Analyzing Barrick Gold's Debt And Risk

Gaining knowledge about a company's debt and liabilities is a key component in understanding the risk of a company. An understanding of these factors will aid in the decision to invest, not to invest, or to stay invested in a company. There are many metrics involved in gaining knowledge about the debt of a company, but for this article, I will look at Barrick Gold Corporation's (ABX) total debt, total liabilities, debt ratios and WACC.

All material is sourced from Google Finance, Morningstar and Barrick Gold webpage.

1. Total Debt = Long-Term Debt + Short-Term Debt

Total debt is the sum of long-term debt, which is debt that is due in one year or more, and short-term debt, which is any debt that is due within one year.

• 2008 - $4.350 billion + $206 million = $4.556 billion
• 2009 - $6.124 billion + $54 million = $6.178 billion
• 2010 - $6.624 billion + $14 million = $6.638 billion
• 2011 - $13.173 billion + $196 million = $13.369 billion
• 2012 TTM - $12.642 billion + $1.299 billion = $13.941 billion

Barrick Gold's total debt has increased since 2008. In 2008, the company reported a total debt of $4.556 billion. In 2012 TTM, the company's total debt increased to $13.941 billion. Over the past 5 years, Barrick Gold's total debt has increased by 305.99%.

2. Total Liabilities

Liabilities are a company's legal debts or obligations that arise during the course of business operations, so debts are one type of liability, but not all liabilities. Total liabilities is the combination of long-term liabilities, which are the liabilities that are due in one year or more, and short-term or current liabilities, which are any liabilities due within one year.

• 2008 - $8.702 billion
• 2009 - $11.528 billion
• 2010 - $13.420 billion
• 2011 - $23.330 billion
• 2012 TTM - $26.912 billion

Barrick Gold's liabilities have also increased over the past 5 years. In 2008, the company reported liabilities at $8.702 billion; in 2012 TTM, the company reported liabilities at $26.912 billion. Over the past 5 years, Barrick Gold's liabilities have increased by 309.26%.

In analyzing Barrick Gold's total debt and liabilities, we can see that the company currently has a total debt of $13.941 billion and liabilities at $26.912 billion. Over the past five years, the total debt has increased by 305.99% while total liabilities have increased by 309.26%. As the company's amount of debt and amount of liabilities have increased over the past 5 years, the next step will reveal if the company has the ability to pay them.

Debt Ratios

3. Total Debt to Total Assets Ratio = Total Debt / Total Assets

This is a metric used to measure a company's financial risk by determining how much of the company's assets have been financed by debt. It is calculated by adding short-term and long-term debt and then dividing by the company's total assets.

A debt ratio of greater than 1 indicates that a company has more total debt than assets; meanwhile, a debt ratio of less than 1 indicates that a company has more assets than total debt. Used along with other measures of financial health, the total debt to total assets ratio can help investors determine a company's level of risk.

• 2010 - $6.638 billion / $34.637 billion = 0.19
• 2011 - $13.369 billion / $48.884 billion = 0.27
• 2012 TTM - $13.941 billion / $52.084 billion = 0.27

Over the past three years, Barrick Gold's total debt to total assets ratio has increased. Over the past 3 years, the total debt to total assets ratio has increased from 0.19 in 2010 to 0.27 in 2012 TTM. This indicates that since 2010, the company has been adding asset value at a slower rate than its total debt. As the number is currently well below 1, this indicates that the company has more assets than total debt. As the number has been increasing, this states that the risk to the company regarding its debt-to-assets has increased since 2010.

4. Debt ratio = Total Liabilities / Total Assets

Total liabilities divided by total assets. The debt ratio shows the proportion of a company's assets that is financed through debt. If the ratio is less than 0.5, most of the company's assets are financed through equity. If the ratio is greater than 0.5, most of the company's assets are financed through debt. Companies with high debt/asset ratios are said to be "highly leveraged." A company with a high-debt ratio or that is "highly leveraged" could be in danger if creditors start to demand repayment of debt.

• 2010 - $13.420 billion / $34.637 billion = 0.39
• 2011 - $23.330 billion / $48.884 billion = 0.48
• 2012 TTM - $26.912 billion / $52.084 billion = 0.52

In looking at Barrick Gold's total liabilities to total assets ratio over the past three years, we can see that this ratio has increased. The ratio has increased from 0.39 in 2010 to 0.52 in 2012 TTM. As the 2012 TTM numbers are above the 0.50 mark, this indicates that Barrick Gold has financed most of the company's assets through debt. As the number has increased, so is the risk to the company.

5. Debt-to-Equity Ratio = Total Liabilities / Shareholders' Equity

The debt-to-equity ratio is another leverage ratio that compares a company's total liabilities with its total shareholders' equity. This is a measurement of how much suppliers, lenders, creditors and obligators have committed to the company versus what the shareholders have committed.

A high debt-to-equity ratio generally means that a company has been aggressive in financing its growth with debt. This can result in the company reporting volatile earnings. In general, a high debt-to-equity ratio indicates that a company may not be able to generate enough cash to satisfy its debt obligations, and therefore is considered a riskier investment.

• 2010 - $13.420 billion / $21.217 billion = 0.63
• 2011 - $23.330 billion / $25.554 billion = 0.91
• 2012 TTM - $26.912 billion / $25.172 billion = 1.07

Compared to 2010, Barrick Gold's debt-to-equity ratio has increased. The ratio has increased from 0.63 to 1.07. As the ratio is currently above 1, this indicates that suppliers, lenders, creditors and obligators have invested more than shareholders. 1.07 indicates a moderate amount of risk for the company. As the ratio is above 1 and considered moderate, so is the risk for the company.

6. Capitalization Ratio = LT Debt / LT Debt + Shareholders' Equity

(LT Debt = Long-Term Debt)

The capitalization ratio tells the investors about the extent to which the company is using its equity to support its operations and growth. This ratio helps in the assessment of risk. Companies with a high capitalization ratio are considered to be risky because they are at a risk of insolvency if they fail to repay their debt on time. Companies with a high capitalization ratio may also find it difficult to get more loans in the future.

• 2010 - $6.624 billion / $27.841 billion = 0.24
• 2011 - $13.173 billion / $38.727 billion = 0.34
• 2012 TTM - $12.642 billion / $37.814 billion = 0.33

Over the past three years, Barrick Gold's capitalization ratio has increased from 0.24 to 0.33. This implies that the company has less equity compared with its long-term debt. As this is the case, the company has had less equity to support its operations and add growth through its equity. As the ratio is increasing, financially this implies a slight increase of risk to the company.

7. Cash Flow to Total Debt Ratio = Operating Cash Flow / Total Debt

This coverage ratio compares a company's operating cash flow with its total debt. This ratio provides an indication of a company's ability to cover total debt with its yearly cash flow from operations. The higher the percentage ratio, the better the company's ability to carry its total debt. The larger the ratio, the better a company can weather rough economic conditions.

• 2010 - $4.127 billion / $6.638 billion = 0.62
• 2011 - $5.315 billion / $13.369 billion = 0.40
• 2012 TTM - $4.991 billion / $13.941 billion = 0.36

Over the past three years, the cash flow to total debt ratio has decreased. The ratio has decreased from 0.62 in 2010 to 0.36 in 2012 TTM. As the ratio is below 1, this implies that the company does not have the ability to cover its total debt with its yearly cash flow from operations.

Based on the five debt ratios listed above, we can see that Barrick Gold has increased its risk regarding the company's debt and liabilities. The above ratio state that there has been an increase in the company's debt levels compared to the company's assets but the ratios are below any red flag levels. As the price of gold looks to be strong in 2013, the company should be able to make money on the assets, thus making the increase of debt and liabilities worthwhile. The next step will reveal how much the company will pay for the debt incurred.

Cost of Debt

The cost of debt is the effective rate that a company pays on its total debt.

As a company acquires debt through various bonds, loans and other forms of debt, the cost of debt metric is useful, because it gives an idea as to the overall rate being paid by the company to use debt financing.

This measure is also useful because it gives investors an idea as to the riskiness of the company compared with others. The higher the cost of debt, the higher the risk.

8. Cost of debt (before tax) = Corporate Bond rate of company's bond rating.

According to the S&P rating guide, the "BBB+" rating is - "Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions." Barrick Gold has a rating that meets this description.

