave her Facebook page entirely open, or could it be that she had her insurance agent as one of her Facebook friends? Was she, indeed, already under suspicion before the Facebook trawling began?
December 8, this case will be heard in the Quebec Superior Court. Surely, we will learn a little more about Natalie Blanchard and a little more about Manulife. Perhaps Facebook could provide a live feed from the proceedings?
source - cnet
9 years agosxg40oz
I know that many, especially those associated with making money out of music, feel that pirates who share files should be made to walk the plank to the rhythm of Fiona Apple's "Criminal."
However, a survey commissioned by the professional cogitators at Demos in the U.K., suggests that just because one might download illegally, it doesn't mean one never spends money on music.
Indeed, according to the Independent, this survey, performed by the omeletteheads at Ipsos MORI, showed that those who share files spend 75 percent more on music than those who have allegedly clean hands.
Another omelettehead, Mark Mulligan of Forrester Research, told the Independent that those who share files are simply more interested in music.
He added: "They use file sharing as a discovery mechanism. We have a generation of young people who don't have any concept of music as a paid-for commodity."
But perhaps it's not quite so simple. I'm still not entirely convinced that file sharers are only those who delight in technology's ability to let them obtain product for nothing. I'm not entirely convinced that technology has made free-fighters of us all.
Wandering around Alcatraz on Saturday (how else is one supposed to celebrate Al Capone on Halloween?), I was struck by how everyone who wanted a little guide book happily volunteered to slip a dollar bill in the slot provided. People still accept the quaint idea of exchanging money for something of an appropriate value.
Isn't the real philosophical heart of file sharing the idea that real, honest people simply felt they had been gouged by the music industry for a little too long? File sharing allows them to alter the imbalance between the listener and the music producer.
It doesn't mean they will never spend money on music. They will simply spend what they feel is the right amount of money on music they think deserves it.
This survey found that 10 percent of the respondents, age range 16-50, admitted illegal downloading. But what might have been instructive would have been to learn just how much music people bought for their average of 77 pounds (around $120) per month and how they made their choice as to what should be bought and what should merely be, um, borrowed.
The music industry is adjusting because it has no choice. And its goal, long-term, may well focus on the ability to earn more from those who love music, rather than from those who are rather more indifferent.
Perhaps the most important word in that thought is "earn."
source - Cnet
9 years agosxg40oz
Five reasons we don't want new consoles (yet) Part-2
Number 2: We’re Just Starting To Enjoy What Our Consoles Are Capable Of
This movie is better than the last Indiana Jones!
Has everyone seen that awesome PS3 commercial where the hot girlfriend thinks Uncharted 2 is really a movie? First off, props to Sony for finally figuring out how to market their console after three years filled with fail. Secondly, there’s a lot of truthiness there. Not in terms of the portrayal of females necessarily (ROFL girls are stupid!!1!!1!), but Uncharted 2 is one of an elite group of games that really pushes the envelope and shows us what the hardware we already own is capable of.
Even though most developers are not tapping the potential of the consoles for whatever reason (lack of resources, cost efficiency, being bitches, etc), these are the types of robust gaming experiences we can expect in the near future. We’ve got to play through these first, before we need anything else.
Number 1: We Don’t Trust Console Makers To Deliver
“Have you tried turning it on and off again?” Have YOU tried having intercourse with your mother? Pfft.
The beginning of this console cycle has been an emotional rollercoaster filled with ups and downs. Ups because we were introduced to high definition gaming at home and downs because almost none of it worked. Consoles were pushed to market with flaws in every facet--hardware failure, worthless upgrades, price-point missteps, features that should have been included at launch coming years into cycle--forcing us to regret purchases and spend hours on the phone with unhelpful customer service reps.
We’d like to think that companies would learn from their mistakes, but before asking us to make an investment--again--you’ve got to make sure that the current generation delivers everything we’d expect it to. We’re pretty smart and, ultimately, we understand that the hardware has limitations and will eventually need to be updated, but at some point, everything’s got to work before we’ll trust you with anything new.
Talking about the next generation of consoles right now is most certainly putting the cart before the horse. Our current consoles have just yet reached the point of being functionally stable, beyond simply working, there are some things we’d like to see before we move on. Now that you actually have (supposed) 1:1 controls, how about more games that support Wii MotionPlus, Nintendo? (I won’t even mention the topic of HD, something that should have been considered before the Wii’s arrival.) How about not releasing a system update every week, or at least making it worth the downtime, Sony?
And Microsoft, I’m not even going to look at you. You know what you did.
Source - TechTV
Show More >
No questions have been answered yet