The Post-Breakup Social Media Survival Guide

Who can resist the urge to look at their?ex?s?Facebook page? Admit it. It calls your name and whispers, ?Check me out!? No harm, right?

An astute researcher in England begs to differ.?A recent study?concluded that the more time you spend on your ex?s Facebook page, the more psychological?distress?you experience, the greater your desire for your ex and the more difficulty you have?moving on.

Admit it. You are not really surprised. That?s because most of us realize that the?toxic connections?we have with our exes are stoked by talking about, thinking about and looking at stuff about them. While lurking on their Facebook page may not morph itself into stalking, it?s just not healthy.?Read more?

Source: http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-12-27/the-post-breakup-social-media-survival-guide/

kim mulkey sarah palin today show dallas tornado video 1940 census instagram for android dallas news dallas fort worth

Amber and Scott: Radvent Day 19: Speaking

Irony is: writing about "speaking" when I've lost my voice again. My poor larynx. I could go on and on about my larynx, which just can't seem to catch a break ... but I won't.

I do have a couple of interesting items to mention regarding this topic.

Say what you?ve been meaning to say.

Today I'm going to tell someone how much I want to be in their life again (after essentially being absent for the last few months). I'm going to tell someone else how much I want to shoot their show again. And I'm going to tell a third person my reservations about becoming involved with their show again. People deserve to know what I'm thinking; silence isn't always golden.

Think about the way you use language.
I was thinking yesterday on the bus about how I want my words to be more intentional in 2013. I have a ?habit of blathering on about everything and anything, and I want my words to be more meaningful and purposeful next year. I know there's probably only so much I can stem the tide of my babbling, but as I am so fond of mentioning ... if I don't try, I'll never know what I'm capable of.

Of course, now that I've said that, I don't want to say any more, because once I start going down that?road, almost all communication seems frivolous.

Add something to your vocabulary.

I checked my email right after reading this to find a truly bizarre word of the day. I've subscribed to the Dictionary.com word of the day for ... it seems like the better part of 15 years, though I'm not really sure if that's true or not. Anyway, sometimes it's more useful, and sometimes it's ... not. Today's word could go either way, actually, so I guess that's a good thing (and also ... up to me).

Today's word of the day is a linguistics term: antepenultimate.

Word of the Day for?Friday, December 28, 2012

antepenultimate?\an-tee-pi-NUHL-tuh-mit\,?adjective:

1.?Third from the end.
2.?Of or pertaining to an antepenult.

noun:
1.?An antepenult.

When I looked up "antepenultimate" online, I eventually got to some more interesting information:?In linguistics, the ultima is the last syllable of a word, the penult is the next-to-last syllable, and the antepenult is third-from-last syllable. In a word of three syllables, the names of the syllables are antepenult-penult-ultima." (Souce: Wikipedia).

So there you have it. The more you know?

? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

I'm participating in Radvent this year via the ever-awesome?Princess Lasertron, and you should too!

Source: http://marriedcatpeople.blogspot.com/2012/12/radvent-day-19-speaking.html

8 bit google maps kids choice awards 2012 micah true kansas vs ohio state winning mega million numbers bruce weber boston globe

Step-by-Step Yoga Pose Breakdown: Split-leg Arm Balance - Shape ...

?

Happy Baby with Legs Extended
Warms up your body
Lie on your back, bend your knees, hugging them in toward your chest, and then take the outer edges of your feet in your hands, reaching your knees toward your armpits. Rock softly from left to right if that feels nice, and then slowly start to straighten your right leg. Stay here for 5 deep breaths. Bend your right knee and extend your left leg and stay for 5 more deep breaths.

