Fundraiser for Panthers Fencing | Media Sports & Recreation, Food

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Source: http://hongfernandez.typepad.com/blog/2012/12/fundraiser-for-panthers-fencing-media-sports-recreation-food.html

michael bay zsa zsa gabor illinois primary trayvon martin 911 call kiribati vernal equinox mr rogers

Source: http://iridescent-subtopic.blogspot.com/2012/12/fundraiser-for-panthers-fencing-media.html

barbara walters tupelo honey limp bizkit stations of the cross nike foamposite galaxy bill maher seabiscuit

Get Ready to Be Ready: Building a NEW HR Business Model

?HR must have the knowledge of the organization?s P&L, but more importantly, they should develop a people P&L.? This was a statement by Cynthia Trudell, Executive Vice President Human Resources & Chief Human Resources Officer of Pepsico.

Last week in New York there was an event called the HR Leadership Summit (built ?by HR Execs, for HR Execs). Well to me that line is an understatement. I have attended a lot of conferences, but this one day event is at the top of my list.

What will you call your plan?

Presentations were given by the folks at the top of the HR food chain, from people like Mark James, SVP, Human Resources & Communications at Honeywell;?Dimitra Manis, SVP, Global Head of People for Thomson Reuters;?Susan Peters, VP, Executive Development & Chief Learning Officer at GE;?Cara Capretta, VP, Human Capital Transformation for Oracle; and?Randy McDonald, CHRO for IBM.

My thought upon leaving that night was back on the P&L relationship to HR. The P&L is a financial statement that summarizes the revenues, costs and expenses incurred during a specific period of time ? usually a fiscal quarter or year. These records provide information that shows the ability of a company to generate profit by increasing revenue and reducing costs.

The concept of using or creating a sort of Human Capital metric dashboard which lays out dynamics of the workforce will be the new norm for HR. Imagine if a Human Capital P&L was presented and evaluated each time a business meeting was held, especially during quarterly and year end meetings.

Three quarters of CEO?s say that lack of key skills is the greatest threat to their business. Based on that, a process of this type should be a welcome addition to the executive agenda.

If that CEO statement about a lack of key skills was centered on marketing or a strategic dilemma, there is no doubt what they would do.

Alignment is here

There were so many CHRO?s at this New York event, each a super star in their own right, discussing the level of interactions they have in driving their respective business growth. I got the feeling that every one there came away with a sense of the future of HR. The bar has been raised to a totally new level.

We had been to the mountaintop and were given a chance to peak over and get a glimpse of the new model of HR importance. We were given this view by practioners who live it every day.

The implications of the economic recovery, a changing workforce, new regulation and legislation, changing social values and technological innovations are all redefining human resources.

During the recent recession, HR leadership has been faced with continued cuts and modifications to their human capital programs and policies which have forced most to revert to business as usual.

The question is, will HR carve out a new path going forward by developing a new model, or, will you find yourself unprepared for what lies ahead?

The alignment of a human capital strategy and programs with the organizational strategy is the new and sustainable model. That alignment will significantly impact the success of the organization.

Why we need a ?new HR? business model

Developing a business case that invests resources in the people side of the business positively influences everyone ? not only within the organization, but external factors as well, and ultimately, the bottom line.

One of the best ways to begin this transformation is to focus on the P&L, HR scorecard, or whatever name you call it that suits your fancy. This P&L will not only help calculate talent management metrics and benchmarks data extracted from your own organization, but it will help re-position HR strategically in your company.

Specifically, investing time in a more rigorous based metrics-driven model is going to be the key component in building and emerging a new business-oriented HR model with better alignment with the core corporate strategy.

As we face a new set of challenges in a rapidly changing marketplace, it underscores the imperative of continuous and visible engagement of HR to become fully aligned with the corporate strategy, and surmount the organizational silos to emerge as a ?new HR? business model.

And, when the time comes to expand opportunities and optimize the deployment of the organization?s human capital assets, are you and your organization going to be ready?

More importantly, are you?personally going to be ready?

Ron Thomas is Director, Talent and Human Resources Solutions at Buck Consultants (a Xerox Company). He is certified by the Human Capital Institute as a Master Human Capital Strategist (MHCS) and Strategic Workforce Planner (SWP). He's worked in senior level HR roles with Martha Stewart Living and IBM. Ron serves on the Harvard Business Review Advisory Council, McKinsey Quarterly Executive Online Panel, and the Human Capital institute's Expert Advisory Council on Talent Management Strategy. He also serves as a Faculty Partner and Executive Facilitator at the Human Capital Institute. Contact him at ronaldtthomas@gmail.com, or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/Ronald_thomas.