9. Current tax rate (Income Tax total / Income before Tax)

• 2008 - $590 million / $1.451 billion = 40.66%
• 2009 - $648 million / $(3.630) billion = 17.85%
• 2010 - $1.370 billion / $4.587 billion = 29.87%
• 2011 - $1.867 billion / $6.824 billion = 27.36%
• 2012 TTM - $1.867 billion / $5.241 billion = 35.62%

2008 - 2012 TTM 5-year average = 33.37%

From 2008 - 2012 TTM, Barrick Gold has averaged a tax rate of 33.37%.

10. Cost of Debt (After Tax) = (Cost of debt before tax) (1 - tax rate)

The effective rate that a company pays on its current debt after tax.

• .0669 x (1 - .3337) = Cost of debt after tax

The cost of debt after tax for Barrick Gold is 4.46%

Cost of equity or R equity = Risk free rate + Beta equity (Average market return - Risk free rate)

The cost of equity is the return a firm theoretically pays to its equity investors, for example, shareholders, to compensate for the risk they undertake by investing in their company.

• Risk free rate = U.S. 10-year bond = 1.96% (Bloomberg)
• Average market return 1950 - 2012 = 7%
• Beta = (MSN Money) Barrick Gold beta = 0.45

Risk free rate + Beta equity (Average market return - Risk free rate)

• 1.96 + 0.45 (7-1.96)
• 1.96 + 0.45 x 5.04
• 1.96 + 2.27 = 4.23%

Currently, Barrick Gold has a cost of equity or R Equity of 4.23%, so investors should expect to get a return of 4.23% per-year average over the long term on their investment to compensate for the risk they undertake by investing in this company.

(Please note that this is the CAPM approach to finding the cost of equity. Inherently, there are some flaws with this approach and that the numbers are very "general." This approach is based off of the S&P average return from 1950 - 2012 at 7%, the U.S. 10-year bond for the risk-free rate which is susceptible to daily change and Google finance beta.)

Weighted Average Cost of Capital or WACC

The WACC calculation is a calculation of a company's cost of capital in which each category of capital is equally weighted. All capital sources such as common stock, preferred stock, bonds and all other long-term debt are included in this calculation.

As the WACC of a firm increases, and the beta and rate of return on equity increases, this states a decrease in valuation and a higher risk.

By taking the weighted average, we can see how much interest the company has to pay for every dollar it finances.

For this calculation, you will need to know the following listed below:

Tax Rate = 33.37% (Barrick Gold's five-year average Tax Rate)

Cost of Debt (before tax) or R debt = 6.69%

Cost of Equity or R equity = 4.23%

Debt (Total Liabilities) for 2012 TTM or D = $26.912 billion

Stock Price = $32.55 (January 29th, 2013)

Outstanding Shares = 1.00 billion

Equity = Stock price x Outstanding Shares or E = $32.550 billion

Debt + Equity or D+E = $59.462 billion

WACC = R = (1 - Tax Rate) x R debt (D/D+E) + R equity (E/D+E)

(1 - Tax Rate) x R debt (D/D+E) + R equity (E/D+E)

(1 - .3337) x .0385 x ($26.912/$59.462) + .0669 ($32.550/$59.462)

.6663 x .0385 x .4526 + .0669 x .5474

.0116 + .0366

= 4.82%

Based on the calculations above, we can conclude that Barrick Gold pays 4.82% on every dollar that it finances, or 4.82 cents on every dollar. From this calculation, we understand that on every dollar the company spends on an investment, the company must make $.0482 plus the cost of the investment for the investment to be feasible for the company.

Summary

Looking at the numbers of Barrick Gold's total debt and liabilities, we can see that the company currently has a total debt of $13.941 billion and liabilities at $26.912 billion. Over the past five years, the total debt has increased by 305.99% while total liabilities have increased by 309.26%.

Analyzing the ratios listed above, we can see that Barrick Gold has increased its risk regarding the company's debt and liabilities. The above ratio state that there has been an increase in the company's debt levels compared to the company's assets but the ratios are below any red flag levels.

As Barrick Gold's bond rating currently stands at "BBB+, "Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions." Barrick Gold has a rating that meets this description.

The CAPM approach for cost of equity states that shareholders need 4.23% average per year over a long period of time on their equity to make it worthwhile to invest in the company. This calculation is so based on the average market return between 1950 and 2012 at 7%.

The WACC calculation reveals that the company pays 4.82% on every dollar that it finances. As the current WACC of Barrick Gold is currently 4.82% and the beta is below average at 0.45, this implies that the company needs at least 4.82% on future investments and will have below average volatility moving forward.

The analysis of Barrick Gold's debt and liabilities indicates a company that has increased its liabilities over the past 3 years. The analysis also reveals that the company's assets growth rate has also increased over the past 3 years. The Bond rating of "BBB+" by Standard & Poor's indicates that the company has an "Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions." The WACC reveals that Barrick Gold has the ability to add future investments and assets at around 4.82%. Currently, Barrick Gold has the ability to pay for its debts, meet its obligations, while adding growth.

All indications above reveal a company that has significantly increased its debt over the past 3 years. The analysis also reveals that the company has not increased the debt and liabilities levels enough to create any "red flags." The Bond rating of "BBB+" indicates the company has an "Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but more subject to adverse economic conditions." The analysis indicates a slight increase in risk to the shareholder but the CAPM reveals that the investor needs 4.23% year-over-year over the long term to get good value on their money. In my opinion, 4.23% is a reasonable expectation for a return year-over-year over the long term.

Disclosure: I am long ABX. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)

Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1142621-analyzing-barrick-gold-s-debt-and-risk?source=feed

peeps nhl playoffs masters 2012 masters the borgias shroud of turin warren sapp

Why the Defenders of Traditional Marriage are Totally Like Nazis

Several recent posts (here and here) on the topic of homosexuality and traditional Christian marriage evoked the usual hate mail, and some of it was worth reading. One comment, from a gentlemen calling himself Joe Chip, illustrated why this conversation is so treacherous. Although it began with the usual ridiculousness (?Timothy Dalrymple is so wrong on every count it makes ones [sic] head spin?), it assumed ill motives and my part but turned in a more illuminating direction:

Timothy goes out of his way to dress up his animus directed towards homosexuals by using big words and appeals to authority. Increasingly, clear-thinking persons?are rejecting the ?sophisticated theology? of the [defenders of "traditional marriage"). All we see is your actions, which really just boil down to making sure our homosexual brothers and sisters are forever classed as second class citizens in the eyes of the state.

Joe may find this impossible to believe, but the truth is that there are many gays I love and respect -- some chaste and many sexually active, some Christian and many not. I consider them brothers and sisters as well. My love for them is no different than my love for my heterosexual friends. But Joe has never understood where people like myself are coming from. It seems irrational to him, and inconceivable that it could flow from loving motives -- ergo people like myself must be driven by prejudice. Which is why, Joe says, it's fitting -- even though I myself have never done anything against the interests of gays except explain why I hold to traditional Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage -- to liken me and those like me to Nazis, slaveowners and the exterminators of Native Americans:

It is absolutely appropriate to lump your ilk in with those who use the power of the State to oppress 'the enemy', at which times in history HAS been the Native American, the Jew, the Black Slave, the interracial married couple, and the Homosexual...I wish you had the courage simply to admit you don't like homosexuals and don't want them to have the same rights you enjoy...We don't care about your words. We look at your actions and the suffering they cause to our friends.

It's these final lines that I find helpful. This is not new to me. I've been a part of this conversation for several years now. But "Joe Chip" states clearly a very important point for the defenders of traditional marriage to understand. He goes on at greater length in a second comment:

[Timothy] works under the assumption that one can support denying fellow US citizens basic human rights (in this case, the right to marry) and yet remain ?pure? and should be above being called nasty names. He is shocked, shocked, [NOTE: I'm not shocked at all, I simply think it's wrong] that ?we have reached a point where anyone who believes gay sex is wrong or anyone who believes that marriage is ordained by God for the union of a man and a woman is ostracized and condemned as hateful, bigoted, and the equivalent of a racist. ?

Honestly, should a ?nice person? who claims to love women but still works to ensure they don?t have the right to vote be above criticism? Should a ?kind master? not be condemned for owning slaves? Should a ?Christian pastor? who believes a large segment of the citizens of his own country should never have the right to marry be untarnished?