?Bent Arm Plank Push-ups
Strengthens your arms and makes holding your body weight in the arm balance no big deal
From plank, reach back through your heels, engage your core, and soften through your elbows, reaching them straight back until your forearms graze the sides of your rib cage. Stay here for 5 deep breaths. Lower all the way to the ground, inhale back to plank, and repeat 5 times.?Thigh Taps
Activates your core and essentially puts you in the pose before you even know you are there
From down dog, inhale your right leg high, open the hip, and tap right thigh to your right shoulder, keeping the leg straight if it?s comfortable (if not bend the knee). Bend your elbows, making a shelf for your thigh, and inhale back to down dog split. Do this five times and then repeat on the left.?Devotional Warrior
Opens the hips and prepares the shoulders
From down dog, step right foot forward, spin left heel down, and inhale arms up to frame head in warrior one. Allow hands to fall behind you, clasp them behind your sacrum, take a big inhale to open chest, and use your exhale to fold yourself inside of your right knee. Stay here for at least 5 deep breaths, then repeat on the other side.?Lizard
Opens the hips
From down dog, lift your right leg high to down dog split, open your hip, bend your knee, and step your right foot outside of your right hand and tap your left knee to the ground. If it feels good, gently lower your forearms to the ground and breathe here for 5 deep breaths, then repeat on the left side.?Runner?s Lunge
Opens your hamstrings
From a lunge with your right foot forward, tap your left knee down, and start to reach your hips back toward your left heel as you lengthen your right leg. Try to relax and fold over your right thigh. (If this is too intense on your hamstring, bend your knee until your muscles can relax.) Breathe here for 5 deep breaths, then repeat on the left.?Open-hip Split
A regular split is straight-up killer for your hamstring (and super intense for your psoas), but this is way more accessible to most people as it gives quite a bit of extra room with the hamstring being able to relax a little. You can also think of this arm balance as an open-hip split on your arm.
From down dog, inhale your right leg high, open the hip and anything else that feels good there, and reach your right heel outside of your right hand and continue to slide it forward and a bit out to the right. Only go so far as you can maintain steady breathing. (You can always modify by tapping your back knee down as in runner?s lunge.) Breathe here for 5 deep breaths, come out slowly, then repeat on the left.?Split-leg Arm Balance Prep 1
Come to a low lunge with your right foot forward. Coming from inside the thigh, take hold of your right ankle with your right hand, and wiggle your shoulder underneath your right thigh. Plant your right palm firmly outside of your right foot on the ground and breathe for 3 deep breaths.?Split-leg Arm Balance Prep 2
Now try the pose with a block supporting your back leg. Keeping your back toes on the ground, in your lunge, place a block underneath your left thigh, above the knee and not touching it.?Split-leg Arm Balance Prep 3
Once the block is in place and steady, get your shoulder back under your knee and set up as in the first step. Keeping your right knee bent, start to slide or wiggle your right foot away from you as you bend your elbows toward one another so they don?t wing out and reach your chest forward. With the block supporting your thigh, lift your left toes off the ground. You are in the pose! Breathe here for 3 to 5 deep breaths and then repeat all of the prep on the left side.?Split-leg Arm Balance
Now try it without the block and with the front leg extended (if you wish): Start in a lunge, wiggle your right shoulder underneath your right knee, and place your right hand outside of your right foot. Bend your elbows toward one another and reach your chest forward as you extend your right leg long and lift your left foot off the ground. Have fun with this and breathe for as long as it feels good, then try it on the other side.

Source: http://www.shape.com/blogs/working-it-out/step-step-breakdown-split-leg-arm-balance

los angeles kings earth day timothy leary jonathan frid pujols watchmen hitch

Panasonic P-02E smartphone appears in the FCC flesh, looks Japan-bound

Panasonic P02E smartphone appears in FCC flesh, looks to be Japanbound

Earlier this month, a supposed Panasonic P02-E smartphone popped up on an NTT DoCoMo Japanese server log, but such scant evidence required more than a few grains of salt to swallow it. Now, the ever-reliable FCC has revealed the device to be an actual thing, and putting the two sources together would make it a 5-inch, 1,920 x 1080, Android 4.1.2 smartphone with a quad-core, 1.5GHz APQ8064 Snapdragon S4 Pro CPU, along with LTE and NFC capability. Don't get too excited if those specs float your boat, however -- judging by the retractable TV antenna, NTT DoCoMo origins and general Panasonic elusiveness in the west, it looks to be aimed squarely at the Japanese market only.