Source: http://www.tlnt.com/2012/12/10/get-ready-to-be-ready-building-a-new-hr-business-model/

ron paul Cnn Electoral Map roseanne barr guy fawkes gary johnson gary johnson walking dead

Has your workplace become a boot camp? - Business Management ...

Your boss can require that you work certain hours every day even if you?re a salaried worker, writes Suzanne Lucas at CBS MoneyWatch. If you fail to follow the rules, they can dock your vacation time or fire you, but they can?t cut your paycheck.

But just because your manager can be strict about your schedule doesn?t mean that he should, she writes. If your boss has suddenly instituted draconian rules, try to figure out the reason, she recommends. It could be that your manager is disappointed by the poor performance of your company and is looking for a quick fix. If that?s the case, try to suggest another solution that will address the problem without turning your workplace into a boot camp.

? Adapted from ?Can my boss track my hours?? Suzanne Lucas, CBS MoneyWatch.

Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!

Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...

We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.

The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.

" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/33443/has-your-workplace-become-a-boot-camp "

Source: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/33443/has-your-workplace-become-a-boot-camp

Oscar Pistorius Aliya Mustafina Kirk Urso London 2012 Javelin roger federer Olga Korbut Usain Bolt 2012 Olympics

Steps To Success is the Leading Provider of Diabetes Education ...

December 09, 2012

? PR - Health/Medical ? ?

Hyattsville, MD, December 09, 2012 ?(PR.com)? Since their launch, Steps To Success has provided low-cost diabetic supplies to consumers. They have focused on being a supplier of diabetes supplies, with a twist. They aim to be at least 25% cheaper than larger retailers such as Walmart and Target. Through their site, Steps To Success also provide diabetes education to the public and provide an uninsured / under insured program for diabetes testing supplies. As a company, Steps To Success believes that people suffering with diabetes should not have to break the bank to be able to afford testing supplies and other crucial supplies. As such, Steps To Success have adopted a strategy which has taken them to the sky. Through combining quality and affordability, Steps To Success has been able to capture the market and enable themselves to become one of the most trusted and reputable online retailers for diabetes testing supplies.

They also provide best value for the cost too. With high-quality diabetes supplies constantly in their online shop, consumers have never before been able to pick up such high-quality products at an affordable price. Steps To Success also currently run an Economy program, which is tailored for the needs of those who may be struggling with their supply costs. They currently offer A Little Testing plan, Moderate Testing plan and a More Testing plan ? depending on how frequently the consumer needs to test themselves.

To learn more about Steps To Success and their low-cost diabetic supplies, head over to:http://www.steps-to-success.org/

Contact Information:
Steps To Success
Osei Jenkins
301-458-6045
Contact via Email
www.steps-to-success.org

Click here to read the full story: Steps To Success is the Leading Provider of Diabetes Education and Diabetes Testing Supplies

Press Release Distributed by PR.com

Source: http://health.rambergmedia.com/steps-to-success-is-the-leading-provider-of-diabetes-education-and-diabetes-testing-supplies/

sweet home alabama etch a sketch the host hoodie hoosiers temperance world bank

Role Of SCUBA Diving Gear In Technical And Recreational Diving

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://sportsandrecreation333.blogspot.com/2012/12/role-of-scuba-diving-gear-in-technical.html

adrienne rich autism cesar chavez day raspberry ketone ron burgundy millennial media nit championship

Apple and Samsung File The Lists and a New Dispute on an Expert Declaration ~pj

The beat goes on in the Apple v. Samsung post-verdict maneuvers. Apple and Samsung have both filed lists of attachments to post-trial motions, as the judge had ordered them to do the other day. And Samsung is asking the court to let it supplement the record with an expert declaration, and of course Apple strongly opposes [PDF]:

Less than 17 hours before the scheduled hearing on Apple?s motion for a permanent injunction, Samsung seeks leave to file a supplemental expert declaration to respond to a reply declaration filed on November 9, 2012 ? almost a month ago. The Court should deny Samsung?s motion for leave not only because the requested relief is untimely and irrelevant, but because it is nothing more than ?a vehicle for circumventing the Court?s page limits? and an attempt to cure Samsung?s failure of proof in its prior declaration. (Dkt. No. 2181 at 1.)

Apple claims Samsung is trying to correct a mistake, and there is a long song and dance about how horrible Samsung is acting, trying to fix the error. The judge may well agree, but on the other hand, Apple is asking to ban Samsung products from the US entirely, and that's a serious matter for Samsung, so one might argue that it surely doesn't hurt to get it right and have all the evidence on the table to make a correct decision.

