Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Shiny Pearls game

This is a lovely game that has a puzzle outlook providing a player with different unique features and possibilities with beautiful colors for the player to choose from. A pink octopus with red hair is the hero that’s aims at and shoots the sky in changing colors and shooting a line of stars of over 4 colors at once.
With a trickish sequencing that makes colours change from red to green, green to blue and red to blue again, the game actually test your ability to use your reflexes fast and your level of intelligence.
With levels up to 75 in all, Reach and get up to the 5 worlds of shiny pearls attaining the best record in each. Other features include game centre leader boards, 19+ achievements available, 15 smart bosses that test you while playing and others.
The game’s now available worldwide for download on the App store for you to enjoy. Available on iPhone and playable on iPod touch that’s optimised for retina display.
Get Shiny Pearls now on the iTunes here or the developer website .

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

NTSB: Flight attendants ejected during crash

 


In this photo provided by the National Transportation Safety Board, on Tuesday, July 9, 2013, Investigator in Charge Bill English, foreground, and NTSB Chairwoman Deborah Hersman discuss the progress of the investigation into the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 in San Francisco. The Asiana flight crashed upon landing Saturday, July 6, at San Francisco International Airport, and two of the 307 passengers aboard were killed. (AP Photo/National Transportation Safety Board)
.
View gallery
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .
 
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. (AP) — Two flight attendants in the back of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 survived despite being thrown onto the runway when the plane slammed into a seawall and lost its tail during a crash landing at San Francisco's airport, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board said Tuesday.
Chairwoman Deborah Hersman also revealed that the pilots told investigators they were relying on automated cockpit equipment to control their speed during final approach, which prompts questions about whether a mistake was made in programming the "autothrottle" or if the equipment malfunctioned.
The plane crashed when it came in too low and slow for landing. Hersman said the pilot at the controls was only about halfway through his training on the Boeing 777 and was landing that type of aircraft at the San Francisco airport for the first time ever. And the co-pilot was on his first trip as a flight instructor.
Saturday's crash killed two people but remarkably 305 others survived, most with little or no physical injuries. A final determination on the cause of the crash is months away and Hersman cautioned against drawing any conclusions based on the information revealed so far.
Audio recordings show pilots tried to correct the plane's speed and elevation only until seconds before hitting the seawall at the end of the runway, a calamitous impact that sent the fuselage bouncing and skidding across the airfield.
Here is what is known: Seven seconds before impact, someone in the cockpit asked for more speed after apparently noticing that the jet was flying far slower than its recommended landing speed. A few seconds later, the yoke began to vibrate violently, an automatic warning telling the pilot the plane is losing lift and in imminent danger of an aerodynamic stall. One and a half seconds before impact came a command to abort the landing.
The plane's airspeed has emerged as a key question mark in the investigation. All aircraft have minimum safe flying speeds that must be maintained or pilots risk a stall, which robs a plane of the lift it needs to stay airborne. Below those speeds, planes become unmaneuverable.
Because pilots, not the control tower, are responsible for the approach and landing, former NTSB Chairman James Hall said, the cockpit communications will be key to figuring out what went wrong.
"Good communication with the flight crew as well as the flight attendants is something I'm sure they're going to look at closely with this event," he said Tuesday. "Who was making decisions?"
Hall was on the transportation board when a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 crashed in Guam in 1997, an accident investigators blamed in part on an authoritarian cockpit culture that made newer pilots reluctant to challenge captains.
Since then, the industry has adopted broad training and requirements for crew resource management, a communications system or philosophy airline pilots are taught in part so that pilots who not at the controls feel free to voice any safety concerns or correct any unsafe behavior, even if it means challenging a more senior pilot or saying something that might give offense.
If any of the Asiana pilots "saw something out of parameters for a safe landing," they were obligated to speak up, said Cass Howell, an associate dean at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fla.
"There are dozens and dozens of accidents that were preventable had someone been able to speak up when they should have, but they were reluctant to do so for any number of reasons, including looking stupid or offending the captain," said Howell, a former Marine Corps pilot.
There's been no indication, from verbal calls or mechanical issues, that an emergency was ever declared by pilots. Most airlines would require all four pilots to be present for the landing, the time when something is most likely to go wrong, experienced pilots said.
"If there are four pilots there, even if you are sitting on a jump seat, that's something you watch, the airspeed and the descent profile," said John Cox, a former US Airways pilot and former Air Line Pilots Association accident investigator.
Investigators want to nail down exactly what all four Asiana pilots were doing at all times.
"We're looking at what they were doing, and we want to understand why they were doing it,." Hersman said Monday. "We want to understand what they knew and what they understood."
It's unlikely there was a lot of chatter as the plane came in. The Federal Aviation Administration's "sterile cockpit" rules require pilots to refrain from any unnecessary conversation while the plane is below 10,000 feet so that their attention is focused on taking off or landing. What little conversation takes places is supposed to be necessary to safely completing the task at hand.
Choi Jeong-ho, a senior official for South Korea's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, told reporters in a briefing Tuesday in South Korea that investigators from both countries questioned two of the four Asiana pilots, Lee Gang-guk and Lee Jeong-min, on Monday. They planned to question the other two pilots and air controllers Tuesday.
Choi said recorded conversation between the pilots and air controllers at the San Francisco airport would be investigated, too.
In addition, authorities were reviewing the initial rescue efforts after fire officials acknowledged that one of their trucks might have run over one of the two Chinese teenagers killed in the crash. The students, Wang Linjia and Ye Mengyuan, were part of a larger group headed for a Christian summer camp with dozens of classmates.
Asiana President Yoon Young-doo arrived in San Francisco from South Korea on Tuesday morning, fighting his way through a pack of journalists outside customs.
He said he will look at the efforts of airline employees to help injured passengers and their family members, visit with the NTSB and other organizations to apologize for the crash and try to meet injured passengers.
Yoon said he can't meet with the Asiana pilots because no outside contact with them is allowed until the investigation is completed.
More than 180 people aboard the plane went to hospitals with injuries. But remarkably, more than a third didn't even require hospitalization.
The passengers included 141 Chinese, 77 South Koreans, 64 Americans, three Canadians, three Indians, one Japanese, one Vietnamese and one person from France.
South Korea officials said 39 people remained hospitalized in seven different hospitals in San Francisco.
The flight originated in Shanghai, China, and stopped over in Seoul, South Korea, before making the nearly 11-hour trip to San Francisco.
___
Associated Press writers Jason Dearen, Terry Collins, Paul Elias, Lisa Leff and Sudhin Thanawala in San Francisco and Hyung-jin Kim in Seoul also contributed to this report