Filed under: ,

Comments

Via: Phone Arena

Source: FCC

Source: http://feeds.engadget.com/~r/weblogsinc/engadget/~3/jJ-PEcjoBCQ/

joe paterno memorial service taco bell breakfast menu ener1 national chocolate cake day epstein joshua komisarjevsky barney frank

Computers: It's Time to Start Over - IEEE Spectrum

Steven Cherry: Hi, this is Steven Cherry for IEEE Spectrum?s ?Techwise Conversations.?

If you think about it, it?s weird. Everything about computer security has changed in the past 20 years, but computers themselves haven?t. It?s the world around them that has. An article to be published in the February 2013 issue of Communications of the ACM sums up the situation pretty succinctly: ????

?The role of operating system security has shifted from protecting multiple users from each other toward protecting a single?user from untrustworthy applications.?Embedded devices, mobile phones, and tablets are a point of confluence: The interests of many different parties?must be mediated with the help of operating systems that were designed for another place and time.?

The author of that article is Robert Watson. He advocates taking a fresh start to computing, what he calls a ?clean slate.? He?s a senior research associate in the Security Research Group at the University of Cambridge, and a research fellow at St John's College, also at Cambridge. He?s also a member of the board of directors of the FreeBSD Foundation, and he?s my guest today by phone.

Robert, welcome to the podcast.

Robert Watson: Hi, Steven. It?s great to be with you.

Steven Cherry: Robert, computer security meant something very different before the Internet, and in your view, we aren?t winning the war. What?s changed?

Robert Watson: Right. I think that?s an excellent question. I think we have to see this in a historic context.

So in the 1970s and 1980s, the Internet was this brave new world largely populated by academic researchers. It was used by the U.S. Department of Defense, it was used by U.S. corporations, but it was a very small world, and today we put everyone and their grandmother on the Internet. Certainly the systems that we designed for those research environments, to try and solve really fundamental problems in communications, weren?t designed to resist adversaries. And when we talk about adversaries, we have to be careful, but, you know, I think it?s fair to say that there were, you know, very poor incentives from the perspective of the end user. As we moved to banking and purchasing online, we produced a target, and that target didn?t exist in the 1990s. It does exist today.

Steven Cherry: Your research is focused on the operating system. But how much of computing security is built into the operating system currently?

Robert Watson: We?ve always taken the view that operating system security was really central to how applications themselves experience security. And in historic systems, large multiuser computer systems, you know, we had these central servers or central mainframes, lots of end users on individual terminals. The role of the OS was to help separate these users from each other, to prevent accidents, perhaps to control the flow of information. You didn?t want trade secrets leaking from, perhaps, one account on a system to another one. And when we had large time-sharing systems, we were forced to share computers among many different users. Operating systems have historically provided something called access control. So you allow users to say this file can?t be accessed by this user. This is a very powerful primitive. It allows us to structure the work we do into groups, interact with each other. Users are at their own discretion to decide what they?re going to share and what they won?t.

So the observation we make on these new end-user systems like phones is that what we?re trying to control is very different. The phone is a place where lots of different applications meet. But I?m downloading software off the Internet, and this is something we?ve always, you know, encouraged users to be very cautious about. We said, ?Don?t just download random programs through the Internet. You never know where it will have come from.? You know, you have no information on the providence of the software. And on phones today, we encourage users to download things all the time. So what has changed now? Well, we?ve deployed something called sandboxing inside of these phones so that every application you download runs inside its own sandbox. And that is a very different use of security. And it is provided by the operating system, so it?s still a function of the operating system. So a phone is trying to mediate between these applications, prevent them from doing what people sort of rather vividly describe as ?bricking? the phone. So you have integrity guarantees that you want. You don?t want to damage the operation of the phone. But you also don?t want information to spread between applications in ways that you don?t want.

Steven Cherry: Now, let?s talk about Clean Slate. This is research you?re conducting for the Department of Defense in the U.S., along with noted computer scientist Peter Neumann. Neumann was recently profiled in The New York Times, and he was quoted as saying that the only workable and complete solution to the computer security crisis is to study the past half-century?s research, cherry-pick the best ideas, and then build something new from the bottom up. What does that mean?