Here's the docket, so you can decide for yourself:

12/06/2012 - 2187 - Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, #2 APPLES OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNGS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GRAY IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNGS OPPOSITION TO PERMANENT INJUNCTION MOTION, # 3 Declaration DECLARATION OF DEOK KEUN MATTHEW AHN IN SUPPORT OF APPLES OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNGS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF STEPHEN GRAY, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/6/2012) (Entered: 12/06/2012)

12/07/2012 - 2188 - RESPONSE to re 2181 Order Apples Lists Of Supporting Documentation Submitted With Post-Trial Motions by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/7/2012) (Entered: 12/07/2012)

12/07/2012 - 2189 - RESPONSE to re 2181 Order Samsung's Response to the Court's December 4, 2012 Order to File Lists of Supporting Documentation by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/7/2012) (Entered: 12/07/2012)

And here's the supplemental declaration [PDF] that Apple is so hot and bothered about, and the request [PDF] for leave to file it.

Here's Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Gray in Support of Samsung's Opposition to Permanent Injunction Motion, as text:

APPLE?S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG?S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF STEPHEN GRAY IN SUPPORT
OF SAMSUNG?S OPPOSITION TO
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
MOTION

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Less than 17 hours before the scheduled hearing on Apple?s motion for a permanent injunction, Samsung seeks leave to file a supplemental expert declaration to respond to a reply declaration filed on November 9, 2012 ? almost a month ago. The Court should deny Samsung?s motion for leave not only because the requested relief is untimely and irrelevant, but because it is nothing more than ?a vehicle for circumventing the Court?s page limits? and an attempt to cure Samsung?s failure of proof in its prior declaration. (Dkt. No. 2181 at 1.)

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 19, 2012, Samsung filed its opposition to Apple's motion for a permanent injunction. In 35 pages of briefing, Samsung devoted a grand total of 1 sentence and 1 footnote to the opinions of its expert, Stephen Gray, on an alleged design-around. (Dkt. No. 2054 at 14 n.11.) In violation of the Court?s page limits, that single sentence in Samsung?s brief referenced 45 substantive paragraphs from Mr. Gray?s declaration spanning 10 pages of text. (Dkt. No. 2054-2.) Moreover, rather than including or even describing specific lines of Samsung?s allegedly modified, non-infringing source code and how they differ from the code that was found to infringe at trial, Mr. Gray?s declaration and Samsung?s opposition brief simply made broad assertions that ?Samsung has implemented non-infringing design-arounds.? (Dkt. No. 2054 at 14.)

Judge Grewal agreed that Mr. Gray?s declaration covered a ?new subject area[]? and granted Apple?s motion to compel his deposition. (Dkt. No. 2105 at 2, 4.) At this deposition, Apple was provided with the basic information about the alleged code modifications that should have been in Mr. Gray?s declaration. Apple then was able to respond to these assertions in its reply brief and through Karan Singh?s November 9, 2012 declaration (Dkt. No. 2127-3).

Despite having the full basis for Dr. Singh?s opinions in his reply declaration ? including specific citations to Samsung?s source code, Samsung then insisted on deposing Dr. Singh. Samsung did so knowing full well that Dr. Singh was on sabbatical in India. When Judge Grewal agreed that Dr. Singh?s deposition should proceed, Apple immediately offered early dates for a video conference deposition from India. After Samsung rejected that offer, Apple then offered early dates for an in person deposition in Singapore in light of Dr. Singh?s travel commitments. Only at Samsung?s insistence was the deposition relocated to Hong Kong and deferred until

1

December 3. At no time prior to last night did Samsung ever request permission from the Court to have Mr. Gray opine on the source code identified by Dr. Singh on November 9, 2012.

II. SAMSUNG HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY ANOTHER EXPERT DECLARATION
FROM STEPHEN GRAY

The Court has consistently emphasized that the briefing page limits for the parties? post-trial motions would be ?strictly enforced.? (Dkt. No. 1945 at 3.) Accordingly, the Court should deny Samsung?s motion for leave to file a supplemental declaration from Mr. Gray ? particularly in light of the Court?s stated intention to strike materials ?submitted in violation of the Court?s Order.? (Dkt. No. 2181 at 1.) Whatever its contents, one thing is certain: they are not discussed in Samsung?s brief.

