text:
The Ohio Third Frontier Commission on Wednesday approved $20 million in Wright Project grants, including nearly $9 million for three biomedical projects.
During their first meeting since voters approved an extension and expansion of the Ohio Third Frontier through fiscal 2015, commissioners also approved $11 million in entrepreneurial support and pre-seed investment fund grants, as well as a fiscal 2011 budget between $125 million and $143 million.
Third Frontier is the 10-year, $1.35 billion program to re-energize Ohio's economy by investing in projects in five industry clusters, including biomedical. Early this month, voters added $700 million in bond proceeds and four years to the program.
The five commissioners who attended Wednesday's meeting voted unanimously to fund seven Wright Project grant proposals, including:
Cleveland Clinic: $3 million for its Clinically Applied Rehabilitation Engineering project, which aims at developing, testing, manufacturing and commercializing advanced, rehabilitative medical products for patients suffering from cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, metabolic and musculoskeletal diseases. Collaborators: Parker Hannifin Corp., Bertec Corp., Case Western Reserve University and the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center.
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland: $2.1 million for its Development of a Quantitative Analysis System for Stem Cells project, which focuses on research commercialization of non-embryonic stem cells from umbilical cord blood as part of a Food and Drug Administration-licensed therapy to help some transplant patients and for testing. Collaborators: Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cleveland Cord Blood Center, BioInVision, Athersys (NASDAQ: ATHX), PerkinElmer, Thermogenesis (NASDAQ: KOOL), GE Healthcare (NYSE: GE), Hospira and Lakeland Community College.
University of Cincinnati: $3 million for its project, The Ohio Center for Microfluidic Innovation — New Products and Competitive Manufacturing of Emerging Biomedical Applications. The project wants to study, make and commercialize microfluidics technology, which could generate more valuable test results from a much smaller fluid sample than current technology. National Academies reviewers suggested the project be scaled back to just its biomedical applications. Collaborators: Siloam Biosciences, Gamma Dynamics, Sun Chemical and EnMonT.
Third Frontier advisers and commissioners spent a lot of time Wednesday debating "continuity" issues among entrepreneurial support and pre-seed investment funds that already have received grants. Facing state budget challenges, the program limited awards to only organizations that have received past money:
Cleveland Clinic was awarded $2 million for its Ohio BioValidation Fund III, which will invest in promising early stage biomedical companies.
JumpStart Inc., the venture development organization in Cleveland that has invested in several biomedical and healthcare companies, will receive $4 million for operations and investments. JumpStart gets an additional $1.8 million for its bioscience and entrepreneurial network, which will provide entrepreneurial services to bioscience start-ups in the Northeast Ohio region. Collaborators: BioEnterprise, Great Lakes Innovation and Development Enterprise and the Akron Global Business Accelerator.
North Coast Angel Fund II in Mayfield Heights is getting $2 million to invest in high-potential, early stage technology companies.
Ohio TechAngel Fund III in Columbus was awarded $825,000 to invest in early stage Ohio-based technology companies, with a strong emphasis on healthcare innovations and information technology.
TechColumbus is getting $500,000 to continue investing in early-to-late-stage technologystart-ups in Central Ohio. Focus areas of the fund are bioscience, information technology and advanced materials.
Third Frontier commissioners put off votes on three more entrepreneurial support and pre-seed fund grant proposals, asking for more information with plans to vote on those proposals in June.
As for next year's fiscal budget, the commissioners plan to award $20 million to entrepreneurial support and pre-seed funds, as well as $7 million to both biomedical and medical imaging grant-seekers. The commissioners also budgeted $8 million for a new Wright Center Success Fund, which will invest operating dollars in existing centers of innovation.