Robert Watson: That?s a great question. I mean it is an interesting problem. You know, the market is controlled by what people are willing to pay for a product. And one of the things we know about the computer industry is that it?s very driven by this concept of ?time to market.? You want to get things to the consumer as soon as possible. You don?t do everything 100 percent right. You do it 90 percent right or 70 percent right, because you can always issue updates later, or once you?re doing a bit better in the marketplace, replace the parts, and your second-generation users will expect something a little bit better than what we call early adopters, who are willing to take risks as they adopt technology. So there?s a cycle there that means that we?re willing to put things out that aren?t quite ready. So when we look at algorithms to search for desired values in some large space?and we have this term which is called hill climbing, and the idea of hill climbing is that wherever you are, you look around your set of strategic choices. Do you adjust this parameter? Do you adjust that parameter? And you pick the one that seems to take you closest to the goal that you?re getting to. And you just repeat this process over time, and eventually you get to the top of the hill. So there?s a risk in this strategy. It?s not a bad strategy. It does get you to the top of a hill, but it might get you to the top of the wrong hill.

So what the Clean Slate approach advocates is not throwing the whole world away, but instead taking a step back and asking, Have we been chasing, you know, the wrong goals all along? Or have we made the right choice at every given moment given where we were, but we ended up at the top of the wrong hill? And that?s really what it?s all about. Peter talks about a crisis, and I think it is a crisis. We can see what is effectively an arms race between the people building systems and the people who are attacking systems on a daily basis. Every time you get a critical security update from your vendor or a new antivirus update?these things happen daily or weekly?they reflect the discovery and exploitation of vulnerabilities in the software that we rely on to do our jobs. So we?re clearly, as the defenders, at something of a disadvantage.

And there?s an asymmetric relationship, as we like to say. The attacker has to find just one flaw in order to gain control of our systems. And we, as defenders, have to close all flaws. We must make no mistakes, and we cannot build systems that way; it?s just not a reliable way of doing it. It doesn?t solve the problem. Antivirus is fundamentally responsive. It?s about detecting somebody?s broken into your machine and trying to clean up the mess that?s been left behind by poorly crafted malware that can?t defend itself against a knowledgeable adversary. It presupposes that they?ve gotten in, that they?ve gotten access to your data, they could have done anything they want with your computer, and it?s the wrong way to think about it. It?s not to say that we shouldn?t use antivirus in the meantime, but it can?t be the long-term answer, right? It means that somebody else has already succeeded in their goal.

Steven Cherry: Yeah, I guess what you want to do is compartmentalize our software, and I guess the New York Times article talked about software that shape-shifts to elude would-be attackers. How would that work?

Robert Watson: You know, we could try to interfere with the mechanisms used to exploit vulnerabilities. So, you know, a common past exploit mechanism, something called a buffer of the flow attack. So the vulnerability is that the bounds are calculated incorrectly on a buffer inside of the software, and you overflow the buffer by sending more data than the original software author expected. And as you overflow the buffer, you manage to inject some code, or you manage to insert a new program that will get executed when the function that you?re attacking returns. So this allows the adversary to take control of your machine. So we could eliminate the bug that left a buffer overflow, but imagine for a moment that we?re unable to do that. Well, we could interfere with the way the buffer overflow exploit works. We could prevent it from successfully getting code into execution. So this is something we try to do: Many contemporary systems deploy mitigation techniques. It?s hard to get an operating system that doesn?t. If you use Windows or you use iOS, use [audio unintelligible], they all deploy lots of mitigation techniques that attack exploit techniques.

So the one that we?re particularly interested in is one called compartmentalization. And the principle is? fairly straightforward. We take a large piece of software, like a Web browser, and we begin to break it into pieces. And we run every one of those pieces in something called a sandbox. A sandbox is a container, if you will, and the software in the sandbox is only allowed to do certain things with respect to the system that runs outside the sandbox. So a nice example of this is actually in the Chrome Web browser. So in Chrome, every tab is rendered inside a separate sandbox. And the principle is that if a vulnerability is exploited by a particular Web page, it?s not able to interfere with the contents of other Web pages in the same Web browser.

So originally this functionality was about robustness. What you don?t want is a bug in the rendering of any one page to make all your other tabs close, right, crash the Web browser, require you to effectively, well you almost reboot your computer in some sense as you get started up in your Web sessions again. But Google noticed that they could align these sandboxes with the robust units that they were processing each tab in, try and prevent undesired interference between them. So that?s kind of a rudimentary example of compartmentalization. And it does work, but there were some problems with it.