Moreover, the alleged ?design around? for the ?915 patent that is the subject of Mr. Gray?s original and supplemental declarations is irrelevant to whether an injunction should issue. Through Mr. Gray?s declarations, Samsung has improperly attempted to conflate a contempt proceeding with the underlying motion for an injunction, which the Federal Circuit has made clear must maintain precedence. See Int?l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 383 F.3d 1312, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2004), (affirming district court?s denial of infringer?s request to ?exclude[] from the scope of the injunction devices made according to [its] modified design,? since ?[i]t would have been improper for the district court to address that issue until or unless it was properly before the court? in later contempt proceeding); see also TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 646 F.3d 869, 881-883 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (noting that the court?s duty in a contempt proceeding is to ?make an inquiry into whether that modification is significant? when ?one or more of those elements previously found to infringe has been modified . . .?); MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 556, 575 n.16 (E.D. Va. 2007) (noting after remand, ?the court places no weight on eBay?s purported design-around because . . . the complexity of the issue requires analysis that cannot be faithfully completed based upon a few pages of written argument and appended declarations, and because the court agrees with MercExchange that it should not be required to prove infringement twice in order to obtain an injunction?).

Because infringement by modified or different Samsung products is properly the subject of

2

a contempt proceeding after issuance of an injunction, the Court need not decide now whether modified Samsung products are not more than colorably different from the products that the jury already concluded did infringe the ?915 patent. Therefore, no further declaration from Mr. Gray on this issue is necessary for the Court to decide Apple?s motion for a permanent injunction.

But even if Mr. Gray?s opinions were somehow relevant to the permanent injunction motion pending before the Court, Samsung should not be allowed to submit a belated ?do over? declaration from Mr. Gray that provides a more detailed discussion of Samsung?s own source code, misleadingly and incompletely cites to Dr. Singh?s deposition testimony, and raises new issues withheld from Mr. Gray?s original declaration to deprive Apple of a fair opportunity to respond. Samsung made a tactical decision not to cite to its own code even once in its opposition to Apple?s motion or in the ten pages of sweeping and unfounded assertions in Mr. Gray?s original declaration. Samsung should not be permitted to change course and to submit a more detailed argument on the evening before the hearing.

Mr. Gray?s purposely vague and misleading original declaration failed to cite a single line of Samsung?s modified code, instead relying on broad assertions that the modified code employs an unexplained ?fundamentally different technique.? (Dkt. No. 2054-2 ? 37.) Even a cursory examination of Mr. Gray?s supplemental declaration reveals that the primary substantive difference between his two declarations is that the more recent one actually cites to Samsung?s source code. (See generally Dkt. No. 2183-2.)

In view of the lack of detail and absence of citations to modified source code in Mr. Gray?s original declaration, Dr. Singh identified the specific code omitted from Mr. Gray?s original declaration and explained its functionality. Dr. Singh further explained that this functionality was fundamentally unchanged from the infringing source code analyzed at trial. Far from offering a ?brand new theory of infringement for . . . the ?915 patent? (Dkt. No. 2183-1 at 1), Dr. Singh made clear in his declaration that Samsung?s ?new? code still infringed, which was proper rebuttal limited to exposing the fiction in Mr. Gray?s original declaration that dressing up infringing code in different clothing somehow rendered it non-infringing.

Despite having had its own source code since its creation, and Dr. Singh?s analysis of that

3

code for almost a month, Samsung waited until the last minute to request permission to file Mr. Gray?s supplemental declaration regarding that same code. Samsung?s contention that it somehow required Dr. Singh?s deposition to understand his opinions on Samsung?s own source code lacks merit. Indeed, Samsung admits in its motion that Mr. Gray did not require Dr. Singh?s deposition testimony to formulate his opinion, and only ?relie[d] on Dr. Singh?s admissions to confirm his opinion.? (Dkt. No. 2183-1 at 1 (emphasis added).)

Finally, the Court should deny Samsung?s motion because the Supplemental Gray Declaration violates the rule of completeness by selectively citing and mischaracterizing Dr. Singh?s testimony. As just one example, in paragraph 8 of his new declaration, Mr. Gray cites in the same sentence two lines from Dr. Singh?s testimony on one page and another two lines from 19 pages later in the transcript (?401:16-18 and 419:8-9?). (Dkt. No. 2183-2 ? 8.) To understand the context of the excerpted testimony, one would need to, at a minimum, review pages 401:1-25, 13 404:24-406:25, 417:20-25, and 419:6-9. (See Declaration of Deok Keun Matthew Ahn in Support 14 of Apple?s Opposition to Samsung?s Administrative Motion, filed herewith, Ex. 1 at 401-419.) Because Apple will be prejudiced by not being afforded a full and fair opportunity to respond to Mr. Gray?s belated opinions or to even have Dr. Singh?s deposition testimony understood in context, the Court should deny Samsung?s motion.

