Thursday, August 8, 2013

2013 H.S. Football Preview: Huntington North Vikings (VIDEOS)

August 7, 2013 Updated Aug 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM EDT

HUNTINGTON, Ind. (21Alive) - Huntington North High School's football program looks to put together a winning season in 2013.

The Vikings finished 5-5 each of the last three seasons; but rebounded from a 1-3 start to finish even last year.


Trent Fine enters his second season with his players adapting to the spread offense formations, and veterans helping everyone understand where their parts in the system.

"They're fine tuning things," Fine says. "I still have the pieces. I have the size on the outside at receiver. Some guys on the inside I like."

Steven Hogley will line-up on both sides of the line of scrimmage, and fullback Austin Rosen will be a key in the offensive backfield.

"Defensively, last year at the end of the season, we were playing five sophomores. I think defensively, we're going to be a head of the game coming into this year."

Huntington North hosts Homestead in the season opener on Aug. 23.





What are your thoughts CLICK HERE to leave us a "Your2Cents? comment.

? Copyright 2013 A Granite Broadcasting Station. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/sports/2013-huntington-north-football-preview-218752031.html

lake havasu halo 4 jewel san francisco earthquake san francisco earthquake terminator salvation terminator salvation

Friday, June 28, 2013

Sony Xperia i1 'Honami' poses for family photo

Xperia i1

First leaked image allegedly shows upcoming 20-megapixel Sony 'cameraphone'

We've heard a good deal about the Sony "Honami" already — an upcoming camera-centric Sony smartphone said to pack a 20-megapixel Cyber-Shot camera and re-vamped camera software. The name "Xperia i1" has also been thrown around in reference to the device, which sources have told us is due to make an appearance sometime in Q3.

Today we could be getting our first look at the "Honami" — or Xperia i1 — courtesy of Brazilian site Techtudo. The outlet has snapped a couple of images of what it says is the Xperia i1, complete with 20-megapixel rear camera.  The hardware shown seems to employ Sony's "Omnibalance" design language — note the trademark trim design and rounded power button — while not matching any Sony phones we're familiar with.

read more

    


Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/androidcentral/~3/AhDTnxIwSSY/story01.htm

target target walmart best buy sears Aeropostale Jcpenny

Supreme Court 2013: The Year in Review

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito sits in the audience at a National Italian American Foundation.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito at a National Italian American Foundation event in Washington in 2006

Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Windsor v. United States, decided Wednesday, invalidates a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples. Justice Anthony Kennedy?s majority opinion points out that although laws as to who may marry (blood relatives? children?) differ quite a bit from state to state, federal benefits are uniform across states. That is, if a marriage is valid under one state?s law, that?s enough for the couple to qualify for those benefits, regardless of any differences between that state?s law and another state?s law. But DOMA, enacted in 1996, denied federal benefits to married same-sex couples even if their marriage was lawful. With telling quotations from the legislative history, Kennedy shows that DOMA?s denial of federal benefits to lawful same-sex marriages?alone among marriages?was motivated by a hostility that appears to have no basis related to any public interest. DOMA imposes both financial and psychological harm on same-sex married couples. The imposition is gratuitous. It comes close to saying: We?re not giving you money only because we don?t like you even though you?re loyal, law-abiding, and productive citizens. That sounds like a denial of equal protection, which the Supreme Court has long considered an implicit part of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (the due process clause that constrains federal as distinct from state action).

There is an analogy to public school segregation in the South before Brown v. Board of Education declared it unconstitutional: The motivation for segregation was hostility toward a minority, and the hostility had no justification in public policy. It was more sinister than DOMA because it was part of an elaborate, indeed an all-encompassing, system of official racial discrimination in Southern states. Gay people are no longer subject to systematic governmental discrimination. The part of DOMA at issue in the Windsor case is thus an anomaly. But its anomalousness is also cogent evidence that it?s unjustified. Gay sex is no longer illegal; its prohibition has been ruled unconstitutional. On what ground therefore should gay marriage be disfavored by the federal government?

An even closer analogy to Windsor is Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court in 1967 invalidated state laws forbidding interracial marriage. In that era, interracial marriage aroused the same antipathies that same-sex marriage does now (also primarily in Southern states, where polls show that disapproval of same-sex marriage is much higher than elsewhere). In neither case was there a reason, other than distaste, for forbidding the practice. DOMA does not forbid gay marriage. But it demotes it.