WE DON?T CARE how nice you think you are. We look at your actions, which are devoted to making sure the State does as you think your religious book says and keeps your brothers and sisters from marrying.

Except, of course, (1) that I don?t believe there is a ?right to marry,? much less a ?basic human right? that any adult should be able to join himself or herself to any other adult and receive the full sanction and rewards of the state, and (2) I?m on record suggesting that Christians perhaps should no longer oppose a legal recognition of gay marriage, even if (I think) they should continue to insist on the moral teaching that acting on homosexual desires is wrong and the theological teaching that only male-female marriage is marriage in the eyes of God.

Yet this comment reflects the unfortunate legacy of draping the American gay-marriage movement in the flag of the civil rights struggle. Disagree on the definition of marriage or the morality of same-sex activity ? and you?re some kind of Nazi. Neither your beliefs nor your motives matter. You simply are Bull Connor if your actions are not what the other side would prefer.

Let?s see how this would work in other areas. I believe that the unborn have a right to life. Let?s stipulate that Joe fights for abortion access. I don?t care that we disagree on the fundamental question at hand. I don?t care that he?claims?to care for life. What matters are his actions. He fights for abortion access ? against the unborn?s right to life. Ergo he squashes human rights just like the Nazis. QED.

Or let?s take another example. I believe that business owners should have the religious freedom not to pay (even through insurance policies) for abortions or other services that go diametrically against their religious convictions. Let?s stipulate that Joe Chip does not, and takes actions to the contrary. I don?t care that he disagrees on whether I?m properly interpreting this right, and I care nothing for his claims to love small business owners. I just care that his actions deny my friends their basic human rights. Ergo he?s a human rights abuser on the level of those who slaughtered the Native Americans. QED.

Anybody else see the problem here?

Source: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/philosophicalfragments/2013/01/31/defenders-of-traditional-marriage-like-nazis/

fun. hepatitis c symptoms david bradley david foster wallace pinterest attwireless taylor swift zac efron

Online dating and the search for true love ? or loves - Life ...

Here at Maclean's, we appreciate the written word. And we appreciate you, the reader. We are always looking for ways to create a better user experience for you and wanted to try out a new functionality that provides you with a reading experience in which the words and fonts take centre stage. We believe you'll appreciate the clean, white layout as you read our feature articles. But we don't want to force it on you and it's completely optional. Click "View in Clean Reading Mode" on any article if you want to try it out. Once there, you can click "Go back to regular view" at the top or bottom of the article to return to the regular layout.

Peter Dazeley/GETTY IMAGES

In 2003, a young Mark Zuckerberg sat in front of his computer and instant-messaged a friend. Back then, ?the facebook thing? was still a rough idea, and 18-year-old Zuckerberg was trying to finesse the concept.

Already, he knew what he didn?t want. ?I don?t think people would sign up for the facebook thing if they knew it was for dating,? Zuckerberg wrote. ?I think people are skeptical about joining dating things.?

A decade later, a somewhat savvier Zuckerberg has had a change of heart. Last week, Facebook unveiled ?Graph Search,? a new search engine that will allow users to comb through data from their existing online networks. At a press launch, Facebook reps showed off the new product, explaining that it could be used to search for restaurants, or for job recruiting. At one point, a Facebook employee stood to demonstrate a search for ?friends of my friends who are single and living in San Francisco.?

And that?s when Facebook entered the online dating game, doing away with what was, until now, a fragile divide between quotidian online activity and the act of browsing for potential mates. On the day of the announcement, the stock price of InterActiveCorp?the parent site of online dating behemoths Match.com and OkCupid.com?dropped by more than two per cent. The war is on.

Over the past two decades, the Internet has become a ?xture of the modern-day romance plot. In the early ?90s, just one per cent of new relationships began online. By 2009, that number had grown to around 20 per cent for heterosexual couples, and 60 per cent for same-sex matches.

An estimated 30 to 40 million North Americans now use online dating sites. The 1,500 sites comprise an industry worth over $1.5 billion. A quarter of all Canadians have tried Internet dating, and 16 per cent have had sex with someone they met online.

Today, online dating sites peddle a radical vision: a new future for love as we know it; a more efficient, more targeted way to meet a compatible mate. And a vastly more open field to play in. Forget about hanging out in bars, or volunteering at community functions, or awkwardly asking friends if their friends are single.

Many of the biggest online sites are marketing themselves not just as places to get a date, but as a place to find a lifelong mate. The dating site eHarmony claims an average of 542 members marry every day in America. As online dating becomes the dominant path to relationships, it shifts the way these unions are built. The question, casting forward, is how that will change the very institution that many daters seek?marriage. In the industry, the dominant view is that espoused by U.K.-based online dating executive Dan Winchester, who predicts, ?The future will see better relationships, but more divorce.?

Internet dating sites, supporters say, create a larger and more fluid ?dating marketplace,? which in turn yields better and more compatible matches. On the flip side, this bustling new marketplace, with its steady pace of transactions, might threaten traditional marriage. Why settle down when a better match is just a click away? And where is the incentive to work through relationship difficulty when it?s so easy to access alternatives?

Online dating sites offer a panacea: a soulmate whose interests, background and disposition are congruent with ours. And they share some common conceits: that similarity is good for a relationship, and that mathematical algorithms can predict compatibility.

The problem is that the scientific jury is still out on whether similarity is, in fact, good for long-term commitment. And there?s no strong evidence that computers can predict compatibility through measurable psychological variables. In 2012, a meta-analysis of online dating research by five U.S.-based psychologists concluded just the opposite: ?The ways online dating sites typically implement [their] services . . . do not always improve romantic outcomes; indeed, they sometimes undermine such outcomes.?

The report continues: ?By suggesting that compatibility can be established from a relatively small bank of trait-based information about a person?whether by a matchmaker?s algorithm or by the user?s own glance at a profile? online dating sites may be supporting an ideology of compatibility that decades of scientific research suggests is false.?

Still, the now-ubiquitous smartphone promises more of the same?with the addition of GPS technology and social network integration. The search for mates (or the temptation to search for mates) will soon be mobile and transparent, and it will be constant.

A new book by journalist Dan Slater, Love in the Time of Algorithms, argues that something momentous and irreversible has happened to modern-day dating and relationships. Slater says it heralds a shift akin in significance to the sexual revolution. ?We will reach a point when people don?t distinguish between meeting online and off-line,? he says. ?We won?t refer to online dating; it will just be dating.? And we aren?t far away.

But as dating-through-device becomes a primary medium for romance, it seems likely that our end goal?traditionally commitment, and often marriage?will also change. Online dating has already altered our romantic psyche?most significantly by assuring us that new options are always waiting. Slater doesn?t think that online dating will necessarily destroy monogamy, but he does think that monogamy will change and become more transient. ?The bar for what people consider to be a good relationship will go up,? he predicts. ?The other side is there will be more breakups, because people won?t feel imprisoned in relationships that aren?t right.? And that, Slater and others predict, could erode the values of commitment.

?

As the story goes, the first-ever matchmaker made his first match in the city of Haran, in what is now Turkey. In the Bible, Abraham sends the loyal servant Eliezer to find a suitable wife for his son Isaac, who, at 40, isn?t getting any younger. Eliezer sets out for Mesopotamia; he returns with the young and virtuous Rebekah, who becomes Isaac?s bride.

The semi-professional matchmaker has been at it for centuries. Priests, clergy members and rabbis have been romantic intermediaries. Elderly female neighbours lent a hand too?none more famously, perhaps, than the meddling Yenta of the 1964 musical Fiddler on the Roof.

Computer-mediated dating predates Yenta herself. In 1959, a group of Stanford University students developed ?The Happy Families Planning Services? as a final project for their mathematics course. They programmed the world?s first mass-produced computer, an IBM 650, to match up 49 men and 49 women, using their answers to a basic questionnaire. The project received an ?A,? and resulted in a single marriage.

Dan Slater is the spawn of another early venture: a dating company launched at Harvard University in 1965. Slater?s parents?undergraduates at Harvard and Mount Holyoke?paid $4 to have their profiles run through a car-sized Honeywell 200. They married in 1967, but divorced (forebodingly, their son might now argue) when Slater was a child.