CONCLUSION

Because the source code identified in Dr. Singh?s declaration (and notably absent from Mr. Gray?s original declaration) does what it does regardless of Samsung?s attempts to characterize it during Dr. Singh?s deposition, Samsung never needed Dr. Singh?s deposition to explain its functionality. Having elected not to timely explain its own code in any meaningful fashion in Mr. Gray?s original declaration, Samsung should not be allowed to undo its ?hide the ball? litigation strategy now.

Dated: December 6, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

4

High crimes indeed. The nerve of Samsung, to try to show the court that it has done work arounds and so should not be banned from the US market.

You can find the Gray declaration and various exhibits mentioned on Samsung's list of attachments (#2189) on page 12 of the filing. And you can find the declaration itself listed on our Apple v. Samsung Timeline, page 2. It's attached to docket number 2054 [PDF], Samsung's opposition to Apple's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Unfortunately, the Gray motion was filed manually, so we can't read it unless someone stops by the courthouse and picks it up. But here's how Samsung's footnote reads that Apple highlights as being inadequate:

The new source code no longer contains ?instructions for, in response to detecting the second gesture, translating the structured electronic document so that the second box is substantially centered on the touch screen display? as required by claim 50 of the ?163 patent. Gray Decl. ??51-55. Now the product either does nothing (single tap) or zooms out (double tap) in response to the second gesture. Id. ?52. Likewise, the new code no longer performs the ?quintessential test? of ?distinguishing between a single input point . . . that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or more input points . . . that are interpreted as the gesture operation? as required by claim 8 of the ?915 patent. Id. ??31-44; RT 1822:22-1826:22 (Singh testimony).

I can't tell you how much it bothers me that anyone would have to work around patents like these. Apple wants to make it impossible for competing devices to work as one would expect a device to work. That way it gets to be perceived as the best in the world, thank to a patent system run amok.

Patents on gestures, on tapping a screen twice.

Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121208100325707

PSEG hocus pocus hocus pocus mta schedule PECO chris christie Hurricane Sandy update

Study shows growth in second screen users

NEW YORK (AP) ? Television viewers were once called couch potatoes. Many are becoming more active while watching now, judging by the findings in a new report that illustrates the explosive growth in people who watch TV while connected to social media on smartphones and tablets.

The Nielsen company said that one in three people using Twitter in June sent messages at some point about the content of television shows, an increase of 27 percent from only five months earlier. And that was before the Olympics, which was probably the first big event to illustrate the extent of second screen usage.

"Twitter has become the second screen experience for television," said Deirdre Bannon, vice president of social media at Nielsen.

Social networking is becoming so pervasive that the study found nearly a third of people aged 18-to-24 reported using the sites while in the bathroom.

An estimated 41 percent of tablet owners and 38 percent of smartphone owners used their device while also watching television at least once a day, Nielsen said.

That percentage hasn't changed much; in fact, 40 percent of smartphone owners reported daily dual screen usage a year earlier, Nielsen said. The difference is that far more people own these devices and they are using them for a longer period of time. The company estimated that Americans spent a total of 157.5 billion minutes on mobile devices in July 2012, nearly doubling the 81.8 billion the same month a year earlier.

"There are big and interesting implications," Bannon said. "I think both television networks and advertisers are onto it."

The social media can provide networks with real-time feedback on what they are doing. The performance of moderators at presidential debates this fall was watched more closely than perhaps ever before, because people were instantly taking on Twitter to provide their own critiques.

It also makes for some conflicting information: Twitter buzzed with complaints last summer about NBC's policy of airing many Olympics events from London on tape delay, yet ratings for the prime-time Olympics telecast soared past expectations.

The increase in people watching television and commenting about it online would seem to run counter to another big trend this fall: more people recording programs and watching them at a later hour. Those contrary trends both increase the value of live event programming like awards shows or sporting events.

The Nielsen study also found that 35 percent of people who used tablets while watching TV looked up information online about the program they were watching. A quarter of tablet owners said they researched coupons or deals for products they saw advertised on television

As rapid as the use of social media while on television is growing in the United States, it already lags behind other countries. Nielsen said that 63 percent of people in the Middle East or Africa report using social media while on TV, and 52 percent of people in Latin America.

The U.S. media survey is based on a representative sample of 1,998 adults in Nielsen's regular TV ratings panel, conducted online between July 19 and Aug. 8. Nielsen's global survey involved more than 28,000 people in 51 countries and was taken between March 23 and April 12, 2011.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/study-shows-growth-second-screen-users-122518350.html

bishop eddie long madonna give me all your luvin video roseanne barr president green party