text:
Now that we know which shows we'll see during the 2010-2011 TV season, the real work can begin: writing them. Six genre-show pros — veterans of shows like Lost, BSG, and Fringe — reveal what happens behind closed doors.
For this roundtable, we recruited writers and producers from all over: rookie "baby" writers like Deric A. Hughes (Warehouse 13); mid-level writer-producers like Zack Stentz (Fringe, Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles); co-executive producers like Amy Berg (Eureka, The 4400); and top-level wizards who've run their own shows, like Jane Espenson (Caprica, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer), John Rogers (Leverage, The Jackie Chan Adventures), and Javier Grillo-Marxuach (The Middleman, Lost). And here's what they had to say.
For the layman, what is a writers room? What service does it perform for a television show?
Jane Espenson: The writers' room is the sleazy hotel room in which stories are conceived. On most shows, this is where the writers spend the majority of their time, coming up with ideas for episodes and then breaking those stories into acts and scenes and moments before an individual writer is sent out to turn the story into an outline and then a script. On a traditional multi-camera sitcom, the room is also where the script is rewritten by the entire staff working as a team to improve the jokes and story after the script is written. Some drama shows don't have rooms at all — each writer works one-on-one with the showrunner to conceive and "break" their own episode. I'm told that The X-Files, for example, did not have a traditional room.
John Rogers: It varies from show to show. A writers room is a way for the head writer to collect all the writers in one place, hear their ideas, comment on them, have the other writers contribute and share ideas, and assemble them into not just scripts but an overall feeling for what the year's worth of stories are gonna be. It's a clearinghouse.
Deric A. Hughes: It's a place where a group of like-minded folks (in our case, for our show, mostly people who can speak nerd/geek fluently and understand how to write for television) come up with stories that will best serve show for which they've been hired to write for. Usually this means trying to come up with one great compelling character moment, one memorable scene, until finally you have enough great character moments and memorable scenes to fill one hour of television. And then once that's finished, wash, rinse, repeat.
Zack Stentz: A writer's room is at its best the collective brain of a TV show — the place where the writing staff gets together and, under the leadership of the showrunner, plots out the season and "breaks" individual episodes.
Amy Berg (second from left): In many ways, it's the treehouse you had in your backyard as a kid. A safe place where you can let you imagination take over without threat of censorship or judgment. The room is where ideas are put through the ringer. Where sidetracks in conversations take you down new, more interesting paths. Where personal histories become character fodder. And where passionate debate yields results that are otherwise unattainable by a single voice.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: When you are facing down the barrel of 22 hours of televised narrative that have to be produced in the course of about 10 months, it really is very difficult for any single writer to completely generate all of that material by themselves, with very rare exceptions. And the writers room is really the closest thing in creativity to a kind of process that allows you to churn out episodic scripts week after week, to feel the ravenous beast that is production. Every seven to eight days, production needs to be fed a new script. And it eats scripts with extreme prejudice.
What don't people understand about writers rooms — people who think that it's just a bunch of people having a conversation?
Amy Berg: You know the movie Twelve Angry Men? That's what the room is like, but instead of wrestling with a case we're wrestling with ideas. It's a roomful of incredibly opinionated people trying to agree on one thing. And once that thing is agreed upon, we rip it completely apart and then put the pieces back together to find the freshest take on it. That's how episodes of television are conceived. It's an exhausting process. We're not digging ditches all day, but there's not a single writer who isn't wiped out by the time they get home.
Deric A. Hughes: Actually, it is a bunch of people having conversations — a lot of very fun, interesting and sometimes thought-provoking conversations bent towards the task of creating (hopefully) entertaining episodes of television — but conversations nonetheless.
Jane Espenson: It used to be that writers would often be asked "which character do you write for," which made me think that people were picturing a sort of role-playing scenario in which we would use improv to plot the stories, but I haven't been asked that in a long time. I think depictions of the writers rooms in works like The Dick Van Dyke Show, 30 Rock [above], Studio 60, and Neil Simon's "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" show something close-ish to the real thing, although they tend to focus on the fun free-flowing joke-cracking part of the process, not the thinkier working-out-the-plot part. Because that's kind of boring to watch.
John Rogers: I don't think they understand that the most important thing in television is the timely delivery of scripted material. If we have a bad day, if we have some blank pages, if we have writers block, then the machine stops and we move inexorably close to bankrupting the company. If the writers room doesn't work, the show doesn't work. If the show doesn't work, hundreds of people are out of jobs. And that is, at least in my writers room, evermost in our minds — that we are the people who lay the track for the train. So we had best move with a combination of creativity and alacrity.
What makes for a good writers room, personnel-wise? Environment wise?
Amy Berg: People think writers are non-aggressive, socially awkward types. The ones who stood in the corner during school dances. Maybe that's true of feature writers, but in television that's not the case at all. Most television writers are natural leaders. And when you stick a bunch of leaders in a room together, there are going to be clashes. That's why personality is key. If you have multiple Type A personalities on your staff, that's going to be trouble. The job is enough of a pressure-cooker as it is, and having that added intensity and negativity around is only going to make it more difficult.
Jane Espenson: The physical environment can vary a lot from show to show. Sometimes there's a table that everyone sits around, sometimes just a room with comfy chairs and sofas. Sometimes it's in the showrunner's office. Sometimes it's in a clean-and-corporate setting, sometimes it's peeling paint and a window propped open with a book. Personally, I don't care as long as there is enough corkboard space.
John Rogers: It should be bright and spacious and have access to a fridge. I think the biggest thing is that it should be a fun place where writers feel safe to say anything. Even if that's an obscene joke about someone else's child. A good writer's room is loose and funny. We run our one-hour room like a sitcom room: writers come in, they pitch ideas, we all comment on them, we have a big board we put cards up on, we break it as much as we can break it, everyone throws in their two cents, the writer goes off and distills it down. Not every one-hour does that. A lot of one-hours, there is no writers room. We don't do it that way because Leverage is a difficult show with a lot of moving parts so you never know who's gonna have the odd fact or weird thing that's gonna give us the way out or the way in.
Zack Stentz: In my experience, a good writers room comes from the combination of having a collection of strong, confident voices who feel free to argue ideas without having to worry about politics and protocol and rank, and at the same time having a strong hand on the tiller to guide discussions and keep people focused when they threaten to go off on digressions or tangents. On The Sarah Connor Chronicles we used to call it "going down the rabbit hole" — and it usually involved discussions of time-travel mechanics that lasted several hours and rarely accomplished everything.
As a showrunner, how do you go about creating that mix?
Jane Espenson: You want good writers and you want enough of them to be good in the room, not just on the page. On a drama, a room benefits from writers with a good and fast sense of structure. On a comedy a good room person is probably the one with the quickest and sharpest joke-pitching ability. Of course, there's more to the job than being in the room. A writer who is silent in the room may still be excelling by turning in brilliant drafts. You create that mix by hiring people who have the skills your staff lacks at that moment.
John Rogers: It's like being a baseball coach. You have a good mix of writers of different abilities: some people are very research heavy, some people are very good with dialogue or character, some people pitch certain types of stories.... It's just making sure your lineup has a good mix of skills.
Amy Berg: Putting a writing staff together is a lot like casting. You're looking for the right chemistry. You're not going to hire someone because they're a great writer. You're going to hire them because they're a solid writer with great references and in their interview with you they didn't come off as a total asshat. There are a lot of people out here who are good at their jobs. What you want are writers who you're going to spend 12 hours a day with for nine months and not want to wring their necks.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: TV writing is somewhat akin to competitive group therapy. And you want to have a group of people who can write well together and simultaneously challenge each other but also can play well together, work well together, and complement each others' strengths. The other part of it is that as a showrunner, you're meeting with a writer; you read a script, you like it, you call him in, you have a one hour meeting with them. Based on that one-hour meeting, you decide if you wanna spend 12 hours a day in a room with him. So there's still a lot of luck to it. It's sort of like assembling one of those 3,000 piece jigsaw puzzles, maybe without the benefit of the cover to know what it looks like.
What's the single most poisonous thing to a room's chemistry?
Amy Berg: Competition. I worked on a show once where on day one the showrunner came in and said that no one is guaranteed a script and that everyone was going to have to earn it. Now, I understand that to most people that doesn't sound like a bad thing at all, but what that showrunner did was create an atmosphere that rewarded individual achievement over collaboration. A room cannot function on that kind of energy. You're making a television show and you can't do it by yourself. When writers are trying to beat each other out for more scripts (and script fees), it affects the entire vibe in the room. They start shooting down each other's ideas more often. They compete for the showrunner's attention. There's more infighting and backstabbing. And once that all starts, there's no getting the room back.
Deric A. Hughes: I think it's being negative for the sake of just being negative. There's nothing worse than when a person just says "no" to every single idea that someone might be trying to pitch and not even offer a valid reason why they're saying "no" in the first place.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: One of the rules I put in my writers room was Don't Break Anything You Can't Fix. Which is to say, if you don't like an idea I don't want to hear from you unless you can clearly articulate why you don't think it's any good and unless you have something to counter-pitch.
Zack Stentz: In my opinion, the single thing that most hurts a room's chemistry is when writers feel like they have to pull their punches or worry more about the politics of the show and their own positions in the hierarchy than simply staying focused on making the best show possible. On The Sarah Connor Chronicles I felt free to say things to [executive producers] Josh Friedman and John Wirth that would have gotten me fired on other shows — I went straight at them when I vehemently disagreed with an idea. But they were confident and secure enough as writers and as leaders that they welcomed debate and dissension.
What's the one thing a writers room can't be without, aside from other writers?
Deric A. Hughes: Food. Lots and lots of food! And cookies and cakes and candies and sodas and teas and (in my writing partner's case) coffee.... Need fuel to keep you going throughout the day, man. Oh, wait, is that why I gained 15 pounds last year?
Zack Stentz: Snacks! Seriously, it is a constant struggle for someone like me, who has very little self-control when it comes to food, to not put on a lot of weight while on staff. It's like Halloween every day in a writers room. And it's even more dangerous if your show shoots next door — then there are the temptations of the craft services table to deal with as well!
Jane Espenson: White boards and markers or corkboards and cards. Whichever — some way to record the work.
Amy Berg: There are two things that a writers room can't live without: caffeine and toys. Caffeine is vital, as you're working yourself into a state of mental exhaustion every day. By about 3:00 in the afternoon, you're ready for a nap. Having toys around the office is an important reminder that the room is supposed to be playful. It helps keeps things light, fun, and imaginative. On Eureka, we always have a jigsaw puzzle set up in the kitchen. And in the writers room itself, there are toys on every table to play with. Puzzle games in particular are great because they work different parts of your brain to help keep you sharp and focused.
John Rogers: A great writers' assistant. A great writers' assistant kind of does the job of your ego. Writers are all id: they're all storming out ideas, they're all riffing off each other, they're all puking out these random associations of facts. A good writers' assistant is getting all of that down, and when they do the summary notes, they often distill it down; they often prioritize based what they know of the room what the real strong ideas are. A good writers' assistant makes a world of difference. It is, possibly, behind the showrunner, the second most important person in a writers room.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: One of the things I absolutely believe that no writers room should be without is a stupid stick. A stupid stick is a device that, when held by the person that's pitching, shields that person from ridicule. I find that it's actually the most useful tool I've ever seen in a writers room. A lot of the time, especially in the early going, people feel very unsafe, just talking about themselves, talking about any number of things. Like they're gonna be mocked. I generally believe that the writers room has to be safe. A good stupid stick allows people to believe that they're protected.
What was your first experience in a room like?
Amy Berg: My first experience was one of my best experiences and has been hard to live up to. Kevin Kopelow and Heath Seifert are an amazing writing team who oversaw a few shows on Nickelodeon. I was their assistant for a couple months before they saw fit to promote me to writer. They ran the room with the most insanely upbeat energy I've ever seen. I worked with them for three years and there wasn't one single bad day had in that room. The vibe was always positive. Everyone worked together, played together, succeeded or failed together. Those guys lived and breathed teamwork as a writing partnership and they brought that into the room with them.
Jane Espenson: Wonderful. I was briefly on a show called Dinosaurs, with a great showrunner named Bob Young who was very welcoming and patient. It was perfect.
John Rogers: My first experience was as a sitcom writer on Cosby. Not the first one that made everyone rich and famous, the second one that ended careers and lives. It was a very raucous writers room; it was a straight-up comedy room: you sat in there for 12 hours a day, every week you had to rewrite the script from the ground up, and you shot it on Thursday, and you rewrote in between. You lived in that room and you were the lifeboat and you were pitching jokes and if you weren't pitching jokes, you had to get the hell out of Dodge. Both Chris and I (Chris Downey, the other creator of Leverage) we both came out of that school of you must ever drive forward. You must always be typing, always be writing, always be pitching — always driving that show forward. And that the writers are a team.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: My education in the writers room was actually on a show that didn't have a writers room, and that was SeaQuest 2032. And that was a show where the showrunner hired a lot of high level people and he kind of let them create and develop their own ideas and write them as scripts.