What we?d really like to do, though, is align these sandboxes or compartments with every individual task that we?re trying to accomplish and the specific rights that are needed. And there?s an interesting principle called the principle of least privilege, which was an idea first really talked about in the mid-1970s, sort of proposed at MIT. And what the principle says is every individual piece of software should run with only the rights that it requires to execute. So if we run software that way, then we?re actually?we can be successful at mitigating attacks, because when you exploit a vulnerability in a piece of software, whether it?s a buffer overflow or maybe something more subtle or maybe something in the logic of the program itself, we just got the rules wrong, you now gain some rights. But you gain only the rights of that particular compartment.

For example, we?d really like not to be able to see what is going on in your online banking. It would seem natural to us as users that that should be the case. But it requires very granular sandboxing. This is part of where our Clean Slate research comes in. Current computer systems were not designed to provide that granularity of sandboxing.

Steven Cherry: You?ve used the word ?fundamental? a couple of times, and I think what you?re advocating is really fundamental. It?s in some ways changing the entire 60-year paradigm of computing, abandoning what?s sometimes called the von Neumann architecture. This is a different Neumann, John von Neumann, who coinvented game theory as well as the modern computer. According to, you know, basically we don?t even put code and data in separate sandboxes. Am I right in thinking it?s that fundamental, and do you think the discipline of computer science is really ready for such a fundamental change?

Robert Watson: Well, it?s an interesting question. So, you know, the von Neumann architecture, as you suggest, originally described in the paper in the mid 1940s on the heels of the success of systems like ENIAC and so on. And what John von Neumann says is if we store the program?you know, there are a number of aspects in the architecture?if we store the program in the same memory that we store data in, we gain enormous flexibility. Provides access to ideas like software compilers that allow us to describe software at a high level and have the computer itself write the code that it?s later going to run. It?s a, you know, pretty fundamental change in the nature of computing.

I don?t want to roll back that aspect of computing, but we have to understand that many of the vulnerabilities that we suffer today are a direct consequence of that design for computers. So I talked a moment ago about this idea of code injection attacks at the buffer overflow where I, as the attacker, can send you something that exploits a bug and injects code. This is a very powerful model for an attacker because, you know, suppose for a moment we couldn?t do that. I?d be looking for vulnerabilities that directly correspond to my goals as the attacker. So I have to find a logical bug that allows the leaking of information. You know, I could probably find one, perhaps. But it?s much more powerful for me to be able to send you new code that you?re going to run on the target machine directly, giving me complete flexibility.

So, yes, we want to revisit some of these ideas. I?d make the observation that the things that are really important to us, that we want to perform really well on computers, that have to scale extremely well, so there could be lots and lots of them, are the things that we put in low-level hardware. The reason we do that is that they often have aspects of their execution which perform best when they?re directly catered to by our processor design. A nice example of this is graphical processing. So, today, every computer, every mobile device, ships with something that just didn?t exist in computers 10 or 15 years ago, called a graphical processing unit, a graphics processing unit, a GPU. So today you don?t buy systems without them. They?re the thing that makes it possible to blend different images, you know, render animations at high speed and so on. Have the kind of snazzy, three-dimensional graphics we see on current systems. Hard to imagine life without it.

The reason that was sucked into our architecture design is that we could make it dramatically faster by supporting it directly in hardware. If we now think security is important to us, extremely important to us because of the costs and the consequences of getting it wrong, there?s a strong argument for pulling that into hardware if it provides us with dramatic improvement in scalability.

Steven Cherry: Well, Robert, it sounds like we?re still in the early days of computing. I guess in car terms we?re still in maybe the 1950s. I guess the MacBook Pro is maybe a Studebaker or Starliner, and the Air is a 1953 Corvette. And it?s up to folks like you to lay the groundwork for the safe Volvos and Subarus of tomorrow. In fact, also for making our cars safe from hackers, I guess, but that?s a whole other show. Thanks, and thanks for joining us today.