Still, computers didn?t gain a clear lead until the ?90s. The ?70s saw the rise (and quick fall) of video dating; the ?80s witnessed a resurgence of the printed personal ad.

In 1995, a Stanford M.B.A. named Gary Kremen launched Match.com and changed the industry forever. By 1996, Match had 60,000 users, at a time when only five per cent of Americans had Internet access. By 2012, Match.com claimed 1.8 million paid subscribers, and was the world?s largest online dating site.

By many accounts, one in five new relationships begins online. Within North America, an estimated one-quarter to one-third of singles use online dating sites.

The industry worked hard for those numbers as it evolved in three stages. The first phase, which began with Match.com, was putting personal ads online?and allowing users to browse. The second phase came in 2000 with the inception of eHarmony and its ?algorithms.? This new class of dating sites touted ?algorithm-based matching? and ?science-based? compatibility spotting. These sites rely on personality profiling rather than user-controlled window-shopping. The latest phase began in 2008 with the launch of the App Store, taking the best of Phase 2 and adding Bluetooth technology, making it mobile and social. Dating is now algorithm-guided and Facebook-integrated. And it?s done on the run.

Julie?a 28-year-old from Orillia, Ont., who requested that her last name be withheld?joined the website Plenty of Fish in 2005. Then a student at Carleton University, Julie was underwhelmed by her boyish peers, and figured she could do better online. She approached the task judiciously, spending hours combing through profiles before messaging a single user: a 23-year-old named Dan.

There was a lot to like on Dan?s profile, Julie says. Dan mentioned that he was starting his own business, which showed that he was gutsy. But he admitted that his venture was still in the red, which proved he was honest. Julie was also attracted by the ?optimistic, positive-thinking, follow-your-dreams buzzwords? sprinkled through Dan?s writing.

As is standard, several days of messaging, emailing, texting and phone calling ensued before the two agreed to meet at an Irish pub near Julie?s apartment. Two years later, in March 2007, Julie moved in with Dan. The next October, they were married. (According to an Iowa State University study, for marriages that begin online, the average length of courtship is 18.5 months, compared to 42 months for marriages that began off-line.) Seven years later, Julie is still ?head over heels.?

The new first date looks a lot like Julie and Dan?s initial encounter: less a gradual getting-to-know-you meeting than a real-time verification of data pulled from online profiles. Today, an online dater is likely to know what her prospective mate looks like before she meets him?as well as his basic stats, profession and ability to spell. Depending on the site, she might also know whether he expects his girlfriends to shave their legs in winter, whether he thinks flag burning should be illegal and even how much he enjoys anal sex.

?

Much of what makes online dating unique happens before the first real-time encounter. Online dating has fundamentally widened our pool of potential mates. ?In the past, you would marry someone because they were in your proximity,? says Marina Adshade, an economist at the University of British Columbia and the author of the forthcoming book Dollars and Sex. But ?online dating has widened our choices. That has caused us to choose people who are far more like ourselves.?

This is Econ 101 material: bigger markets are more efficient, so a bigger dating pool yields better-quality matches?which often entails compatibility in areas like education. That doesn?t mean that every pairing is a great one, cautions Adshade. But ?it does mean that people are slower to settle.? On an aggregate level, this is significant. ?There is less diversity,? Adshade continues. ?Gone are the days when the educated doctor marries someone with only a high school degree. That?s largely because of online dating.?

Online dating has also introduced new species into the dating pool: older divorcees who rarely meet new people, for instance.

Mark is a family doctor in Toronto who requested Maclean?s refer to him pseudonymously for professional reasons. (And ?Put in the article that I?m 48 years old but I look like I?m 40,? he advised.)

Mark is tall and thin with cropped dark hair; he has married and divorced twice, and has a handful of children. Last summer, he joined JDate, a dating site for Jewish singles. ?Of course there was hesitation,? he grants. ?You don?t know your marketability. You worry that only losers go online.? He took a laissez-faire approach, and let the women come flocking. Mark?s tally: eight or nine first dates, four second dates and one five-month relationship. Last month, in search of a fresh market, Mark switched from JDate to Match.com. He says the sites are pretty similar, though he?s not crazy about the emails that Match sends him with info on women he might like. In one recent email, Mark was shown the profile of his ex-wife.

In general, Slater argues, the expanded relationship market is good for people who find it difficult to date, for whatever reason. One chapter in his book tells the wrenching tale of Laura Brashier, a young ovarian cancer survivor who is unable to have sex, since radiation turned much of her vagina into scar tissue. In 2011, Brashier launched 2 Date 4 Love, ?a dating site that enables people who cannot engage in sexual intercourse to meet and experience love.? Dating websites serve a similar purpose for minority groups whose members are committed to marrying internally, but might be geographically dispersed.

The ?nichification? of the industry has also helped satisfy specific preferences. There are now dating sites for obese individuals, ?cougars,? farmers, Ivy Leaguers, vegans, men who like women with breast implants, convicts living behind bars, military brats and people who like to be choked during sex. GenePartner.com uses DNA testing to pair clients. Ashley Madison?slogan: ?Life is short. Have an affair??facilitates ?married dating and discreet encounters.?

It has also breathed new life into ?premium international online dating? or, more colloquially, ?mail-order brides.? The popular Anastasia Date, for instance, connects Western men with Russian, Ukrainian, Chinese, African and Latin American women. In 2012, Bloomberg Businessweek valued the international marriage-making business at US$2 billion.

Choice and satisfaction, however, are not neatly correlated. A 2011 study of speed-daters found that as the variability of potential matches increased, test subjects were more likely to reject 100 per cent of would-be mates. Too much choice can cause burnout.

Someone?s willingness to commit to a relationship is a delicate variable, Slater explains. But we know that a key predictor of commitment is ?the perception of appealing alternatives.? When someone believes there are good alternatives out there, they are more likely to exhibit ?low commitment to their partner and eventual breakup.? Dating websites offer near infinite ?alternatives??or at least the perception that good alternatives are easy to find.

Scientists were onto this in the ?90s. A 1995 study in the American Sociological Review observed: ?The risk of [divorce/separation] is highest when either wives or husbands encounter an abundance of spousal alternatives.? A 2007 study in the Journal of Human Resources found that people are more likely to divorce when they work in co-ed environments. Despite all the interest in collecting data in online dating, there aren?t yet any solid statistics on the divorce rates of those who meet online compared to off-line.

More than anything else in Slater?s book, his description of a thirtysomething named Jacob?who let his two-year relationship with ?young and beautiful? Rachel languish because ?having met Rachel so easily online, he felt confident that if he became single again he could always meet someone else??stands as an example of the troublesome state of modern romance. Jacob tells Slater that he reactivated his Match.com profile the day that Rachel moved out.

In the same breath, an introspective Jacob admits that if he had met Rachel off-line, he would have married her. ?At that point in my life, I would?ve done whatever it took to make things work. Did online dating change my perception of permanence? No doubt. When I sensed the breakup coming, I was okay with it. I was eager to see what else was out there.?

Online dating sites bait their clients with promises of soulmates and serendipity, but those promises can inflate expectations and leave people less willing to work through rough patches;??It isn?t meant to be!? inevitably leads to?throwing in the towel.

In 2012, the team of U.S. psychologists in the meta-study argued: ?People with a strong belief in romantic destiny are especially likely to exit a romantic relationship when problems arise, even when they are involved in rewarding relationships.? In other words, believing in soulmates actually breeds what the researchers call ?romantic dysfunction.? ?By contrast,? the psychologists claim, ?those who believe in ?romantic growth? (sometimes called ?work-it-out beliefs?) will fight through hard times, and succeed. One January 2011 poll found that 73 per cent of Americans believe in soulmates, up from 66 per cent six months earlier.

What do we make of this tendency for online daters to quit relationships when the going gets tough? ?It?s unknown whether that?s good or bad for society,? Slater admits. ?On the one hand, it?s good if fewer people feel like they?re stuck in relationships. On the other, evidence is pretty solid that having a stable romantic partner means all kinds of health and wellness benefits.?

Numerous studies suggest that married people live longer than single people?and that they stay healthy further into old age. Married people also report lower levels of depression and distress than their single counterparts. Any large-scale changes to marriage patterns will undoubtedly have macro policy implications.