But there were two lower level writers, I was the lowest guy on the totem pole, and the mid-level guy was Naren Shankar, who'd just left Star Trek: The Next Generation. But the great thing was that this was a guy that who'd learned how to break story and generate story the Michael Piller way. Michael Piller [left] is renowned for running a very strong writers room and believing very strongly that the room had to generate and collaborate. So Naren and I would meet and break story the traditional way. I don't think it's a surprise that Michael Piller discovered Naren, Ron Moore, Brannon Braga, and René Echevarria — all four of whom are very highly regarded showrunners in their own right.
Deric A. Hughes: On day one of me and my writing partner's gig on Warehouse 13, our showrunner, Jack Kenny, said to everyone, "Here, inside the writers room, I don't care about a person's rank, I just want to hear good ideas. And if you don't have any good ideas, I'll find someone else that does." Now of course, he didn't mean that you shouldn't respect a person's rank and history, but it should never preclude you from coming up with ideas and sharing them with the room. So when he said that, I think this immediately broke the ice and allowed everyone to relax, be themselves, and focus on coming up with great stories to tell.
Zack Stentz: My first experience of a writers' room was a very lucky one. It was on Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda under Robert Wolfe, who was coming off of the very well-run Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and applied and even improved the room culture to create a very challenging but convivial environment for baby writers. One hears of rooms where staff writers aren't supposed to speak at all — the Andromeda room couldn't have been any more different.
What's been your best experience?
Jane Espenson: Dinosaurs was such a warm place. And Buffy was amazing. And I was so proud of the staff on Caprica. But it would be hard to beat Battlestar Galactica. The room was absolutely packed with guys who were masters of storytelling and who wouldn't let a single false moment slip through. We would discuss a story in general terms and while we were talking, Bradley Thompson would be writing on note cards. Then you'd look up and realize he'd pinned them to the board and there was a whole episode up there. They all made it look easy, but it's not.
Deric A. Hughes: I think just being able to come into Warehouse room every single day and work with people you've respected and admired from past TV shows/movies/animation for years and are now treating you as an equal…well, or at least someone who deserves to be there in the first place.
Amy Berg: My current experience on Eureka is hard to top. It's the exact right mix of humans. Everyone is willing to do whatever it takes to make the show the best it can be. It's never about the individual, it's always about the team. There are some showrunners who have been known to keep their writing staff at the office late because they'd rather work than go home. That's both sad and cruel. And it's not the case on Eureka. There's a great respect here for the fact that we all have personal lives. We have families we want to see, things we have to do, places we have to be outside of the show. Whether that's a doctor's appointment, a school play, or a wedding out of town. We want to make sure that your life doesn't stop just because production has started. Success is always sweeter when you have people to share it with. Camaraderie doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it more achievable because it's something we all want for each other and not just for ourselves.
Zack Stentz: My best experience was on The Sarah Connor Chronicles — Josh had such a clear vision of the show he wanted to make (which was challenging and appealing), John was such a master at guiding the room and getting the most out of all of us, and there were literally no weak links in a diverse room full of people at all levels of experience. You had seasoned hands like Toni Graphia and Natalie Chaidez, and you had staff writers like Ian Goldberg, Dan Thomsen, and Denise The, who made me seethe with envy when I saw them turn in work that was far more accomplished than anything I was doing at their ages. I still mourn the demise of that show, and confess to getting irritated when I see praise heaped on other genre shows that don't have 1/10th the ambition that we did.
John Rogers: This room. First year of Leverage, the studio had never done a show before, we had a tiny budget, we hired almost all staff writers because we had no money and we decided to go for volume — and we came up with one of the best years of television I've ever produced in 15 years. A rookie team with a lot of energy, a lot of gumption, a lot of ambition, and every single one of them worked their asses off. It was great to be in that situation where this is plainly impossible, and it turned out to be great.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: I have to say, at the risk of tooting my own horn, I had a wonderful room on The Middleman. That was a show that I think was blessed in a lot of ways. We all loved the show, we all got along, and even though it was a fairly small room — I don't think we ever had more than five people in it. It was just a room where everyone vibes really well.
Without naming names, what's been your worst?
John Rogers: I consulted on a show once, and it was hard to watch the network kind of beat up the showrunners. My relationship with TNT on Leverage is that they're clearly supportive, they're full creative partners, and they pretty much tell us when they don't like something, but they hired us to run a show and they let us run a show. This other situation was very much that kind of...you could tell that the executive in particular was a frustrated showrunner or writer and he just beat the hell out of the guys who were running the room. I can't imagine being in that situation; I actually quit. Whenever you don't see the script department working — and I know I talk like a 1950s screenwriter when I say "script department" — but every script department has it's own rhythms, and whenever somebody interferes with it, you're interfering with the very guts of a show. A smart network or a smart studio finds that once a staff is working, they stay out of their way.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: I have worked with people who are absentee micromanagers, those are a lot of fun. The shows where the showrunner is never around and then they show up for 15 minutes twice a week and destroy everything and insist that everything be redone. The shows where the showrunner enters the writers room at 6:30 in the evening after we've been there since 10 am and goes "Right! Let's go to work." Look, no writers room is perfect, but the ones that work collaboratively are the best. The ones where you're there to facilitate some emotional need of the showrunner are the worst.
Amy Berg: I've been confronted by misogyny on a staff before. It's just sad that this sort of thing still exists. The really horrible thing about this kind of behavior is that it's not something you can change. You can't talk things out. I tried that. It's just something that's ingrained in people. And if you don't have support from your showrunner (or if the person is your showrunner), all you can do is pack your stuff and move on to bigger and better things.
Who have you, personally, learned the most from?
Amy Berg: On the page, I would have to say I learned the most from Ira Steven Behr. I went into my experience on The 4400 as somewhat of a raw talent. I was not refined by any means. But the time I spent with Ira was incredibly valuable. We wrote a script together during the final season, and I got to witness his process beat-by-beat. It was amazing. He had high expectations for me and forced me to raise my game. John Rogers is an amazing story breaker. I learned a lot from him during my tenure on Leverage that I will take with me everywhere I go. I added a few more skills to my toolbox thanks to him. As far as the kind of person I want to be as a showrunner, I have to look no further than Eureka's Bruce Miller and Jaime Paglia. They are two of the best humans on the planet. And the fact that they're super-talented is a double bonus.
Jane Espenson: Joss Whedon, although there are other great candidates. Joss was the king of "why are we telling this story?" He really impressed all his writers with the sense that a story had to be about something other than the characters and their world. It had to really have something to say about the real world. I try never to forget what he taught me.
John Rogers: Two people. One was Dean Devlin. Because he's a very emotional guy. Everything comes from heart. He's always like "How does this make me feel?" And I was always a very technical writer, I mean, I write very complicated heist stuff, and having a guy who's always like, "What's the character beat here, what's the moment?" — I've definitely learned a lot just working with Dean. Also Cosby's David Landsberg, who was my first showrunner. David was relentless; we were in that writers room for 20 hours at a time and he sat at the head of that table and he never bitched us out, he never yelled at us — no matter how bad things got on Cosby, he never took it out on us. We were the lifeboat, we were gonna survive, we were gonna work together, we were gonna overcome this. He was just an inspiration; he was the showrunner I wanted to be. The guy that, no matter how it happened, the staff would turn to and he'd say, "Okay, I got one more trick in the toolbox." He never gave up. That to me is what a showrunner is: the guy that's got one more trick in the toolbox.
Zack Stentz: I've learned a ton from every single person I've worked with, from Andromeda's Matt Kiene and Joe Reinkemeyer teaching me the concept of the "two-one punch" (leading with your most powerful emotion instead of building to it) to Jeff Pinkner masterfully pulling apart the structure of a Fringe episode to diagnose a problem. But I think I've learned the most from Josh Friedman, in how he constantly challenged me to look beyond the obvious way into a scene or an episode or a character, and to strip away unnecessary incident to find the core of truth and drama in whatever story we were telling.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: I have learned things from so many different people. Lost's Damon Lindelof is one of the most ingenious twisters of scene and story I've ever seen at work. He's a guy that you give a scene that is very stock and he comes up with a genius way of making it different. Watching that muscle at work is an extraordinary thing — and you learn it by watching a guy do it. Graham Yost, who ran Boomtown was a guy who — Boomtown was a non-linear cop show, and he was a guy who could generate those non-linear stories in his head. And learning how to break story like him was an amazing education in lateral thinking. David Greenwalt is an extraordinary manager, and is also a guy who brings a lot of courage of his convictions to his storytelling. From him, I learned about being very committed and gutsy. Silvio Horta, on The Chronicle and Jake 2.0, is a guy who's tremendously eager to give and to delegate and to let people flourish. That was a lesson in and of itself. I believe, very strongly, that a showrunner's legacy is as much in the show they create as it is in the number of people that they train and they groom and put out into the world — and that dynamic, that teaching, happens in the writers room.
What's it like as a baby writer? As a showrunner? Aside from the pay grade, how does the job differ?
Zack Stentz: The thing that makes a showrunner's job so difficult is that one has to simultaneously be an artist and a manager, and those are two very different skill sets that only occasionally overlap. It's a reason why so few make it all the way up— it's a rare thing to find someone who simultaneously has an interesting and compelling vision and can effectively manage their staff, deal with temperamental actors, make a budget, and effectively interact with the executives from the studio and network.
Deric A. Hughes: As a baby writer, your first and most important job is to help contribute ideas to the room. When you have 13 episodes to tell and only a few short months to get scripts into production, you need to be a fountain of ideas for your showrunner. Because sitting there like a bump on a log and not saying anything is not going to help anyone achieve that goal. Even if you're afraid what you have to say is a bad idea and it might get rejected, you need to get over that fear and speak what's on your mind.
Amy Berg: The difference between a baby writer and a showrunner is enormous with regards to both responsibilities and expectations. The only real job of a baby writer is to take the episode they've been given and make the most out of it. There aren't high expectations for them in the room because of their lack of experience. But if they give you something extra — if they work their asses off by doing research and constantly generating story ideas — they will work their way up the ladder very quickly. A showrunner is the overseer. They're responsible for supervising every aspect of the production. Story breaking, script writing/rewriting, casting, editing, you name it. It's a massive undertaking, both time-consuming and pressure-filled. A show's success or failure is often placed squarely on the showrunner's shoulders. Which is why they need a talented and supportive staff to back them up.
Jane Espenson: They can both be fun jobs and they can both be very stressful jobs. A baby writer has to worry about themselves a lot more — am I going to "stick" in the business? Am I good enough to do this for a living? Have I contributed today? The showrunner usually has done this long enough that those questions have receded. But now they have to worry about everything else — all the details of getting a show made. These are very different jobs.
John Rogers: I was raised by guys who trained young writers and taught them to write and work and give them production responsibilities. And that's what we did with all of these writers and those first-year baby staff writers are now leaving to go be producers on other shows on year three. Because we threw a lot at them, we didn't just throw them on the first, we tried to teach them at the same time. And they learned really wonderfully. A lot of showrunners are just making a show, man. And there's two reasons you shouldn't do that. One, no show should be dependent on one guy. Personally thinking, I kind of refute the auteur theory in pretty much all produced television. And, two, if you don't train your young writers to be producers, who'll give you a consulting job when you're in your 50s? I mean, the whole point of my career is to launch young writers so eventually I can work three days a week on their show.
Are there any times as a showrunner/executive producer, you wish you were a baby writer?
Amy Berg: Sure. You sleep more. You're in better health. You have the time and energy to enjoy an active social life. There are some trade-offs. But writers like me didn't get into this business to work for other people their entire careers. We want to be creators. And with that goal comes great responsibilities.
Jane Espenson: Oh yes, all the time. Well, maybe not a baby writer, but a mid-level writer — the level at which you get to have a lot of input on the show and write a lot of scripts, but at which there is still someone above you with whom to confirm your instincts and decisions.
Javier Grillo-Marxuach: The thing I learned about being a showrunner that has become crucial in my development, both as a showrunner and as a person: Credit is a self-renewable resource. So the more of it you give away to people who rightfully deserve it, the more of it you get back anyway. And that there's more work than any one person can do, so delegating work shouldn't be an object of fear. Frankly, after being in a lot of rooms, I don't necessarily yearn for my days as a baby writer because I feel like as a showrunner if I'm willing to delegate and willing to trust and willing to teach and communicate, the writers will step up and do great work. Being the boss is nice and being a nice boss is better.
John Rogers: Oh, man. Yeah! Sometimes, you really don't want to be the guy with the toolbox. Sometimes, it'd be great if it was somebody else's problem. But you know what? Television, we make stuff. We make it. We write stuff and then people shoot it and it's on the air. It's the fastest turnaround for narrative or storytelling you can have. It's worth paying pretty much any price for that, if you're a guy who makes stuff up for a living.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- Search
Publications: Pilbeam, Ros
Journal Article
Pilbeam, R.A., Howard, K., Shearer, B.L. and Hardy, G.E.St.J. (2011) Phosphite does not stimulate a wounding response in Eucalyptus marginata seedlings. Australian Journal of Botany, 59 (4). pp. 393-398.
Pilbeam, R.A., Howard, K., Shearer, B.L. and Hardy, G.E.St.J. (2011) Phosphite stimulated histological responses of Eucalyptus marginata to infection by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Trees - Structure and Function, 25 (6). pp. 1121-1131.
Pilbeam, R.A., Colquhoun, I.J., Shearer, B.L. and Hardy, G.E.St.J. (2000) Phosphite concentration: its effect on phytotoxicity symptoms and colonisation by Phytophthora cinnamomi in three understorey species of Eucalyptus marginata forest. Australasian Plant Pathology, 29 (2). pp. 86-95.
Pilbeam, Ros (2003) Effects of phosphite on disease development and histological responses in Eucalyptus marginata infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi. PhD thesis, Murdoch University.