This discrimination against a historically despised, discriminated-against, and indeed often persecuted group requires justification. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his dissent, suggests that the justification is simplification of federal law. The federal agencies that dispense marital benefits will have to decide which same-sex marriages are valid. But this is true with respect to heterosexual marriages as well. Only couples whose marriage is valid are entitled to marital benefits. Marriage validity is rarely contested, but when it is, the contest is resolved at the state level: If a state allows a 13-year-old to marry her pet frog, and frog and girl move to another state, the state to which they move may decide not to recognize the marriage on the ground that it?s contrary to the public policy of the state. And then the couple will not be entitled to marital benefits. And likewise with a same-sex marriage. Down the road, courts may have to decide whether a state that refuses to permit its residents to marry someone of the same sex is obliged to recognize such a marriage contracted in another state that does permit same-sex marriage. However that issue is resolved, though, it won?t augment the burden on federal authorities of determining the validity of a marriage.

I should think a textualist-originalist such as Scalia would want to point out that there is no general prohibition of discrimination by the federal government anywhere in the Constitution or its amendments and no reference to sex or marriage, as well as that the Framers of the Constitution and its amendments would have considered a proposal to provide constitutional protection for gay sex acts, let alone for gay marriage or gay marriage benefits, preposterous. (Justice Samuel Alito, in a separate dissent, remarked the absence of any reference to marriage in the Constitution as support for DOMA?s constitutionality.) But Scalia?s silence is a comment on the limits of textualism and originalism. Once the Supreme Court, a decade ago in Lawrence v. Texas, provided constitutional protection for gay sex, same-sex marriage became (or should have been recognized as) a conservative policy, since conservatives like to channel sex into marriage. And with 13 states and the District of Columbia now authorizing gay marriage (eight of them within the past eight months), and more likely to follow as public opinion swings decisively in favor of allowing such marriage, the withholding of federal marital benefits becomes a senseless rearguard action, like Southern states? resistance in the 1960s to allowing interracial marriage. (The numbers: 53 percent of the adult population now favors the legalization of gay marriage, up from 27 percent in 1996, and the percentage rises to 70 percent for people between the ages of 18 and 29.) Scalia stated in his dissent that ?to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements.? But the ?defense? in the Defense of Marriage Act is actually an offense: a denial of federal benefits to ?those who would prefer other arrangements.?

Alito took a different tack. He said that some people think that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage. He doesn?t say how, and I don?t understand how. If it?s true, does this mean that heterosexual marriage undermines same-sex marriage? Does Alito think that straight people will become gay as a result of the invalidation of DOMA? Or does he hanker for the time when gay or lesbian people married ?straights? in order to conceal their true sexual identity? Alito is drawn to such arguments for DOMA as ?the institution of marriage was created for the purpose of channeling heterosexual intercourse into a structure that supports child rearing,? and ?marriage is essen?tially the solemnizing of a comprehensive, exclusive, per?manent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing new life, even if it does not always do so.? The first argument would have force only if one supposed (as virtually no one does any longer) that banning same-sex marriage would channel gays into straight marriages. The bearing of the second argument (a close paraphrase of official Vatican sex doctrine) eludes me. A sperm bank is intrinsically ordered to producing new life, even if it does not always do so. So what? A marriage of a man to a woman known to be sterile could not be thought intrinsically ordered to producing new life, yet it would surely be recognized by Alito as a valid marriage entitled to federal marital benefits. So far as yet appears, opposition to same-sex marriage, and to federal benefits for gay couples, is emotional and sectarian, rather than rational.

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2013/supreme_court_2013/supreme_court_and_doma_justice_alito_s_defense_is_all_emotion.html

bloomberg Daily Caller Staten Island Trick or Treat Amy Weber Happy Halloween! Star Wars Episode 7

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Whoa, What Makes This Chain of Beads Magically Float?

Whoa, What Makes This Chain of Beads Magically Float?

Here's a brilliant experiment you can do at home if you've got yourself a lengthy chain of metal beads, and a container big enough to hold them. You just take one end of the chain out and drop it so that it drags the rest with it, and almost immediately you'll see it rise up out of the container like it's magically defying gravity.

Read more...

    


Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/dfkuluc2I7c/whoa-what-makes-this-chain-of-beads-magically-float-596577212

Little Nemo gawker Romney Bosses Day 2012 Arlen Specter Winsor McCay Amanda Todd

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Helping RNA escape from cells' recycling process could make it easier to shut off disease-causing genes

June 24, 2013 ? Nanoparticles that deliver short strands of RNA offer a way to treat cancer and other diseases by shutting off malfunctioning genes. Although this approach has shown some promise, scientists are still not sure exactly what happens to the nanoparticles once they get inside their target cells.

A new study from MIT sheds light on the nanoparticles' fate and suggests new ways to maximize delivery of the RNA strands they are carrying, known as short interfering RNA (siRNA).

"We've been able to develop nanoparticles that can deliver payloads into cells, but we didn't really understand how they do it," says Daniel Anderson, the Samuel Goldblith Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT. "Once you know how it works, there's potential that you can tinker with the system and make it work better."