Friday, May 24, 2013

Aftermarket The Marketplace for Domains

A good domain name can help drive a substantial amount of traffic to your site. If you are looking to find a domain name that will receive maximum recognition from search engines, you should check out aftermarket.com to get a great deal on a great domain name. The best part about this service is that you can find domains that are suitable regardless of where you are from. You will have your choice of .eu, .com and .edu domains that will help increase the SEO value of your page. You don't need to spend a lot of money to get the domain that you are looking for. While you may have to pay more for a better name, you can control costs by making an offer to buy your preferred domain. This allows you to control the price that you pay to get a quality name for your domain. Don't go just anywhere to get the best domain name money can buy. Go to aftermarket.com to find hundreds of different domain names that you can use to build your brand and increase sales for your products or services. It will be the best decision that you have ever made with your company's money

Monday, May 20, 2013

Hair to die for…… but not literally!

 

1 (1)

by admin on May 20, 2011
Come on girls (and guys, no sexism here!), we all want to look as beautiful as possible.  And if your hair is anything like mine, then keratin treatment is like the manna from heaven we’ve all been waiting for.
But listen; Brazillian Blowout treatment, Coppola Keratin treatment and all you other manufacturers out there!  We just want you to TELL US THE TRUTH!  None of us are kids, we can handle the reality, and that, unfortunately for the keratin treatment guys, includes formaldehyde.  And because they won’t spill the beans, then I’ve decided to do it on their behalf.  Please keratin treatment manufacturers, form an orderly line as you all rush to thank me! (or more realistically, put a hit out on me).
So listen up.  The aim of my book is to tell you what manufacturers don’t want you to know.  I go into exactly what the risks are of formaldehyde.  Did you know that it can get into the body in two ways?  Yep, you can breathe the lovely stuff in, and you can absorb it through your skin.  And I’ll tell you exactly what over exposure to it does as well.
But before you run away with the idea that my book is just going to be a whole load of keratin treatment bashing, then I want to reassure you that nothing is further from the truth.
Because one thing is for sure – IT WORKS!  There’s no disputing that.  Whether you go for Brazilian Blowout treatment, Coppola Keratin treatment or any other type of keratin treatment, then you will come out with stunning locks.  But what you need to know is, will you end up with something more serious in the long run?  Well that’s what I go into great detail about; with no stone unturned – I promise.
If you’re a keratin treatment addict (and there’s hundreds, if not thousands of you out there), then you owe it to yourself to read what I’ve found out.
And hey, even if you don’t care about any possible health effects, I’ll let you in on the industry secrets as to how to keep your Brazilian Blowout Keratin treatment lasting as long as possible.  Because that’s another thing they don’t really want you to know.
Sure, they want it to last you a long time – that’s a huge selling point.  But lasting too long?   Nooooo.  Because every extra week your keratin treatment lasts, it’s another $300 + dollars you’re not pouring into the manufacturer’s coffers.
Cynical – moi?
But c’mon, all joking apart.  That’s the whole reason I’ve put this book together.  Because I’ve had enough of my clients worrying that their luscious locks are literally, going to be the death of them.
So let’s put the rumours to bed, once and for all.Go to http://www.hairopen.org  for great hair growth problems solutions.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