text:
Libraries post Patriot Act warnings / Santa Cruz branches tell patrons that FBI may spy on them
Along with the usual reminders to hold the noise down and pay overdue fines, library patrons in Santa Cruz are seeing a new type of sign these days: a warning that records of the books they borrow may wind up in the hands of federal agents.
The signs, posted in the 10 county branches last week and on the library's Web site, also inform the reader that the USA Patriot Act "prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you."
"Questions about this policy," patrons are told, "should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."
Library goers were swift to denounce the act's provisions.
"It's none of their business what anybody's reading," said Cathy Simmons of Boulder Creek. "It's counterproductive to what libraries are all about."
"I'm not reading anything they'd be particularly interested in, but that's not the point," said Ari Avraham of Santa Cruz. "This makes me think of Big Brother."
The Justice Department says libraries have become a logical target of surveillance in light of evidence that some Sept. 11 hijackers used library computers to communicate with each other.
But the signs ordered by the Santa Cruz library board -- a more elaborate version of warnings posted in several libraries around the nation -- are adding to the heat now being generated by a once-obscure provision of the Patriot Act.
Section 215 of the act allows FBI agents to obtain a warrant from a secret federal court for library or bookstore records of anyone connected to an investigation of international terrorism or spying.
Unlike conventional search warrants, there is no need for agents to show that the target is suspected of a crime or possesses evidence of a crime. As the Santa Cruz signs indicate, the law prohibits libraries and bookstores from telling their patrons, or anyone else, that the FBI has sought the records.
The provision was virtually unnoticed when the Patriot Act, a major expansion of government search and surveillance authority, was passed by Congress six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But in the last year, Section 215 has roused organizations of librarians and booksellers into a burst of political activity, and is being cited increasingly by critics as an example of the new law's intrusiveness.
Even as a leaked copy of a Bush administration proposal to expand the Patriot Act was circulating, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Ind-Vt., introduced a bill last week to repeal the library and bookstore provisions -- the first bill in the House, and the second in Congress, seeking to roll back any part of the Patriot Act.
Sanders, who voted against the Patriot Act, said he decided to target a "particularly onerous" provision that affects large numbers of people. His Freedom to Read Protection Act would allow library and bookstore searches only if federal agents first showed they were likely to find evidence of a crime.
The bill's 23 co-sponsors include four Bay Area Democrats -- Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, Sam Farr of Carmel and Pete Stark of Fremont.
The Bush administration has refused to say how it has used Section 215 -- prompting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by library and bookseller organizations -- and has made few public comments on the issue. One statement by a high-ranking Justice Department official, however, may have inadvertently helped to fuel the rollback efforts.
In a letter to an inquiring senator, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said Americans who borrow or buy books surrender their right of privacy.
A patron who turns over information to the library or bookstore "assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it to another," Bryant, the Justice Department's chief of legislative affairs, said in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
He said an individual's right of privacy in such records is "inherently limited" and is outweighed by the government's need for the information, if the FBI can show it is relevant to an "investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities."
Bryant's letter, dated Dec. 23, was slow to surface publicly but is now being held up by library and bookstore associations as evidence of the menace of government surveillance.
"Bookstore customers buy books with the expectation that their privacy will be protected," said the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, which represents independent bookstores. "If (Bryant) is in any doubt about this, he can ask Kenneth Starr, who outraged the nation by trying to subpoena Monica Lewinsky's book purchases."
"I find it profoundly disturbing that an assistant attorney general asserts that we have lost the right to privacy in that kind of information," said Deborah Stone, deputy director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "The republic was founded on the premise that you don't have to share your thoughts."
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said Bryant was merely pointing out that patrons voluntarily turn over information to libraries and bookstores and shouldn't be surprised if others learn about it. Corallo also said the provisions pose no threat to ordinary Americans, only to would-be terrorists.
Before demanding records from a library or bookstore under the Patriot Act, he said, "one has to convince a judge that the person for whom you're seeking a warrant is a spy or a member of a terrorist organization. The idea that any American citizen can have their records checked by the FBI, that's not true."
Once the government decides someone is a terrorist, Corallo said, "We would want to know what they're reading. They may be trying to get information on infrastructure. They may be looking in the public library for information that would allow them to plan operations."
Responding to such positions, the leaders of the 64,000-member American Library Association passed a resolution in January calling the Patriot Act provisions "a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users" and urging Congress to change the law.
And while the views of individual librarians are apparently more varied than those of their association, a recent nationwide survey found that most felt the Patriot Act went too far.
Nearly 60 percent of the 906 librarians who replied to a University of Illinois questionnaire between October and January believed that the law's so- called gag order -- which prohibits libraries from disclosing that the FBI has requested their records -- was unconstitutional.
Asked if they would defy an agent's nondisclosure order, 5.5 percent said they definitely would, and another 16.1 percent said they probably would -- even though the law makes such defiance a crime.
In Santa Cruz, where library officials are trying to stir up patrons about the Patriot Act, chief librarian Anne Turner has found a more subtle way to sidestep the gag order, if she ever faces one.
"At each board meeting I tell them we have not been served by any (search warrants)," she said. "In any months that I don't tell them that, they'll know. "