Yet Greg Blatt, CEO of Match.com?s parent company, views this shift as a positive: ?You could say that online dating is simply changing people?s ideas about whether commitment itself is a life value.? According to Blatt, the ease of online dating will reduce our pressure to nail down a compatible mate. By extension, marriage could become a string of Internet-facilitated trysts.

Of course, this thesis bolsters Blatt?s business model. Dating sites succeed when our relationships last just long enough to build trust in the algorithm?but not long enough to make us swap the dating pool for the marriage altar. Online dating sites promise love and companionship, but their viability depends on love remaining the elusive target.

Peter Ludlow, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, recently posited in the Atlantic that the online dating ?market? is too ?frictionless??too easy to enter, exit and transact within. This fluidity, he argues, will lead us to undervalue the relationships we end up with. ?If diamonds grew on dandelions,? Ludlow writes, ?no one would care about diamonds.?

Ludlow likens the experience to his time spent as an amateur stamp collector. For years, he travelled from dealer to dealer, digging through bins for the best finds. But then came the Internet. And eBay. And suddenly it wasn?t fun anymore. Another aspect of Ludlow?s metaphor deserves consideration. He recalls the time a stamp dealer spontaneously showed him a folder of 19th-century envelopes, something Ludlow would never have asked to see on his own initiative. Within minutes, his hobby ?had been radically transformed.? We don?t always know what we want until we experience it.

Second-generation dating sites always boast of their personality-matching capabilities, their ability to predict similarity and compatibility. But few entertain a critical question: just how important is personality to a successful match? The answer: not much.

?The weight of scientific evidence,? write psychologists Eli Finkel and Susan Sprecher in Scientific American, suggests that ?similarity and complementarity? have little effect on ? long-term romantic compatibility.? Controlling for baseline measurables like age, education and marriage history, matching algorithms are only ?negligibly better than matching people at random.?

?

In the near future, it is likely that the boundaries between online and off-line dating will blur. With its new Graph Search, Facebook?s users can seamlessly integrate romantic pursuit into their daily routines. Already, social platforms that, on first glance, have nothing to do with dating have begun to offer matchmaking services. Spotify, a music-streaming app, has integrated with a website called Tastebuds.fm, which scans your music and suggests matches nearby with similar tastes.

The future will also be mobile, as smartphones become ubiquitous. An app called Badoo (mostly popular in Europe and Latin America) uses GPS tracking to arrange dates on the fly?with little more than a photograph from users. In 2012, Badoo boasted 35 million users. And industry leaders eHarmony, Match and OkCupid have all released new mobile applications.

This idea is old hat to the four million men who use Grindr, a mobile app for the gay community. It?s a user-friendly concept: after downloading the app to your phone, you?re instantly shown other gay men in your vicinity. Like the look of someone?s profile? With a single tap, you?re chatting.

Sometimes, Grindr is just for conversation; on other occasions, it?s for sex. Recently, says Simon, a 24-year-old Toronto real estate agent, it has become ?an obligation. Every gay guy I know has or has had Grindr.?

If technology has its way, it?s only a matter of time before the typical date ceases to be a private and isolated occurrence, a product of kismet, effort or choice, and instead becomes a relentless, on-the-go and highly customizable experience.

In the meantime, as dating becomes more like Internet shopping, some worry about product safety. In their 2012 meta-study, the U.S. psychologists argue that online dating sites should be subject to regulatory authority, like the food and pharmaceutical industries. In particular, they insist, claims that ?algorithms are supported by scientific research? should be externally substantiated. As it stands, the soulmate market is anyone?s game.

Source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/30/true-loves/

david foster wallace pinterest attwireless taylor swift zac efron the scream stephen colbert new madrid fault

Football clubs look to youth to cut costs

Content on this website is for general information purposes only. Your comments are provided by your own free will and you take sole responsibility for any direct or indirect liability. You hereby provide us with an irrevocable, unlimited, and global license for no consideration to use, reuse, delete or publish comments, in accordance with Community Rules?& Guidelines?and?Terms and Conditions.

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2013/01/2013130125948932610.html

bath salts heart shaped box lucid 2012 ncaa tournament bracket matterhorn chris harrison girl scouts

Simon Arias Electrifies at American Income Life Leadership ...

?

Simon Arias ? American Income Life SGA

Simon Arias,?American Income Life?s reigning SGA of the Year,?didn?t?spend the minutes leading up to his first speech reading over notes, nor did he spend it rehearsing the message he was about to impart on more than 130 future AIL leaders.

Rather, he spent the final minutes before his heavily anticipated appearance at #AILLA101?signing autographs, taking photos with attendees, and flying through the filled-to-capacity Conference Center in a?Tasmanian?Devil-like explosion of high fives, hugs, and even a detailed secret handshake or two.

As Scott Smith, President and CMO of AIL, introduced Simon to the #AILLA101 attendees, he recognized Simon?s undeniable celebrity-status at AIL ? but Scott made clear how that status came to be: through unstoppable drive, overflowing passion, and month-after-month consistency that set the bar for high-level management performance.

Calling AIL the Company that ?helped me turn from a boy to a man,? Simon spoke of the privilege he felt in addressing the next generation of American Income Life leaders. Following that brief moment of sentimentality, Simon unleashed an hour-long speech touching on the power of positive thinking, the need to invest in oneself, and the idea of perpetual self-improvement, both personally and professionally.

?My goal is to write one million per week,? Simon said with a fiery passion, along the way asking attendees of their personal vision. ?One million per week,? he repeated ? ?I?m SPEAKING IT into existence!?

American Income Life SGA Simon Arias giving high fives before his speech at Leadership Academy 101

How does he plan on reaching that goal? The same way all the greats throughout history have met their goals ? by overcoming negative thought; by working on themselves; by taking control of their own destiny.

?To overcome negative thought,? Simon says, ?is to enter into a lifetime of POWER. If you invest in yourself, things around you will change,? Simon, living proof, insisted. ?There are 168 hours in a week ? spend seven of those hours on strengthening your mind, body, and spirit,? he said, whether that means running on the treadmill, reading inspirational words, or letting loved ones know how much you care. ?Don?t tell yourself you don?t have time for these things,? Simon says. ?Don?t become a slave to your negative thoughts.?

Simon spoke of the aggressive drive he applies to recruiting and Agency building, and how that no-holds-barred attitude is rooted in his past. While his past is surely unique, having grown up in an impoverished and dangerous neighborhood, it surely doesn?t make Simon ?special? (no more special than the average AIL Agent, at least) ? it simply provided him that extra bit of passion that, as he says, ?separates the champions from the chickens.?

For some, that drive may be rooted in past failures; for others, it?s rooted in future promises. Wherever its source, you must take hold of the expectations you?ve set for yourselves and move them to the forefront of your priorities. If you do, success will come, both at American Income Life and in your own life.

?We?re all going to feel either the pain of discipline, or the pain of disappointment ? well, it?s your decision; choose your pain,? says the 29-year-old Pennsylvania-based wunderkind.

After Simon?s first of two speeches at #AILLA101, the decision for all 130+ attendees was an easy one.

How are YOU investing in yourself, both personally and professionally?

Source: http://www.mylifeatail.com/leadership/2013/01/29/simon-arias-electrifies-at-american-income-life-leadership-academy/

weight watchers fandango kobe bryant google play Christmas Story after christmas sales case mccoy

Kitten Meets Hedgehog, Lifetime Friendship Formed

Friendships can form at unexpected times in unexpected places. People don't just put out a classified looking for a best buddy. Luckily, sometimes fate -- or someone trying to make a cute YouTube video -- intervenes.

[More from Mashable: Eyebrow Cat Looks Really Nervous]

Loki the kitten and Harley the hedgehog were brought together and seem destined for a lifetime of interspecies kinship.

SEE ALSO: Eyebrow Cat Looks Really Nervous

[More from Mashable: This GoPro Camera Shows What It?s Like to be Lion?s Prey]

Loki and Harley, BFF4eva.

BONUS: 10 Heart-Warming Animal Friendships Captured on YouTube

Click here to view the gallery: 10 Heart-Warming Animal Friendships [VIDEOS]

Photo courtesy of YouTube, TheSorryGirls

This story originally published on Mashable here.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/kitten-meets-hedgehog-lifetime-friendship-formed-204624214.html

hippocrates andrew breitbart red wings penguins the band colton dixon houston weather

Study of human specimen collections in the US offers first look at their huge diversity

Study of human specimen collections in the US offers first look at their huge diversity

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Biobanks are organizations that collect, store and share human specimens (e.g., blood, solid tissues, hair) for research purposes. The rise of the human genome project and of large-scale genetics studies have spurred a dramatic increase in the number of biobanks in the last decade, increasing their importance in biomedical research.