Anderson, a member of MIT's Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and MIT's Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, is the leader of a research team that set out to examine how the nanoparticles and their drug payloads are processed at a cellular and subcellular level. Their findings appear in the June 23 issue of Nature Biotechnology. Robert Langer, the David H. Koch Institute Professor at MIT, is also an author of the paper.

One RNA-delivery approach that has shown particular promise is packaging the strands with a lipidlike material; similar particles are now in clinical development for liver cancer and other diseases.

Through a process called RNA interference, siRNA targets messenger RNA (mRNA), which carries genetic instructions from a cell's DNA to the rest of the cell. When siRNA binds to mRNA, the message carried by that mRNA is destroyed. Exploiting that process could allow scientists to turn off genes that allow cancer cells to grow unchecked.

Scientists already knew that siRNA-carrying nanoparticles enter cells through a process, called endocytosis, by which cells engulf large molecules. The MIT team found that once the nanoparticles enter cells they become trapped in bubbles known as endocytic vesicles. This prevents most of the siRNA from reaching its target mRNA, which is located in the cell's cytosol (the main body of the cell).

This happens even with the most effective siRNA delivery materials, suggesting that there is a lot of room to improve the delivery rate, Anderson says.

"We believe that these particles can be made more efficient. They're already very efficient, to the point where micrograms of drug per kilogram of animal can work, but these types of studies give us clues as to how to improve performance," Anderson says.

Molecular traffic jam

The researchers found that once cells absorb the lipid-RNA nanoparticles, they are broken down within about an hour and excreted from the cells.

They also identified a protein called Niemann Pick type C1 (NPC1) as one of the major factors in the nanoparticle-recycling process. Without this protein, the particles could not be excreted from the cells, giving the siRNA more time to reach its targets. "In the absence of the NPC1, there's a traffic jam, and siRNA gets more time to escape from that traffic jam because there is a backlog," says Gaurav Sahay, an MIT postdoc and lead author of the Nature Biotechnology paper.

In studies of cells grown in the lab without NPC1, the researchers found that the level of gene silencing achieved with RNA interference was 10 to 15 times greater than that in normal cells.

Lack of NPC1 also causes a rare lysosomal storage disorder that is usually fatal in childhood. The findings suggest that patients with this disorder might benefit greatly from potential RNA interference therapy delivered by this type of nanoparticle, the researchers say. They are now planning to study the effects of knocking out the NPC1 gene on siRNA delivery in animals, with an eye toward testing possible siRNA treatments for the disorder.

The researchers are also looking for other factors involved in nanoparticle recycling that could make good targets for possibly slowing down or blocking the recycling process, which they believe could help make RNA interference drugs much more potent. Possible ways to do that could include giving a drug that interferes with nanoparticle recycling, or creating nanoparticle materials that can more effectively evade the recycling process.

The research was funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/~3/7V-2JNR49qM/130624144824.htm

mario batali lone ranger aaron brooks dave matthews band solar flares 2012 whitney houston will toyota recall

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Border security amendment clears hurdle, bolstering chances for immigration bill (Washington Post)

Share With Friends: Share on FacebookTweet ThisPost to Google-BuzzSend on GmailPost to Linked-InSubscribe to This Feed | Rss To Twitter | Politics - Top Stories News, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/314969377?client_source=feed&format=rss

Alabama Shakes Safe Haven Rita Ora Meteor Russia jay z Oscar Pistorius Carnival Triumph

Respawn Entertainment talks Xbox Live Cloud, praises its multiplayer servers

Respawn Entertainment talks Xbox Live Cloud, praises its multiplayer servers

Microsoft's been quick to point out how it's beefing up the Xbox Live Cloud in preparation for its next wunderconsole, and now Respawn Entertainment is stepping in to detail just what Redmond's architecture means for multiplayer on Titanfall. The firm's Jon Shiring, who works with the game's cloud computing integration, says that the next-gen title boasts vastly improved online play since it leans on Ballmer and Company's cloud hardware instead of users to host sessions. By taking advantage of Microsoft's servers, the futuristic shooter benefits from more reliable bandwidth, snappier matchmaking times, extra CPU power and the elimination of latency-based host advantage and hacked-host cheating, to boot. Naturally, using dedicated servers can cost a ton, but Respawn says Microsoft managed to keep things comparatively inexpensive for developers, in part thanks to its Azure tech. For the dev's comprehensive write-up on just what this revamped Xbox Live architecture may mean for gaming, click the source link below.

Filed under: , ,

Comments

Source: Respawn Entertainment

Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/hvX6s50qqfw/

Lane Goodwin Romnesia Tagg Romney Bosses Day Cabin Fever 2 Alexis Wright Zumba binder full of women