Robert Watson: Absolutely. No, I think your comparison is good, right. The computer world is still very much a fast-moving industry. We don?t know what systems will look like when we?re done. I think the only mistake we could make is to think that we are done, that we have to live with the status quo that we have. There is still the opportunity to revise fundamental thinking here while maintaining some of the compatibility we want. You know, we can still drive on the same roads, but we can change the vehicles that we drive on them. Thanks very much.

Steven Cherry: Very good. Thanks again.

We?ve been speaking with Robert Watson about finally making computers more secure, instead of less.

For IEEE Spectrum?s ?Techwise Conversations,? I?m Steven Cherry.

This interview was recorded 5 December 2012.
Segment producer: Barbara Finkelstein; audio engineer: Francesco Ferorelli

Read more ?Techwise Conversations? or follow us on Twitter.

NOTE: Transcripts are created for the convenience of our readers and listeners and may not perfectly match their associated interviews and narratives. The authoritative record of IEEE Spectrum?s audio programming is the audio version.


Download an mp3 of this podcast
RSS feed for this podcast

Source: http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/computing/software/computers-its-time-to-start-over

don t trust the b in apartment 23 world financial center shabazz muhammad angela corey zimmerman charged bonobos charles manson

TSA confiscates record number of guns at US airports in 2012

3 hrs.

Travelers have attempted to carry more than 1,500 firearms through U.S. airports and?on?board airplanes in 2012, according to the Transportation Security Administration.?

As of Friday, TSA's gun?tally sat at 1,527?? 1,295 of which were loaded ? and this week?s count will likely bring the final tally just past 1,550 before the year ends.

Once a weapon is found, the TSA?s job ends, David Castelveter, the agency?s director of external communications, told Skift.??We are not an arresting authority. We don?t have detention authority. If somebody comes through with a weapon the immediate procedure is to call the local authority,? he said. ?There are some states where they just tell you to take it back to the car; in others you?ll end up at Rikers.?

Beyond the weekly tallies, which the TSA posts every Friday afternoon on its blog,?TSA does not follow arrests, indictments?or convictions stemming from firearms violations.??We just keep track of the confiscations, because the police don?t always keep us apprised of what happens,? Castelveter said.??We don?t pay attention to the arrest unless it turns into an indictment and we have an agent give testimony in a trial.?

The second half of 2012 has seen an increase over gun activity in the first six months: In July?On the National Security Beat, a project of Medill Journalism School, reported that 697 guns had been found, 170 of which were not only loaded but had rounds in their chambers.

Skift reported?earlier this month?that of the top 11 airports for firearms confiscation, five were in Texas, two were in Florida, and the most-confiscated title went to Atlanta?s?Hartsfield ? Jackson International.

More?stories?from Skift

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/travel/tsa-confiscates-record-number-guns-us-airports-2012-1C7753890

morgellons disease arik armstead sag awards red carpet torrey pines nhl all star game 2012 pollyanna samuel adams

Contact 6: Man steals from real estate investors through Ponzi ... - WITI

Posted on: 9:10 pm, December 25, 2012, by Katrina Cravy, updated on: 10:25pm, December 25, 2012

MILWAUKEE ? He promised investors big returns in a house flipping business, but instead, he ran a Ponzi scheme that took millions from over 170 people. So, how did he do it? FOX6?s Contact 6 offers a closer look.

Investing in real estate can be a sound investment ? so when investors heard they could make a 12% return on their money by investing in a business that was buying and then quickly selling houses, hundreds signed up.

The problem: Donald Lacey, the former police officer who pitched them wasn?t trying to make them money.

?What Mr. Lacey didn?t tell his investors was that the money was going to three entities under his control, and he took the money for personal use,? U.S. Postal Inspector Meredith Newman said.

Postal inspectors say Lacey?s investment scam cost over 200 people over $9 million.

?That money was spent on homes, vehicles, boats ? things along those lines,? Newman said.

Authorities say Lacey used his position as a former police officer to cheat those around him.

?Mr. Lacey was highly-regarded in the community. The people he solicited from were people he knew very well based on his reputation,? Newman said.

Postal inspectors say it is so important for investors to do their due diligence before investing any money.?

Those who believe they may be a victim of a Ponzi-related scheme or any crime related to the U.S. Mail can call 1-877-876-2455 or file a complaint with postal inspectors online.?