But until now, biobanks in the U.S. have never been studied systematically, leaving few clear details as to how they are run or the policies and practices they use in managing their work.

A new study from the University of North Carolina published January 25, 2013 in the journal Genome Medicine reveals the huge diversity of U.S. biobanks and also raises questions about the best way to manage and govern them.

"Biobanks are increasingly important to scientific advances, but our decentralized, fragmented research enterprise system in the U.S. has encouraged their development without necessarily providing them with the tools to survive," says study leader Gail Henderson, PhD, professor and chair of social medicine at the University of North Carolina. She also heads UNC's Center for Genomics and Society.

Henderson and colleagues from UNC decided to address this paucity of information by inviting more than 600 biobanks in the U.S. to participate in an online survey. These included private and public, commercial and noncommercial, and many biobanks affiliated with hospitals and academia. Representatives of 456 U.S. biobanks (72 percent of the list invited) participated in the survey.

Among the main findings is their great diversity. "They get established for a variety of reasons; some accidental, some intentional. They vary in size, in when they were established, how formal they are as organizations, what kinds of specimens they hold, who pays for them, and where those specimens come from," Henderson notes.

In the survey, just over half (53 percent) listed research on a particular disease, such as cancer, as the most important reason for establishment. Twenty-nine percent listed research generally. Other reasons included response to a gift or grant, and "intent to centralize, integrate, or harmonize" older specimen collections.

The size of U.S. biobank collections varies, in number of specimens (from tens to millions) and in the types and where they come from ? individuals, clinics, hospitals, public health programs, and research studies.

Henderson also points out that only a small minority are commercial businesses. "So, not surprisingly, most biobanks do not perceive being in a competitive market. But the majority are quite worried about funding, and many are concerned that the specimens they collect aren't being adequately utilized."

"Researchers and people whose specimens are being held need to be concerned that we don't have a system that is as efficient and effective as it could be," Henderson adds. "If you collect specimens but don't use them, this is a failure to deliver on the promise of advancing translational research, and thus an ethical as well as technical concern."

Biobanks, like the researchers who depend on their services and specimens, need guidance informed by knowledge of their practices and challenges, the authors state. Required are policies "as nuanced as the biobanks themselves," whether these policies address issues of privacy or identity protection, or advancement of research goals.

"Given the diversity in biobank organizational characteristics identified in our survey, it's likely that management and governance policies will have to be tailored to fit the particular context. One-size policies will not fit all," says Henderson.

###

University of North Carolina Health Care: http://www.med.unc.edu

Thanks to University of North Carolina Health Care for this article.

This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.

This press release has been viewed 24 time(s).

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/126499/Study_of_human_specimen_collections_in_the_US_offers_first_look_at_their_huge_diversity

valentines day cards hallmark grammy winners obama budget woolly mammoth belize resorts nikki minaj grammy performance

Know When to Be a Squeaky Wheel

We've talked about customer service, good and bad, a lot here at Lifehacker. Unfortunately, poor customer service is something we all have to deal with at some point?and often, it takes a lot more than politeness and persistence to get your way. Get Rich Slowly's Holly Johnson offers her best tips for tackling these difficult situations.

A few months ago, I decided that I needed new furniture. I didn't want new furniture. My 3-year-old couch and loveseat were in great condition. On the other hand, I began to realize that I had once again been blurring the lines between being cheap and being frugal. Although my furniture looked nice, it was completely uncomfortable for my back. As someone who has had two spinal fusions, I must be very picky about where I choose to sit. And since the furniture was no longer ideal for my short stature, I couldn't actually sit on it at all. Therefore, I had been sitting on the floor for more than three years. Cheap. It wasn't necessarily my fault; I bought the furniture before my chronic pain had even started. Still, it didn't make sense to continually sit on the floor when there were obviously other options.

Since we are now free of consumer debt, my husband generously offered to upgrade our current furniture. I was stoked. After shopping at a few local stores, I quickly fell in love with a reclining sectional sofa at Ashley Furniture. And this wasn't just a reclining sectional, it was the fancy power-operated model. This meant that I wouldn't have to endure the jarring motion of manually reclining it myself. Of course, that probably doesn't sound like a big deal to someone who doesn't have back problems. Yet, those of you who have experienced recurring pain can probably attest to what a big deal it really is. Being in chronic pain can make almost everything a burden, and it is often something small that has the potential to set off some sort of episode. Anyway, I was thrilled to be offered the option of "push button" reclining and I eagerly bought the couch on the spot.

The Unfortunate Delivery

A few weeks passed while I excitedly awaited my new furniture. In the meantime, I sold my old uncomfortable set on Craigslist and prepared my home for the new arrival. The scheduled delivery day finally came, and I was ready to enjoy some serious relaxation. Unfortunately, when my furniture was delivered I was disappointed and angry to find that the couch I received was not the one I ordered. In fact, they sent me a couch that was identical in appearance but only manually reclined. But what about my back? The powered recliner was the main reason that I had ordered that particular couch to begin with. I insisted to speak to a customer service representative and refused to let them bring the furniture into my home.

My initial reaction was to send back the wrong couch that they had delivered. However, the customer service representative calmly assured me over the phone that I would indeed get the correct couch in a few weeks. Since I didn't have any furniture to sit on, and since this was obviously their fault, the store even nicely offered to let me keep the couch they had delivered as a loaner. I was slightly skeptical of the situation, so I refused to sign for receipt of delivery. The furniture store seemed to understand and promised that they would make everything right. Despite my concerns, I decided to proceed. After all, it could be another month until my new couch arrived, and I didn't want to spend it sitting on the floor.

So, What is Taking So Long?

Several weeks went by as I waited for my order to come in. Frustrated, I called the store to check on the delivery date and status. I was completely perplexed when they couldn't find my order in their system. Something was definitely wrong. A few hours later, I received a phone call that made me feel like I was in a crazy, alternate universe. "Mrs. Johnson, if you want the powered recliner, you have to pay the difference. It's a lot more expensive," said the customer service rep on the phone. "What?!?!?!?" My heart began to pound. "But I ordered the couch that I sat on in the store. There wasn't even a manually reclining option to choose." I was utterly confused as I tried to reason with the woman on the phone. Unfortunately, she wasn't having it at all. "I'm sorry, but there is nothing I can do to help you."

My blood pressure began to rise as I began to come to grips with what had happened. I had been duped by the classic "bait and switch." I had sat on and ordered the couch of my dreams yet had received something quite different. And now they had nearly $1,500 of my money in their coffers, and I felt helpless in getting them to do the right thing.

I quickly pulled myself together. Despite my anger and frustration, I knew that I was completely justified to demand the furniture that I paid for and ordered. And like a mother bear guarding her cubs, I wildly pounced in order to protect my hard-earned dollars. I pulled out all the stops as I pleaded my case for a refund or replacement.

The Moment of Truth

Harsh words were spoken. By the time our phone conversation ended, I'm pretty sure the representative was concerned where this situation was headed. The picture I had painted was not pretty. She surely must have envisioned me picketing the store, holding signs with the ugly details of their duplicity. I even threatened to contact the investigative reporter at our local news station, Raphael Sanchez. Regardless, my crazy tactics worked, and they eventually succumbed to the idea of giving me a full refund and coming to pick up their stuff. Considering the circumstances, I suppose that this is the best resolution that I could have asked for.

One would probably think that I am thrilled to have won this battle of right and wrong. You might think that I really "stuck it to the man," or something like that. However, I am anything but happy with the entire sequence of events. I'm sad and angry. I'm deeply concerned with what has become of customer service. I also wonder what would have happened if this same situation happened to someone who was unable to state their own case. What about someone who didn't have the energy or knowledge to fight for a rightful refund?

What is someone supposed to do when they find themselves in a situation like this? What recourse do we have if we find ourselves on the receiving end of bad customer service?or worse yet?being blatantly ripped off? Unfortunately, it is starting to seem like good customer service is a thing of the past. Furthermore, it appears that some big businesses have become increasingly brazen in their attempts to increase profits. However, there is no reason to adopt a victim mentality. Actually, there are a lot of steps that one can take in order to ensure justice for their particular situation.