text:
Knicks. Now we won't win the Charles Barkley Championship Award
Originally Posted by Knicksin60
Seriously why does Barkley hate the Knicks so much? What happened in his childhood to make him like that? What did his parents do to him?....
Knicks pulling away!!
Ray felton
bang bang
Felton is on fire right now.
Originally Posted by Knicksin60
Time for Felton to bust out the Jordan shrug at this point. He's killing it.
........Jeremy who?
Signature created by AmareforPresident
Knicks shooting lights out
Its Feltonsanity
Heat looking flabby n sick
I don't hate D-Wade but i HATE him
This is the sh!t im talking about, it wasn't even good and they go ape sh!t for it.


text:
I never fell in love with Luck, which outside of its tense, riveting horse racing sequences always seemed a little too benign for its subject matter, but I did enjoy the first season and was looking forward to the second. Nevertheless, the news of the show's cancellation came as a relief to me. I was deeply troubled when I learned about the first two horse deaths on Luck's set, and the third one left me wondering whether I had any right to continue watching the show. Much as I liked Luck, it seemed like the height of entitled hedonism to accept and even expect that helpless, innocent creatures would have to die for the sake of my entertainment. At the time of the cancellation, a lot of people (myself included) assumed that HBO was using the horses' deaths as an excuse to justify cancelling a low-rated and only moderately well-received show, but information that has come to light since then (including HBO's claims about the cost of cancelling the show) suggests that the people who made that decision had qualms similar to mine, and that they truly did put an end to something they loved because it could only live at another creature's expense.
Not long after Luck's cancellation, however, I read the New York Times's profile of safety practices--or rather their absence--in real American racetracks, which result in a rate of death for horses (and of death and catastrophic injury for jockeys) besides which Luck's death count is practically insignificant. The gap between these two entertainment industries' attitude towards the deaths of horses--a show-stopping calamity on television is just the cost of doing business in horse racing--made me realize just how situational were the ethical qualms that I--and, presumably, executives at HBO and the Luck production--had experienced. That gap came once again to my mind last week when I read Emily Nussbaum's essay on Game of Thrones in The New Yorker. Nussbaum, notwithstanding that she has an excellent last name, has for some time been my favorite professional TV reviewer, but the Game of Thrones piece felt a little by the numbers, a little too repetitive of ideas that have already been raised about this much-discussed show. It was only in her final paragraph that Nussbaum made me sit up and take notice.
As with "True Blood," the show's most graphic elements—the cruel ones, the fantasy ones, and the cruel-fantasy ones—speak to female as well as male viewers. (One of the nuttiest quotes I've ever read came from Alan Ball, "True Blood" 's showrunner, who said that a focus group had revealed that men watched his series for the sex and women for the romance. Please.) But there is something troubling about this sea of C.G.I.-perfect flesh, shaved and scentless and not especially medieval. It's unsettling to recall that these are not merely pretty women; they are unknown actresses who must strip, front and back, then mimic graphic sex and sexual torture, a skill increasingly key to attaining employment on cable dramas. During the filming of the second season, an Irish actress walked off the set when her scene shifted to what she termed "soft porn." Of course, not everyone strips: there are no truly explicit scenes of gay male sex, fewer lingering shots of male bodies, and the leading actresses stay mostly buttoned up. Artistically, "Game of Thrones" is in a different class from "House of Lies," "Californication," and "Entourage." But it's still part of another colorful patriarchal subculture, the one called Los Angeles.The train of thought this observation started on its tracks received a boost several days later from Troy VanDerWerff's AV Club review of the most recent Game of Thrones episode, "The Old Gods and the New." Discussing a brutal, graphic scene in which the character Sansa Stark (played by Sophie Turner) is separated from her guards by rioters who beat her, tear her clothes, and are about to rape her when she is rescued with murderous efficiency, VanDerWerff notes:
Sophie Turner was most likely 15 when that scene was filmed. 15! I know that's old enough to know about the ugly things of the world, like sexual violence, but it still horrifies me.Since its premiere last year, Game of Thrones has come under a lot of fire for its copious use--some might say reliance--on nudity and depictions of sex and sexual violence. Some of these complaints have obviously been heard and applied to the show's second season--the much-derided "sexposition" has been toned down considerably (I can think of only one scene in the second season that answers the description, a somewhat sickening sequences in the second episode in which the weaselly, self-important Theon monologues to the lovestruck daughter of the captain of the ship carrying him home--whom he obviously holds in something just barely above contempt--as he thrusts into her). In its place, however, we have copious amounts of "plot-relevant" nudity--the scene in which the priestess Melisandre gives birth to a demon leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination--and sexual violence--two episodes before Sansa's attempted rape, she is humiliated by her fiancé and captor, the psychotic boy-king Joffrey, who orders that she be publicly stripped and beaten in retaliation for her brother's military triumphs against Joffrey's grandfather; later in that same episode, Joffrey orders one of a pair of prostitutes (sent to him by his uncle and fan favorite Tyrion) to viciously beat the other on pain of her own death.
Until now, the terms in which the discussion of nudity and sex on Game of Thrones has been conducted have stressed the "necessity" of these images--were they created simply to titillate and distract the audience from a dry bit of exposition, or to cement the producers' sense that they were creating high, mature art?--and the second season seemingly addresses that concern with a shift in the way it uses sex and sexual violence to advance the plot and our understanding of the characters. But as Nussbaum and VanDerWerff point out, there is another question that is not adequately served by the argument of "necessity." Even if it is necessary for the story that a young girl be beaten and nearly raped, is it alright to ask a young actress to simulate that experience? Why are we, on the one hand, outraged by the deaths of horses on the set of Luck, and on the other, casually accepting of the potential mistreatment of human women on the set of Game of Thrones?
There's a danger of reducing this question to a glib joke, similar to the one that George R.R. Martin himself made when irate fans complained about the end of the second episode of Game of Thrones's first season, in which Sansa's father Ned is forced to kill her dog. After assuring his readers that the dog wasn't really killed, Martin drily noted that "Rhodri Hosking, the young actor who played the butcher's boy Mycah [who also dies at the end of the episode], was not actually killed either, though oddly, no one seems quite so upset about him." The issue here isn't that people get more upset about violence when it's directed towards animals than when it is directed towards people (though this is often the case). No one in the racing industry, after all--or at least not enough people--is getting worked up over dead horses in the same way that Game of Thrones fans became upset over the simulated death of a puppy, or that HBO and the producers of Luck became upset over the real deaths of horses. The lack of a corresponding outrage on behalf of actresses on Game of Thrones, the fact that, on the contrary, the ubiquity of sexual and sexually violent scenes in cable drama has created a market for attractive young women--historically the most vulnerable and exploited group in show business--who are willing to be stripped and to simulate often humiliating or violent sex on camera, suggests something much more disturbing than that fans of the show don't value the well-being of women as much as they do that of a dog. It suggests that, just as dead horses are the cost of doing business in the racing industry, traumatized and humiliated actresses are the cost of doing business in cable television. And it suggests that we, as viewers who enjoy Game of Thrones and excuse its violent sexual content because it is necessary to the story, have accepted and even come to expect that vulnerable young women will be mistreated for the sake of our entertainment.
The two situations are not entirely the same, of course. Women are not horses. They will naturally have a range of opinions and reactions to acting in the nude and simulating violent sex, and the actresses who have knowingly chosen to appear in explicit or violent material on a show like Game of Thrones deserve to have their choice respected--even if we question the choices of the people who decide to film such scenes. The damage caused by a scene like Sansa's simulated assault is ambiguous, determined by personality and circumstances--and in some cases maybe even nonexistent. We're suffering from a dearth of information from the actresses themselves, about what it's like to actually film these scenes, and what their potentially harmful components are, without which this whole discussion has the potential to be patronizing in the worst possible way. Still, it bothers me that hardly anyone is asking the question of whether scenes like these are harmful to the actresses performing in them, especially as those actresses are often the ones least in a position to raise the issue in a way that will get it heard and treated seriously. The Irish actress Nussbaum mentions was free to leave a shoot that she found demeaning, but what did that cost her in terms of money, professional connections, and bad will with the agent and casting director who got her the job? Sophie Turner may have been consulted with and counseled about her rape scene, but does that mean she didn't feel pressure to accede to it? Not a lot of people are asking these questions, and with cable television, especially HBO, now firmly ensconced as the standard-bearer--and standard-setter--for quality and high drama on TV, it's long past time that they gained higher prominence. The cancellation of Luck showed that the cable industry has lines in the sand, ethical boundaries it will not cross. It's time to find out where more those boundaries lie--where women, and not just horses, are concerned.


text:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health plans to offer free blood tests for lead poisoning to hundreds of thousands of residents because of worries over toxic pollution from a battery recycling plant, officials said Thursday.
Exide Technologies, the company that runs the large, decades-old plant in Vernon, will pay for the tests for the largely working class and immigrant residents of southeast Los Angeles in neighborhoods around the plant, county officials told the Los Angeles Times.
The tests could begin as soon as next month as residents increasingly express outrage over the emissions from the plant.
"Our responsibility is to protect our constituents," said county Supervisor Gloria Molina, who represents the area of the plant. "Something had to be done."
The suburban plant, which recycles 22 million lead-acid motor vehicle batteries a year, was ordered closed in April by the state after environmental officials found it had high levels of lead and arsenic in its emissions. But in June a judge granted a restraining order allowing resumed operations of the plant for Georgia-based Exide, which said in court filings it did not pose "an imminent and substantial" danger to the public.
Exide did not respond to several requests for comment from the Times, and a phone message left after business hours by The Associated Press was not immediately returned.
Dr. Cyrus Rangan, director of the health department's bureau of toxicology, said the tests will be offered indefinitely to anyone who thinks they are affected but he doesn't expect many cases of high lead levels.
Rangan said the tests are being offered "to provide a measure of reassurance to the public" and his office "is not hearing about people with a lot of symptoms of lead poisoning."
Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com


text:
ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes most of the ASU Theses and Dissertations from 2011 to present. ASU Theses and Dissertations are available in downloadable PDF format; however, a small percentage of items are under embargo. Information about the dissertations/theses includes degree information, committee members, an abstract, supporting data or media.
In addition to the electronic theses found in the ASU Digital Repository, ASU Theses and Dissertations can be found in the ASU Library Catalog.
Dissertations and Theses granted by Arizona State University are archived and made available through a joint effort of the ASU Graduate College and the ASU Libraries. For more information or questions about this collection contact or visit the Digital Repository ETD Library Guide or contact the ASU Graduate College at email@example.com.
- Bawolek, Edward J
- Raupp, Gregory B
- 1 Allee, David R
- 1 Arizona State University
- 1 Dai, Lenore L
- 1 Forzani, Erica S
- 1 Marrs, Michael A
- Chemical engineering
- oxide
- 1 Electrical engineering
- 1 Materials Science
- 1 display
- 1 electronics
- 1 flexible
- more
- 1 x-ray
- Reverse Fountain Cytoplasmic Streaming in Rhizopus Oryzae
- Diné Research Practices and Protocols: An Intersectional Paradigm Incorporating Indigenous Feminism, Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies and Diné Knowledge Systems
- Developing an Augmented Reality Solution for Mapping Underground Infrastructure
- Characterization of 2D Human Ankle Stiffness during Postural Balance and Walking for Robot-aided Ankle Rehabilitation
- Using Molecular, Cellular and Bioengineering Approaches Towards Understanding Muscle Stem Cell Biology
A low temperature amorphous oxide thin film transistor (TFT) and amorphous silicon PIN diode backplane technology for large area flexible digital x-ray detectors has been developed to create 7.9-in. diagonal backplanes. The critical steps in the evolution of the backplane process include the qualification and optimization of the low temperature (200 °C) metal oxide TFT and a-Si PIN photodiode process, the stability of the devices under forward and reverse bias stress, the transfer of the process to flexible plastic substrates, and the fabrication and assembly of the flexible detectors. Mixed oxide semiconductor TFTs on flexible plastic substrates suffer from performance …
- Contributors
- Marrs, Michael A, Raupp, Gregory B, Allee, David R, et al.
- Created Date
- 2016


text:
terminate(redirected from termination)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to termination: Termination of employment, Wrongful termination, Termination of pregnancy
To end.(1) For leases,this term implies an ending before the natural expiration time, as by default.When reviewing leases, pay close attention to the rights and responsibilities "upon termination"or "at expiration,"because these are two completely different circumstances. (2) For partnerships, it means the end of the partnership business and affairs, although that might technically be before formal dissolution of the partnership.(3) Under the Uniform Commercial Code,it means legally ending a contract,without default by either side.