About Real Estate Commission Rates

Did you know real estate rates can be negotiated? Two out of three sellers hire the first agent they contact and end up missing huge savings because they do not negotiate the commission rate.

                                                                           

 How rates work

The average commission rate (depending on the area you live in) is 6% to 7% gross sales on the property. However, because of a recent proliferation of discount and the Flat Fee MLS by owner, (this gives the seller the edge in real estate competition), firms have lowered commission rates to just above 5%. This number may not seem like a lot compared to your homes value, it actually represents a large portion of your home’s equity. (Equity is the amount of money the seller gets to keep after all expenses are paid). To properly negotiate the commission rate of what your home should be, determine what the value of your house is so that you can make a fair negotiation.

 What to consider before negotiating

1)    Do you have other properties to sell?

§  If so, you may be able to negotiate for a volume discount!

2)    Is your home in good condition to make a quick sale?

§  The longer your house is for sale, the more money your agent spends on marketing it.

3)    Are you in a buyer’s or seller’s market?

§  In a seller’s market, houses tend to sell faster and for more money.

4)    Does your agent have a buyer ready to purchase?

§  Your agent makes twice as much if they list and sell your house without a second agent involved.

5)    Does the broker have a variable commission rate?

§  You will pay a lower commission rate without a second agent involved!

6)    Are you able to offer a loan to the buyer?

§  When selling your home, offering a loan will make your property more attractive to buyers, therefore it will make it easier to sell.

7)    Are you willing to do some of the marketing and selling of your home yourself?

§  If you are, consider the Flat Fee option. Fees are determined on where you live, VT real estate commission rates are low depending on what broker and agent you use. A package could be $350!

 Other options to consider

 If you cannot find an agent that will settle with a reduced commission rate, consider a flat fee company. Flat Fee companies are there to offer the seller services on an “a la carte basis”. This allows you to choose the services YOU want to use, instead of the traditional route and bundling all the service together. It is based on a fixed price instead of the percentage. Keep in mind that this Flat Fee is paid when everyone agrees on the listing.
 

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Obama’s case against war in Syria

 

President Barack Obama during his new conference April 30. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)Under what circumstances would President Barack Obama unleash U.S. military might into Syria’s civil war?
Obama and senior aides set a high bar even higher in recent days. The same president who widened America’s drone war, ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and led NATO into the conflict in Libya without congressional authorization isn’t likely to go to war against strongman Bashar Assad anytime soon.
Sure, recent media reports have described the Obama administration as almost-but-not-quite-there on sending deadly weaponry to rebels fighting to oust Assad. Obama has said the Syrian leader's use of chemical weapons in the conflict would be a "game changer," and White House officials have said the likelihood of providing U.S. aid to the opposition has been “on an upward trajectory.”
But virtually the same news stories could be found in December 2012. And the president has been warning that “the window is closing” on Assad—one way or another—since at least March 2012.
Obama himself redrew his "red line" for action in a White House press conference on Tuesday.
He had previously said proof that Assad's forces had used chemical weapons against the rebels would be a "game changer" that might lead him to consider the use of force. On Tuesday, he changed that standard, saying: "If I can establish in a way that not only the United States but also the international community feel confident is the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, then that is a game changer."
Would that mean U.S. military action, a reporter asked. "I mean that we would have to rethink the range of options that are available to us," Obama replied.
Put differently: To reshuffle the deck, Obama would need to somehow convince skeptical Russian leaders—who've historically had close ties to Assad—to affirm that the Syrian strongman had used chemical weapons against opposition forces.
The questions persisted Wednesday. Would Obama arm the rebels, a reporter asked White House press secretary Jay Carney. "I’m not ruling that out, I’m just not ruling it in, either," Carney said. Not exactly a clarion call for action.
So what is the president thinking?