• Start by asking to speak to a manager or supervisor. Speak to the highest-level person you can access and be open to resolving the situation with them. This is an important first step in customer service and might be enough to resolve an issue before it needs to be escalated any further.
• File a report with the Better Business Bureau. For those in good standing with the BBB, this can result in quick action in your favor. Business who care about their reputation do not want a negative complaint on their record. You can file your complaint in the United States and Canada at bbb.org.
• Contact your credit card company. If you paid with plastic, certain credit card companies can work with you to withhold payment until a resolution is reached or even resolve the issue for you. Choosing this option might be all it takes to settle a dispute. When a company's own money is on the line, they may be more willing to negotiate.
• File a complaint with your state or province. In most areas, you may be able to file a consumer complaint at the state or local level. Doing some research online can help you determine which specific consumer protection agency covers your area. Filing an official complaint may be necessary in order to reach a resolution.
• Go online. Sites like ripoffreport.com and pissedconsumer.com offer a great sounding board for you to complain about various business and services. Don't be afraid to tell your story. You might just save someone else from having the same experience.
• Be a squeaky wheel. We've all heard the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." I have seen firsthand how a company will sometimes do what is right if you are loud enough, if only to get you to leave them alone. Don't be afraid to speak up in order to get what you paid for and rightfully deserve.

They say that a dissatisfied customer may tell as many as 20 people about their experience, while a happy customer may tell only a few. In my case, this particular company probably didn't realize that my words would have the potential to reach many, many more. On the other hand, we all truly have a voice. Each one of us has the opportunity to vote for services, products and the way we allow ourselves to be treated. We vote with our dollars, and, thanks to the internet, our complaints may be much further reaching than could ever be anticipated. Don't be scared to take matters into your own hands if you feel that you are being wronged. Don't hesitate to speak up, loudly if needed. And don't be afraid to be that annoying, old squeaky wheel. Just make sure to keep squeaking until you are heard.

Knowing when to be a squeaky wheel | Get Rich Slowly

---

Holly Johnson is a staff writer at Get Rich Slowly, a site dedicated to debt elimination, saving money, and practical investing.

Image remixed from 4@lko (pond5).

Want to see your work on Lifehacker? Email Tessa.

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/lifehacker/full/~3/bwdfhuQAzEg/know-when-to-be-a-squeaky-wheel

my sisters keeper kirby sarah palin cbi the shins atomic clock daylight savings time

Senate Approves Bill on Sandy Aid (WSJ)

Share With Friends: | | Politics - Top Stories News, RSS Feeds and Widgets via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/280182777?client_source=feed&format=rss

diaz vs condit super bowl 2012 kickoff time football score ron paul nevada buffalo chicken dip soul train nevada caucus

Apple is launching a high-capacity 128GB iPad on February 5 for $799 (!)

After uncovering some details in Apple?s recently released iOS 6.1, rumors began circulating that Apple would be launching a new 128GB of the 4th-generation iPad with Retina display. Turns out the rumors were spot-on, as Apple has officially announced the latest high-capacity SKU for release on February 5.

?With more than 120 million iPads sold, it?s clear that customers around the world love their iPads, and every day they are finding more great reasons to work, learn and play on their iPads rather than their old PCs,? said Philip Schiller, Apple?s senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing. ?With twice the storage capacity and an unparalleled selection of over 300,000 native iPad apps, enterprises, educators and artists have even more reasons to use iPad for all their business and personal needs.?

The WiFi model of the 128GB iPad will start at $799 and the Wifi + Cellular model will cost a whopping $929. The first question that probably comes to your mind is, why even bother? I know, because that?s exactly what I thought. Who needs that much space on their iPad? Turns out if you?re asking yourself that question, this new model isn?t for you, but a certain set of people:

iPad continues to have a significant impact on business with virtually all of the Fortune 500 and over 85 percent of the Global 500 currently deploying or testing iPad. Companies regularly utilizing large amounts of data such as 3D CAD files, X-rays, film edits, music tracks, project blueprints, training videos and service manuals all benefit from having a greater choice of storage options for iPad.

Apple?s announcement has a bunch of other examples for uses of more storage on the iPad but I think the important thing here is, yes, there are people out there that actually do need a 128GB iPad.

What is even more sad is some fanboys out there are justifying the huge price for the 126GB iPad by saying it is a computer replacement. Really, people? Really?

About the author: Enrique View all posts by Enrique

Enrique brings you your daily tech news on dotTech. When he isn't writing the news, you can find him playing video games or travelling the world.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/dottechdotorg/~3/fUKTtOghPcY/

hunger games trailer hunger games trailer in plain sight hunger games movie review bats hunger games review jeff saturday

Land Based and Web Casinos Share Some Features

Jan 29

Internet casino gambling and the classical casino games that are able to be enjoyed on brick and mortar casinos are known as two different things that can carry a selection of forms of entertainment. Internet casino gambling is considered by a lot of as much better when it comes to jackpots and convenience. With online casino gaming, it?s easier to play the game. In fact, games can be played even on mobile. While there are a number of differences that members and enthusiasts are able to discover when they play and win the two choices to casino gambling, still there are a variety of similarities that must be necessary and played. Some of those leading features that are present on-line and can be present in live games include top animations, availability of bonus games, excellent sound effects and use of movie shots.

When it comes to enjoying on-line casino games and the liver variations, you can be sure that there are top-notch animations that would be available. Animations are able to be considered as an important ingredient of on-line casino and brick and mortar casino gambling. Animations are generally the important source of enjoyment, thus dozens of game designers are always incorporating the best and top-rated animations in on-line casino games. If you examine this out, you might discover that online scratch cards and even slot machines should come with main animations just like the live games that are able to be played on brick and mortar casinos. It is additionally a preferred practice to include bonus games for the games that might be played live and online. This feature is basically well-liked in slots and poker machines where games bring free spins.

Also, live and online games should additionally bring movie shots. This feature is typically offered on games that are based on hit Hollywood movies. When you enjoy and win the most current Batman slot machines, you can be definite that this feature might be built offered. Live and online casino games are able to have their own features yet in terms of movie shots, animations and bonus features those games are all the same.

Source: http://www.gdpodcast.com/980/land-based-and-web-casinos-share-some-features/

American Music Awards turkey brine Imessage Not Working mc hammer pecan pie recipe Hector Camacho Jill Kelly

Bioinspired fibers change color when stretched

Jan. 28, 2013 ? A team of materials scientists at Harvard University and the University of Exeter, UK, have invented a new fiber that changes color when stretched. Inspired by nature, the researchers identified and replicated the unique structural elements that create the bright iridescent blue color of a tropical plant's fruit.

The multilayered fiber, described January 28 in the journal Advanced Materials, could lend itself to the creation of smart fabrics that visibly react to heat or pressure.

"Our new fiber is based on a structure we found in nature, and through clever engineering we've taken its capabilities a step further," says lead author Mathias Kolle, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS). "The plant, of course, cannot change color. By combining its structure with an elastic material, however, we've created an artificial version that passes through a full rainbow of colors as it's stretched."

Since the evolution of the first eye on Earth more than 500 million years ago, the success of many organisms has relied upon the way they interact with light and color, making them useful models for the creation of new materials. For seeds and fruit in particular, bright color is thought to have evolved to attract the agents of seed dispersal, especially birds.

The fruit of the South American tropical plant, Margaritaria nobilis, commonly called "bastard hogberry," is an intriguing example of this adaptation. The ultra-bright blue fruit, which is low in nutritious content, mimics a more fleshy and nutritious competitor. Deceived birds eat the fruit and ultimately release its seeds over a wide geographic area.

"The fruit of this bastard hogberry plant was scientifically delightful to pick," says principal investigator Peter Vukusic, Associate Professor in Natural Photonics at the University of Exeter. "The light-manipulating architecture its surface layer presents, which has evolved to serve a specific biological function, has inspired an extremely useful and interesting technological design."

Vukusic and his collaborators at Harvard studied the structural origin of the seed's vibrant color. They discovered that the upper cells in the seed's skin contain a curved, repeating pattern, which creates color through the interference of light waves. (A similar mechanism is responsible for the bright colors of soap bubbles.) The team's analysis revealed that multiple layers of cells in the seed coat are each made up of a cylindrically layered architecture with high regularity on the nano- scale.