text:
Press release from Alliance for Coffee Excellence is here.
Basically, of the 10 countries they have done in recent years, they are only going to run comps in 5 next year. The ones losing their competitions are - Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Rwanda & Burundi.
I'd say that speciality coffee is pretty precarious in those places (with the exception of El Salvador), so we can only see what effects pulling their CoE competitions has on those farming communities next year.


text:
Career Center
Job Seekers, Welcome to CUCVM Job Board
The job you tried to view is no longer active.
See similar jobs below or perform a new job search.
See similar jobs below or perform a new job search.
Sort By
3,089 'veterinarian OR STATECODE:"GA"' Jobs
Dalton, Georgia
Dalton Animal Care South
1 Week Ago
Alpharetta, Georgia
Veterinary Medical Center and Crabapple Knoll Veterinary Clinic
2 Weeks Ago
Augusta, Georgia
Highland Animal Hospital
1 Week Ago
Alpharetta, Georgia
Loving Hands Animal Clinic and Pet Resort
3 Weeks Ago
Dallas, Georgia
New Hope Animal Hospital
1 Week Ago
Augusta, Georgia
All God's Creatures Veterinary Hospital
5 Days Ago
Fairburn, Georgia
Pathway Vet Alliance
1 Week Ago
Powder Springs, Georgia
Powder Springs Animal Clinic
3 Weeks Ago
Savannah, Georgia
Berwick Animal Hospital
2 Weeks Ago
Powered By


text:
|System: Xbox 360
|Dev: SpikySnail Games
|Pub: Microsoft Game Studios
|Release: April 11, 2012
|Players: 1
|Screen Resolution: 480p-1080p
|Mild Fantasy Violence
by Shelby Reiches
It's only in a society that assigns monetary value to pleasure activities that one can view "fun" as a consumable resource in the same way that one regards basic necessities, such as food and water. The amount one gains of that resource for the money invested is the item in question's relative value. It's sad, in a way, that a game can then be "fun," doing nothing that is wrong or that strongly detracts from the experience, yet comes across as a waste of money whether because its price is set too high or the enjoyment it provides simply isn't strong or enduring enough.
The Splatters has a solid enough premise: One doesn't directly control a character, instead seeking to kamikaze bright, primary-colored blobs with broad, smiling faces against the terrain to burst them (or "splatter" them, as the game would probably prefer) into splashes of similarly colored goo. When the goo touches a bomb of its color, that bomb lights up and goes off. Dramatic increases in score can be achieved by splattering large groups of bombs all at once and chaining together a variety of combo abilities that are taught over the initial 19 levels of the game. These help add some depth to the otherwise simplistic gameplay, entailing the ability to redirect a Splatter in mid-air, accelerate it so that it dashes against a wall in one quick burst, or reverse the direction of everything on motion in screen, condensing clouds of goo, pulling airborne bombs back through them, or accelerating a Splatter back and forth around a half-pipe until its momentum peaks.
These antics serve players in two modes, other than the introductory levels that gradually acclimate them to the game's mechanics: a combo-based score mode, in which chaining together abilities and having Splatters left over between rounds to continue the action even as the next phase sets up (sustaining the combo meter and boosting one's score) is absolutely critical; and a stunt-focused sub-game in which the levels tell you which stunts must be performed in the pursuit of bomb-exploding goo splashes. You are not limited to these stunts alone, and are in fact encouraged to perform as many stunts as possible in order to maximize your score (going about simple tasks in the most complex way).
And that's it. That's the entire game. After the introductory levels, the game does not evolve. It certainly becomes more difficult, demanding more judicious use of one's Splatters, conserving them as much as possible, but later stages don't demand more creativity, just more caution as one uses the same basic tactics over and over again. Often when a strategy works out spectacularly, it isn't because of what one planned, but because of the seemingly random chance that has at least some say in exactly when and to what degree the Splatter you're controlling bursts apart. Yes, you guided that Splatter to the right area, but the fact that it hit all of the bombs in the cluster this time instead of just ten out of fourteen was a matter of pure chance.
For a while, this alone will prove satisfying. The graphics are pleasant, with the anthropomorphized gelatinous blobs yelping and giggling as they're shot around the level, smiling all the way as they stretch into a blur before careening head-on into a wall or a spiked outcropping. On impact, the bursts of liquid they form feel dense, yet have a certain, syrupy flow to them. Their droplets seem to catch on the environment before either fading into it or sliding off of it, thick and yet mobile all at once. It's very satisfying to watch, knowing that you were the force behind this phenomenon. Juicy: that's the word I was looking for. Impacts and the splatters of color they create are juicy and viscous. There are neat touches in the game's HUD elements too, which include clouds shaped like the symbols for the actions you must perform in stunt mode, which break apart as you complete them.
The end of level rating, too, is somehow immensely satisfying to see; The Splatters is presented as though it is a television game show at times, with an implied audience that makes its presence known through its "ooh"s and "ahh"s as you perform aerial acrobatics. The cries of the blobs themselves are endearing enough, rarely ever passing into the realm of annoying. Nothing about the sound design particularly stands out, though; there's a bit of a hard rock chord when you finish a level, which is kind of cool and all, and stuff like the jet engine roar when you rocket a Splatter off in a new direction mid-flight is neat, but doesn't really provide new information or anything, y'know?


text:
Organizations are turning to the cloud first for core business functions. They seek breakthrough results as applications become increasingly powerful and the security and scalability of the cloud more reliable.
Broader SaaS adoption requires organizational and operational change to manage applications effectively. It also demands a new approach to ongoing application management to deliver the business promise of SaaS.


text:
FHA 203(h) Loan For Disaster Victims
Highlights of the FHA 203(h) Loan For Disaster Victims
- Up to 100% financing on purchase transactions
- Up to 97.75% financing on refinance transactions (combined with 203 (k) program)
- Eligible properties include 1 unit primary residence and FHA approved condos
- 30-year fixed
- Seller-paid closing costs permitted, up to 6%
- Eligibility remains for up to one year from the date of declaration
What is a FHA 203(h) Loan?
An FHA 203(h) is loan program that could allow up to 100% financing to help victims of disasters purchase or refinance a new home after their home was destroyed.
How a FHA 203(h) Loan Work:
An FHA 203(h) loan can help life return to normal. If your current home is located in a Presidentially Designated Major Disaster Area (PDMDA) and destroyed, you may qualify.
Related Products: FHA 203k
Certain restrictions apply. Guidelines and product availability subject to change at any time. Mortgage insurance is required. Documentation attesting to the damage of the previous property must accompany the mortgage application. The applicant must provide conclusive evidence that they are a permanent resident in the affected area.