First, Obama has what supporters call a pragmatic (detractors might call it cold-blooded) assessment of core American interests in the conflict.
Current and former aides told Yahoo News that the president has been personally affected by the rising death toll in Syria, now estimated to run over 70,000. "The human cost is not lost on the president," former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor told Yahoo. "He wants to do more and he wants to prevent an escalating humanitarian disaster."
But Obama's top national security concerns in the conflict with Syria, two administration officials confirmed privately, are ensuring Israel's security, preventing the Assad regime from handing its chemical weapons arsenal to terrorists, and safeguarding the stability of other allies like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. If Assad's forces—or events in Syria generally—posed a threat to those priorities, the president might order a unilateral military response, a senior administration official told Yahoo.
"Those are absolutely red lines," said Vietor.
The United States has provided aid to Turkey and Jordan to help manage the flow of refugees fleeing Syria. And Israel seems to be rejecting claims it is eager for U.S. military action in Syria.
A second thing holding Obama back is that American intervention might not achieve the goal of halting violence and toppling Assad, while trapping the U.S. in a protracted conflict. "There is the very real possibility that we could still have 70,000 or more Syrians dead, but now also have some number of American men and women alongside them, and still no resolution," a senior administration official told Yahoo.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey, the nation's highest ranking uniformed officer, made a similar argument on Tuesday. Dempsey told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor that establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, as called for by Republican Sen. John McCain and others, won't be easy. And it might encourage Syria and its allies to strike at U.S. interests far from the regional battlefield. And it might pull the U.S. further into the conflict. And it might ... not work.
"Whether the military effect would produce the kind of outcome I think that not only members of Congress but all of us would desire—which is an end to the violence, some kind of political reconciliation among the parties and a stable Syria—that’s the reason I’ve been cautious, is the right word, about the application of the military instrument of power: Because it’s not clear to me that it would produce that outcome,” Dempsey said.
Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who has served under Democratic and Republican presidents, described Syria as a trap.
"Despite the moral, humanitarian and strategic arguments for intervention, Syria is a trap that threatens to suck external powers in and shackle them with responsibility for war-making, peacekeeping and a reconstruction effort that could eventually involve thousands of boots on the ground and billions of dollars in assistance," Miller wrote on CNN. "And it's been clear from the beginning that Obama has no intention of getting stuck with the check."
Or, in Vietor's more pithy formulation: "The risk of dipping your toe in the water and being yanked under is enormous."
Third problem: The international community is more divided on Syria than it was on Libya. Obama has sent Secretary of State John Kerry to Russia, but officials don't expect a major breakthrough. Obama's style has been to act with allies when possible (Libya) and alone when necessary (bin Laden). But aides point to shrinking military resources, a possible looming conflict with Iran over its nuclear program and potential regional repercussions as reasons to act only if other world powers agree.
Close allies Britain and France have pressed Obama to arm the rebels, as have Gulf states. But American and Israeli concerns that deadly weapons might find their way into the hands of extremists—possibly even al-Qaida-affiliated fighters—have held back that approach.
Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month that, when it comes to telling moderate rebel military groups apart from radicals, it’s “actually more confusing on the opposition side today than it was six months ago.”
Carney concurred. "The general's comments are certainly correct, that this is one of the reasons why we need to make very careful evaluations about the opposition," the spokesman said Wednesday.
Fourth, Obama aides frequently mention the lessons of the Iraq war, from the flawed case for the March 2003 invasion to the challenges of the occupation.
Obama, whose opposition to that war was one of the central tenets of his 2008 presidential campaign, doesn't want to repeat what he sees as his predecessor's errors. Aides worry about nailing down the intelligence. They point to sectarian violence that still tears at the fabric of Iraq. And they say the war highlighted the need to build more effective international coalitions."
The question the president may be forced to address, soon, is whether those concerns can withstand the certain tide of outrage if it turns out that Assad's forces truly did use chemical weapons—weapons of mass destruction—against the opposition.