The team replicated the key structural elements of the fruit to create flexible, stretchable and color-changing photonic fibers using an innovative roll-up mechanism perfected in the Harvard laboratories.

"For our artificial structure, we cut down the complexity of the fruit to just its key elements," explains Kolle. "We use very thin fibers and wrap a polymer bilayer around them. That gives us the refractive index contrast, the right number of layers, and the curved, cylindrical cross-section that we need to produce these vivid colors."

The researchers say that the process could be scaled up and developed to suit industrial production.

"Our fiber-rolling technique allows the use of a wide range of materials, especially elastic ones, with the color-tuning range exceeding by an order of magnitude anything that has been reported for thermally drawn fibers," says coauthor Joanna Aizenberg, Amy Smith Berylson Professor of Materials Science at Harvard SEAS, and Kolle's adviser. Aizenberg is also Director of the Kavli Institute for Bionano Science and Technology at Harvard and a Core Faculty Member at the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard.

The fibers' superior mechanical properties, combined with their demonstrated color brilliance and tunability, make them very versatile. For instance, the fibers can be wound to coat complex shapes. Because the fibers change color under strain, the technology could lend itself to smart sports textiles that change color in areas of muscle tension, or that sense when an object is placed under strain as a result of heat.

Additional coauthors included Alfred Lethbridge at the University of Exeter, Moritz Kreysing at Ludwig Maximilians University (Germany), and Jeremy B. Baumberg, Professor of Nanophotonics at the University of Cambridge (UK).

This research was supported by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and through a postdoctoral research fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The researchers also benefited from facilities at the Harvard Center for Nanoscale Systems, which is part of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation. The Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard also contributed to this research.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Harvard University.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Mathias Kolle, Alfred Lethbridge, Moritz Kreysing, Jeremy J. Baumberg, Joanna Aizenberg, Peter Vukusic. Bio-Inspired Band-Gap Tunable Elastic Optical Multilayer Fibers. Advanced Materials, 2013; DOI: 10.1002/adma.201203529

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_science/~3/F55whN1jT3w/130128151938.htm

gran torino gloria steinem war of the worlds rock and roll hall of fame severe weather wichita brian wilson

Guest Post: Hope Has Changed - It Died | Zero Hedge

Originally posted at Monty Pelerin's World,

Hope is dying in the US.

The performance of financial markets affects everyone. For savers and investors, these markets represent the means to an improved life, at least as they define it. Savings and wealth provide options and opportunities, the quintessential aspect of being an American. These options and opportunities differentiated an American from someone who was born and destined to die in a hut or remain locked in a societal class from which there was no hope of escape.

Bonds and stocks were the primary means for savings and investments for generations of Americans. When these do not perform up to expectations, lives are changed. Plans and dreams are dashed. College educations, retirements and similar major events are deferred or never happen.

We are twelve years into this new century and Americans are losing their hopes, dreams and aspirations. Hard reality has crushed the optimistic spirit that once drove the country. The first decade rivaled the 1930s in terms of stock market performance. Twice, stock market wealth was halved in this ten-year period. Twelve years in, the S&P 500 has returned a total of 14%. That puny return has not come close to covering the decline in purchasing power of the dollar during the same period. Worse, a generation or two, has lost probably 33% of their wealth-producing years.

College graduates come out of school under-educated and buried in debt. Most cannot find a job commensurate with their education or aspirations. Taxes rise and will accelerate in the future as the federal debt and social promises become more binding. Young people find it difficult to imagine getting out from underneath their student loans or buying a home.

Outcomes in the housing and stock markets have affected millions. Equity in homes has dropped dramatically. Some have lost their homes as a result. Savings and wealth that were reasonably expected based on historical precedents did not materialize.

These outcomes are explained away in terms of markets "underperforming." To speak of housing and stocks as if they are independent entities that suddenly somehow turn bad is to miss what is really happening. Markets" are nothing more than millions of us making individual decisions intended to improve our lives. Markets do not under or overperform. It is people, the millions of buyers and sellers, that drive markets. When markets "underperform" it is because people have "underperformed" or more properly, bought less common stock or fewer homes.

People are acquisitative by nature, wanting more rather than less. When they "underperform" in terms of purchasing decisions it is because they had to. Unlike the federal government, people cannot print money or spend beyond their means, at least for extended periods of time. Eventually they hit budget constraints. That is what is being reflected in stock prices and home values. They are reflecting the lower standard of living of the country.

The feel-good spending of the prior two decades caught up with the American consumer. He was never as rich as he believed. Now, as a result of having to service this debt binge, he is poorer than he should be. That is why markets are underperforming. That and the fact that fewer people have jobs.

A recent article, "You Haven't Made Any Money In The Stock Market This Century," struck a nerve with some readers. Reader Chugar submitted comments that expressed the general sentiment of many (my emboldening added):

I am still in the stock market and hate it daily.

?

The feeling of it being a wise investment left long ago. I watch the flash crashes, read about HFT, the endless blabber on business shows about "buying opportunities" have grown old.

?

Since all these talking heads have a vested interest in keeping the game going, if we aren't buying their products they make no commission or their advertisers are not kept happy. It isn't hard to figure out.

?

With that said we are trapped, for my working career I was told, buy and hold, dump money into the 401k/457/ROTH or Traditional IRA. Not to mention an underfunded pension, which may run out of money before I can even draw.

?

I lost track of firms and brokerage firms over the years who not only had ethical problems but legal problems. So much for confidence in what appears to be a grand scam run by well-dressed crooks.

?

My local credit is advertising a 3 year CD for 0.7%... Thanks ZIRP and Mr. Bernanke

?

I was just reminded I never really own my home with a year end property tax bill.

?

Taxation,user fees, access fees on and on are coming our way to finance a government that will never get enough, whether its local, state or federal.

?

Its criminal what is taking place in this country.

The frustration and anger is apparent in these comments. It should be. When one thinks about what has happened, it is difficult not to become angry. The stock market is not the problem. It is merely a scorecard that reflects what is happening to the country. Here are but a few of the factors:

• Freedom as a concept is praised, while government actions designed to reduce it for ordinary citizens continue.
• Working longer and harder produces less wealth than was possible for your parents.
• Living standards will be less for your children and grandchildren than they were for you.
• Leisure (going on the dole) is now a choice unaccompanied by either shame or hardship.
• Politicians have made dependency a tool to gain votes and power.
• As freedom decreases, government becomes increasingly more violent in order to achieve the behavior it demands.
• Laws are enforced selectively in favor of the political class and their cronies. No bigger rape of justice has ever been committed than the unwillingness to prosecute the banksters, regulators and legislators? responsible for the looting of taxpayers.
• Government lies with impunity with respect to the true condition of the country. This behavior is obvious with respect to economic statistics but also spills over into all other areas, like personnel decisions.
• Cover-ups like "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi are ignored by a corrupt and compliant media. Lesser problems (Watergate) were cause for removing a president in simpler more honest times.
• Government's insatiable spending has decimated the private sector economy. Capital and talent increasingly flee to other countries to avoid economic persecution.
• Eventually this spending will cause much of the economy and all of the government to collapse. Massive debt defaults, impoverishment and social unrest lie ahead.
• The phrase "government ethics" is little more than a comedian's tool for generating laughter.
• The Mafia has far better ethics. It treats its customers better than government. The key word is "customer" which they must attract. Government does not have customers; it has "slaves." That is how government views private enterprice.
• Compare the payouts on illegal gambling to those of government sanctioned lotteries for a simple comparison between the two methods of organized crime. You do much better dealing with the Mafia.

The country's financial condition is deplorable and cannot continue much longer. So, too is virtually everything else the government has touched whether it be education, Amtrak, the post office, Social Security, Medicare, ad nauseum. Nothing government has done has not been a Ponzi scheme dependent upon additional theft from taxpayers to keep going.

The system is now broken. There is no one to blame for this other than government. Despite this obvious conclusion, government is still seen to be a savior by a large proportion of the country.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 4.9 (24 votes)

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-28/guest-post-hope-has-changed-it-died

nfl news tebow tebow jets romney etch a sketch jeb bush sherry arnold snooty fox