text:
Ten years ago the web was broken, but Mozilla fixed it with Firefox. Today, the mobile web is just as broken — and Mozilla will fix it again with Firefox OS. Read on to learn how.
Monopolies are bad for customers
Not everyone has been around long enough to remember it, but the web used to be dominated by a single company that dictated most of its terms. Ten years ago, most dynamic websites were built using ActiveX, a technology developed by Microsoft that only worked in Internet Explorer on Windows due to its close ties with the underlying APIs of the operating system. For customers, this meant that in order to use the (then) modern web, you had to use Internet Explorer 6 — and you had to use Windows. Over time, other technologies like Flash and Shockwave eventually replaced the role of ActiveX, and this opened up interoperability across platforms a little bit since those technologies worked on Mac OS as well, but minority OSes like Linux were still in the dark with either non-existent or obsolete versions of these proprietary technologies.
At Mozilla, we saw these problems and understood the importance of cross-platform interoperability and standards on the web. Standards are good for customers, developers, and the whole industry because they promote freedom, choice, and innovation. In Mozilla's eyes, having one for-profit company continuing to dictate the terms of the web would lead to a very dark future. So we created Firefox.
Mozilla fixed the desktop web with Firefox
Few people believed back in 2003 that an open source web browser built by a tiny non-profit would stand a chance to beat a giant like Microsoft at its own game. The odds were certainly against us — Microsoft's combined market share exceeded 95% the year before Firefox 1.0 shipped. But we all know the history that followed: Firefox quickly disrupted the monopoly and introduced a kick-ass web browser that focused on users' needs by creating a truly delightful browsing experience — and more importantly, one that actually followed web standards. This had enormous effects on the web: suddenly developers started to innovate again and created new experiences that no one had seen before (pre-Firefox, innovation on the web was basically limited to figuring out new ways to annoy users with pop-ups and scrolling marquees).
As a result of our success with Firefox, Microsoft woke up from its self-declared hibernation of IE6 and decided to pick up the development of their browser again to catch up on some of the new web standards that developers were now using extensively thanks to Firefox. This pushed the innovation forward even faster because the lowest common denominator on the web (IE) slowly became a browser largely following the latest web standards. It also made it possible for other players to enter the web browsing market. And this is what makes the web as cross-platform compatible as it is today. It's still not perfect, but the difference since 2003 is dramatic.
Let's be clear about this: the reason why you can buy just about any desktop computer or mobile device today and expect websites to work without hick-ups is because Mozilla created Firefox! We take this interoperable web mostly for granted today, but it's important to remember that just ten years ago, this was a utopia.
Web sites → Apps
Fast forward to today and the landscape and definition of the web has changed. The web is turning mobile and people increasingly use phones, tablets and other mobile devices to get online. But it's not just the usage of the web that has changed — the web itself is different too. The most notable change is that the majority of the time spent online using mobile devices is happening in native web apps developed specifically for the platform of that particular handset — not on actual web sites viewed through a traditional web browser. For example, instead of going directly to http://www.twitter.com, people download the Twitter app for their phone. In other words, native apps are increasingly becoming the lens through which the web is viewed these days. Why is this? The short answer is historical reasons.
The slightly longer answer: Native apps were faster and more capable than web technologies when smart phones started to become mainstream a few years ago. The web itself didn't have capabilities like offline storage or technologies optimized to create snappy and app-like user interfaces. Web standards also lacked direct hooks to crucial hardware like the camera and other important parts of the device. (It's relevant to point out that today's web technologies do have all of these app-like capabilities; more on that later.)
Duopolies are just as bad
If you consider the issues ten years ago with web sites that only worked on certain platforms, you begin to see the connection with today's mobile web apps that only work on certain mobile platforms. Today's situation isn't any better than the monopoly we were facing on the desktop before Firefox came along.
For customers, these isolated vertical silos mean limited choice and freedom, because you can't easily switch from one platform to the other without a lot of headache and changed workflows. For example, if you're used to the iPhone and have purchased a bunch of apps for it, you will basically have to start from scratch if you decide to switch to an Android-powered phone. There might be some overlap, but there will no doubt be a handful of apps that you simply won't be able to use anymore. And you'll most likely have to pay for many apps again. This sucks. It's a bit like not being able to access certain websites just because you switched to a different operating system. Déjà vu anyone?
For developers, the situation is a nightmare, since you have to almost double the development resources to reach most of your customers. And with Tizen and Windows Phone and other mobile OSes lined up and eager to get their own share of this old vertical silo landscape, it's easy to see how this way of doing business on the mobile web isn't financially viable for anyone but the largest app development houses. Who wants to develop an app five times?
And customers will of course continue to suffer just as much in this scattered model ("when is Spotify coming to Windows Phone?" and "Why doesn't Instagram have the same art filters on Android and iOS?").
Mozilla will fix the mobile web with Firefox OS
Enter Firefox OS. The whole idea with Firefox OS is to make the web itself the platform not just for traditional web sites, but for apps as well. Apps are the new lens through which the web is mostly used on mobile devices today — and the new, modern html5-based web is more than ready to power it.
Crucially, Mozilla isn't trying to create its own new silo — the goal is to demonstrate that the web itself is capable of powering apps on all platforms, and to bring web platform interoperability to the mobile apps world. This will disrupt the whole industry for the benefit of both customers and developers, and it will bring the same benefits to the mobile web that Firefox brought to the desktop web: freedom, choice, and innovation. Case in point: today you can choose between many modern browsers on the desktop: Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and IE — and you don't have to worry about whether your favorite web sites will work or not. Firefox made that possible. And that's exactly the future we are building for the mobile web with Firefox OS!
What does this mean for developers? Imagine writing an app once and immediately having it running on all major and minor mobile platforms. If you write your app using web standards like html5, that's a possibility. The cost savings will be enormous.
What does it mean for customers? Imagine a world where you truly own the apps you've purchased and where you have the freedom to choose any mobile platform and even switch between them over time — and take all your apps with you wherever you go. You might start with an Android device in 2012, then switch to a Firefox OS device in 2013, and perhaps you want to try iPhone 7 in 2015 (only to dump it in favor of Firefox OS again in 2016). Regardless of your choice, your apps will follow along with you and work just as well on all of these devices. Sounds like utopia? Déjà vu anyone?
This is why I'm so excited about what Mozilla is doing right now to disrupt the web and open it up once more. We did the impossible ten years ago, and we're ready to do it again.
And the best part of it all is that if Mozilla wins, everybody wins!


text:
Nutrient Management in
Agricultural Watersheds
Intensification of agriculture over the last five decades has caused both point and non-point source loss of nutrients such as nitrogen (N)and phosphorous (P) from agriculture. Nutrient loss from agriculture has contributed to eutrophicaton of water resources. Prevention and mitigation of nutrient loss from agriculture requires control of source and transportation factors at field, farm and watershed/catchment scales. There is a continuing need to develop and adopt appropriate measures to increase efficacy of nutrient management in reducing loads to aquatic systems. Thus, it is necessary to consider nutrient retention alternatives such as wetlands at a range of scales within agricultural watersheds. Wetland systems have shown that they retain nutrients at field, farm and watershed/catchment scales through both research and operational treatment systems. Thus, wetlands are increasingly being incorporated as components of watershed nutrient management and wastewater treatment systems.
The Symposium will provide a forum for synthesis and interpretation of current status on the role of wetlands to improve water quality in agricultural catchments. It recognizes the interdisciplinary nature of the topic, the diversity of researchers from scientific and engineering disciplines, need to synthesize research information on current understanding of wetlands, need to transfer basic research information to managers involved in solving applied problems and to identify future directions for design and management of treatment wetlands.
The Symposium goals include:
The symposium will have invited presentations by international experts and volunteered poster presentations of research conducted on various topics including: current approaches to nutrient management in catchments, function and values of wetlands, wetland biogeochemistry, constructed wetlands (CWs) and their implications for catchment water quality policy and management. Presentations will provide American and European perspectives on the role of wetlands within agricultural catchments. Poster sessions will include volunteered presentations on specific case studies of various aspects and types of wetlands relevant to the goals of the Symposium. A panel discussion during the final session will evaluate extent to which the Symposium has achieved its goals and provide a summary of major findings.
Agricultural Watersheds
Wetlands – Functions and Values in Watersheds
Wetland Biogeochemistry
Wetlands in Agricultural Watersheds
Constructed Wetlands (CWs)
The symposium is designed to bring together leading international scientists, engineers, managers and regulators to critically summarize and evaluate state-of-the-art research on wetlands for water quality improvement, with special emphasis on agricultural catchments.
Attendee space will be strictly limited to 150.
Potential Symposium participants are invited to submit abstracts for poster and oral presentations on Symposium topics no later than March 1, 2004. Abstracts MUST be submitted electronically via this symposium web site.
NOTE: Both oral and poster presenters will be expected to submit an abstract for publication in the symposium abstract book and they will be expected to submit a full manuscript for publication in the symposium book of proceedings.
Monday, 24 May 2004
Tuesday, 25 May 2004
Wednesday, 26 May 2004
Registration Fees
The registration fee, combined with sponsorship funds, provides attendees with one copy of the symposium book of abstracts, a poster session reception, daily lunches, daily mid-morning and afternoon refreshment breaks along with workshop participation.
Proceedings of symposium, which will include manuscripts based on talks and poster presentations, will be published in book format in December 2004 and will be mailed to each participant.
Refund Policy: Requests for registration refunds will be honored if the Office of Conferences and Institutes (OCI) receives written notification of cancellation on or before April 30, 2004. A $50 processing fee will be deducted from all conference refunds. A $25 processing fee will be deducted from all student refunds. No refunds will be honored for cancellations after April 30, 2004.
Special Needs: Participants with
special needs can be reasonably accommodated by contacting Teagasc
Research Center, Johnstown Castle, Wexford at least 10 working days prior
to the conference. Please contact Ms. Eleanor Spillane by phone at
011-353-53-71269, or by fax at
Johnstown Castle Research
Centre, undertakes national research on soils and the environment. In
addition, it provides the Teagasc Analytical Services Laboratory for soil,
herbage, water and general agricultural materials. It has a proven record
of more than 40 years, as a major research centre of international status.
Talbot Hotel is offering a special group rate of
Post Symposium Field Trip (Optional)
An optional field trip will be conducted on Wednesday afternoon of the
last symposium day. The objective of the field trip is to illustrate some
innovations in constructed wetland science in Ireland. Various constructed
wetland sites will be visited in the Anne Valley, Co. Waterford.
Application of constructed wetlands to improve water quality at these
sites will range from farm to industrial scales. Other sites will include
wetlands constructed as components of riverine ecological restoration
within an agricultural watershed. Also some natural wetland sites such as
bogs, fens and coastal marshes may be visited.
O. T. Carton,
Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford,
K. R. Reddy,
Soil and Water Science Department,
University of Florida / IFAS, Gainesville, FL, USA
R. Harrington, National Parks & Wildlife
Service, Department of Environment and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland
E. Dunne, Department of Environmental Resource
Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Belfield, Dublin 4, and Teagasc, Johnstown Castle,
Co. Wexford,
N. Culleton,
Teagasc Research Centre, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland
- Ireland's best online portal for all accommodations, car rental, flights and ferry reservations.
- Discover Ireland is packed with hundreds of accommodation offers from across the country and invaluable information to help you plan your break.
Program Information
O. T. Carton
E. Dunne
K. R. Reddy
Registration Information
Sharon Borneman