Source: http://fox6now.com/2012/12/25/contact-6-man-steals-from-real-estate-investors-through-ponzi-scheme/

jim carrey san francisco chronicle kourtney kardashian pregnant kourtney kardashian pregnant chip kelly billy cundiff super bowl tickets

Mexican regulator approves $1.6 billion deal for BBVA pension fund

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico's antitrust agency approved the $1.6 billion acquisition of BBVA's pension fund by Grupo Financiero Banorte and the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS), Banorte said on Wednesday.

Banorte and the IMSS, a state-run health organization, will operate Mexico's biggest pension fund, with nearly one-third of the total market.

The deal, announced late last month and already approved by Mexico's pension fund regulator, has all the necessary authorizations to complete the acquisition, the bank said.

Banorte, which runs Mexico's No. 4 bank by assets, has been actively bulking up its operations in the country. Last year, it bought boutique bank Ixe, which gave it access to a portfolio of wealthy clients.

(Reporting by Alexandra Alper and Veronica Gomez; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/mexican-regulator-approves-1-6-billion-deal-bbva-145710519--finance.html

focus on the family packers vs giants giants score 2012 golden globe nominations texans lana del rey snl enemy of the state

Starbucks to Congress: 'Come together' on fiscal cliff

1 hr.

Starbucks Corp will use its ubiquitous coffee cups to tell U.S. lawmakers to come up with a deal to avoid going over the "fiscal cliff" and triggering automatic tax hikes and spending cuts.?

Chief Executive Howard Schultz is urging workers in Starbucks' roughly 120 Washington-area shops to write "come together" on customers' cups on Thursday and Friday, as U.S. President Barack Obama and lawmakers return to work and attempt to revive fiscal cliff negotiations that collapsed before the Christmas holiday.?

Starbucks' cup campaign aims to send a message to sharply divided politicians and serve as a rallying cry for the public in the days leading up to lawmakers' January 1 deadline to deliver a plan to avert harsh across-the-board government spending reductions and tax increases that could send the United States back into recession.?

"We're paying attention, we're greatly disappointed in what's going on and we deserve better," Schultz told Reuters in a telephone interview.?

The CEO said he has joined a growing list of high-powered business leaders, politicians and financial experts in endorsing the Campaign to Fix the Debt, (www.fixthedebt.org) a well-funded nonpartisan group that is leaning on lawmakers to put the United States' financial house in order.?

Starbucks plans to amplify its "come together" message via new and old media, including Twitter and Facebook posts, coverage on AOL's local news websites and advertisements in The Washington Post and The New York Times.?

"If (talks) do not progress, we will make this much bigger," Schultz said of the messaging campaign.?

Schultz is no stranger to using the world's biggest coffee chain as a platform to advocate for more political cooperation in Washington.?

During the debt ceiling debate in August 2011, he made a splash by calling for a boycott of political contributions to U.S. lawmakers until they struck a fair and bipartisan deal on the country's debt, revenue and spending.?

"We are facing such dysfunction, irresponsibility and lack of leadership" less than two years after the debt ceiling crisis, Schultz said.?

Washington narrowly avoided a U.S. government default, but not before down-to-the-wire wrangling prompted the country's first-ever debt rating downgrade.?

"There is something so wrong that we can be here again and not have the ability to put party aside for the betterment of the country," said Schultz. "We have the same language and rhetoric. Unfortunately we aren't learning much."?

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/starbucks-congress-come-together-fiscal-cliff-deal-1C7661430

the firm new york philharmonic marines urinating on taliban critics choice awards super pac dre kirkpatrick mls superdraft

Shopular?s New App Alerts You To Nearby Deals, No Coupon Clipping Required

shopular_ios_circulars1_whiteShopular, a mobile shopping startup coming out of Y Combinator's Winter 2012 batch, is today formally launching its smart couponing application on both iOS and Android. Founded by two former Shopkick engineers, Shopular soft-launched its app a few weeks ago, but with today's update, it now offers national coverage at retailers and malls across the U.S.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/r1zlflMvaxc/

wooly mammoth no child left behind no child left behind neurofibromatosis steve jobs fbi file suge knight obama birth control