text:
What Are Some Ways That I Can Think About Stressful Situations In Order To Make Them Less Stressful?
Dr. Janata answers the question: 'How To Think Differently About Stress?'
-- Question: What are some ways that I can think about stressful situations in order to make them less stressful?
Answer: Well I think we need to begin with an understanding that all of our emotional responses first derive from a cognitive appraisal of the situation that we find ourselves in. So that we don't respond emotionally to anything until we interpret it, until we attach meaning to it.
This is illustrated in an example of someone who has learned that other drivers can be rude. And someone told me once about an incident where they pulled up to a traffic light and driver pulled up right behind them, and the instant the light turned green, that driver honked his horn. Well my friend responded first with irritation, but eventually responded with real anger as the guy behind him kept beeping his horn. Only then did he realize that the horn wasn't being honked because this guy was kind of a jerky driver. He was honking his horn because my friend had left his briefcase on top of his car, and his laptop was about to be distributed all over the highway.
In the moment that his appraisal of that situation turned from this guy's honking at me because he's not a very pleasant driver to, he's trying to be a good Samaritan, his emotional response to the situation changed completely from being angry and upset and enraged by this to being grateful and wishing him a nice day.
So we need to recognize that there really are ways in which we think about situations, we interpret them that attaches meaning that drives how we respond emotionally and if we find ourselves in a situation in which we have a routine emotion in response to a stressful situation. It may be helpful to think through how we think about that situation -- the assumptions we're making about it, or the beliefs we hold about it -- to interrupt our stress response.
Next: How Does Time Management Help Reduce Stress, And What Are Some Tips To Manage Time Better?
Previous: What Are Some Of The Techniques I Can Use To Cope With The Stress In My Life?


text:
More investors are running away from stocks and seeking safe havens as job data weakens, signs of a recession intensify, and Janet Yellen reverses her bullish position on the U.S. economy. Gold hit its 1-year high on Thursday while U.S. Treasury prices continued to soar as investors crowded into both assets to escape an increasingly volatile stock market.
The Standard and Poor's 500 and Dow Jones Industrial fell again and now has a 10% loss from the beginning of 2015 after stocks around the world sold off in a violent day of trading. In Europe, markets fell 3.7% because of a drop over 5% in Italy, a 2.7% fall in German, and approximately 4% losses in France and Spain. In Asia, the Hang Seng in Hong Kong lost almost 4% as well, after Japan's Nikkei 225 index lost over 5% on Wednesday and remains down over 17% from the beginning of 2016.
The losses in Japan and Germany are surprising investment banks, which have made strong recommendations to buy stocks in both markets. The European Central Bank and Bank of Japan's combined quantitative easing purchases, which total nearly $3 trillion combined, were supposed to lift stock prices as the programs continued. Both central banks are expected to increase their QE programs this year. However, those markets are already deeply in a bear market with more losses expected as analysts warn that economic data is worsening around the globe driven in part by a slowdown in China.
Weakness in America
Weak economic data also plagued the United States this week.
After the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported last week that GDP growth was slowing to 0.7% in the 4th quarter of 2015, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that nonfarm payrolls rose just 151,000 in January, far below the 190,000 expected by economists. The labor force participation rate also remained stagnant at 62.7%, the lowest rate since the 1970s and far below the historic average.
Although companies are not hiring at a strong pace, they are demanding more employees. The Department of Labor said 5.6 million job openings were available in December, far above 5.4 million expectations.
Some economists warn the combined weak pace of hiring and higher pace of job advertisements indicates a deflationary trend in the labor market. The theory suggests that companies may be looking to cut costs by replacing higher paid older workers with cheaper newer ones, while demanding more skills and qualifications despite the lower pay. If true, this could worsen aggregate salaries in the United States, which in turn would drag down personal consumption expenditures, GDP growth, and inflation. All of these indicators have seen a significant decline in recent months.
A decline in spending and consumption was also hinted at by new data from the Census Bureau released this week. Wholesale trade fell 0.3% in December from the prior month, falling to $440 billion in total.
Fed Addresses Volatility
Seeing this weakness, Janet Yellen acknowledged the stock market volatility and hinted at a softer monetary policy as a result. Nonetheless, Yellen defended her prior bullish statement on the economy when speaking to Congress yesterday, noting, "ongoing employment gains and faster wage growth should support the growth of real incomes and therefore consumer spending."
Markets remain unconvinced that inflation and economic growth are materializing, as the 10-year Treasury fell as low as 1.53% on Thursday, tying the lowest rate in history which was seen in the summer of 2012. Meanwhile, gold rose to $1,236 per ounce, reaching its highest point in the last year.


text:
Check out the Library for more new uploads of old magazines!
Check out the Library for more new uploads of old magazines!
What was the story on red diamond. I heard of the red diamond blood to be miniature gamefowl. Can u inform me.
My Gamecock Magazine August 1935
JC... are you going to upload the mag I gave you ?
can you acknowledged me......are you going to
watch the short knife fight tonight at arcontica?
what about the game fowl show at picc...?
any plans on going to japan? let me know.
" one life time is not enough to learn about
gamefowl breeding". it is like a vast universe
what can come out will never cease to amaze us".
I'm looking for some older issues from the gamecock if anybody could help me out.


text:
Home sales
Home sales
HomeGain is where Real Estate professionals connect with home buyers and sellers. Prospects searching for homes or wanting to sell their homes are captured and passed onto our partner Agents as Enhanced Clicks℠. Agents manage their supply of Enhanced Clicks℠ via a simple online interface accessible from both desktop and mobile.
What is an Enhanced Click℠?
Enhanced Clicks℠ are visits to an agent's website from potential clients who have expressed interest in buying or selling a home. Every Enhanced Click℠ originates with a client choosing to buy or sell and entering their zip code. After taking this action, the prospects are directed to your website as an EnhancedClick℠. Today all top agents are using some form of this technology – HomeGain has simplified it even further to let agents focus on what they do best – sell homes!
What is a Qualified Lead?
For agents who prefer to work with leads versus driving visitors to their own site, we offer Qualified Leads, which includes the contact information of the home buyer or seller expressing interest in buying or selling a home. It's that simple! These prospects who are interested in speaking with a live agent are sent within minutes to your inbox.
Where do HomeGain Enhanced Clicks℠ and Qualified Leads come from?
Prospective buyers and sellers will visit one of our websites directly or find us on Google, Bing or Facebook. A prospect becomes an Enhanced Click℠ or Qualified Lead by completing a form on one of our various Real Estate websites.
How much does HomeGain cost?
Agents work on a performance-based model. The agent pays only for clicks that were sent to their site within the geographic areas the agent specifies. Agents can also pay per lead, for those who opt for leads versus Enhanced Clicks℠.
How do you receive Enhanced Clicks℠?
Enhanced Clicks℠ are directed from the page where prospects enter their zip code to your specific Real Estate website that you define on the HomeGain dashboard. Enhanced Clicks℠ are sent to only ONE business URL.
How do you receive Qualified Leads?
Qualified Leads can be sent to single or multiple business email addresses and/or a mobile phone – its all based on your preferences. All Qualified Leads are also stored in the dashboard for retrieval at any time. Qualified Leads can be sent to up to 4 businesses, however the company average is less than 2.
Your feedback is extremely important to us
HomeGain takes feedback on the leads we provide very seriously. With every lead we send, we ask for feedback so that we can insure you are getting the best and greatest.
You will receive invitations to rate your lead in your lead texts, emails and within the lead dashboard – we've tried to make it as simple as possible.
Please provide feedback.
How can HomeGain help your business?
HomeGain can add to your contact base a steady stream of real-time inquiries from buyers and sellers who match criteria set by you. You can receive clicks in less than 5 minutes, from highly-targeted prospects who confirm their intent to buy or sell, as well as their zip code. This allows the Agent to geo-target down to even the zip code level, with 100% accuracy.
Contact Us
Want to see how many visitors we can send to your website or how many leads we can send to your inbox each month? Fill out the form and a HomeGain specialist will be in touch to start tailoring a custom marketing package for you.
SOURCE: http://www.homegain.com/


text:
Episode 610 – Man in the Middle fun with SSL Strip
This time on the show Darren's having a little man-in-the-middle fun with a demonstration os SSLStrip, an epic tool for removing that pesky encryption from your victims browsing session.
Download HD Download MP4 Download XviD Download WMV
Moxie Marlinspike's SSLStrip, released at Blackhat/DEFCON this year, is a tool that transparently hijacks HTTP traffic and redirects HTTPS links to look-alike HTTP links. While this description barely scratches the surface, Darren's segment takes a closer look including a pracitcal demonstration of a man-in-the-middle attack using arpspoof and a little luck with remote-exploit's BackTrack 4 penetration testing distribution.