Source: http://news.yahoo.com/people-suffering-intimate-partner-violence-better-help-110000295.html
grenada Sikh Sanya Richards Ross decathlon Honey Boo Boo Child Nathan Adrian London 2012 Synchronized Swimming
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Moved by the Assad regime's rapid advance, the Obama administration could decide this week to approve lethal aid for the beleaguered Syrian rebels and will weigh the merits of a less likely move to send in U.S. airpower to enforce a no-fly zone over the civil war-wracked nation, officials said Sunday.
White House meetings are planned over the coming days, as Syrian President Bashar Assad's government forces are apparently poised for an attack on the key city of Homs, which could cut off Syria's armed opposition from the south of the country. As many as 5,000 Hezbollah fighters are now in Syria, officials believe, helping the regime press on with its campaign after capturing the town of Qusair near the Lebanese border last week.
Opposition leaders have warned Washington that their rebellion could face devastating and irreversible losses without greater support, and the warnings are prompting the United States to consider drastic action.
Secretary of State John Kerry postponed a planned trip Monday to Israel and three other Mideast countries to participate in White House discussions, said officials who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.
While nothing has been concretely decided, U.S. officials said President Barack Obama was leaning closer toward signing off on sending weapons to vetted, moderate rebel units. The U.S. has spoken of possibly arming the opposition in recent months but has been hesitant because it doesn't want al-Qaida-linked and other extremists fighting alongside the anti-Assad militias to end up with the weapons.
Obama already has ruled out any intervention that would require U.S. military boots on the ground. Other options such as deploying American air power to ground the regime's jets, gunships and other aerial assets are now being more seriously debated, the officials said, while cautioning that a no-fly zone or any other action involving U.S. military deployments in Syria were far less likely right now.
The president also has declared chemical weapons use by the Assad regime a "red line" for more forceful U.S. action. American allies including France and Britain have say they've determined with near certitude that Syrian forces have used low levels of sarin in several attacks, but the administration is still studying the evidence. The U.S. officials said responses that will be mulled over in this week's meetings concern the deteriorating situation on the ground in Syria, independent of final confirmation of possible chemical weapons use.
White House spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said Obama's advisers were considering all options to hasten a transition in Syria.
"The United States will continue to look for ways to strengthen the capabilities of the Syrian opposition," she said.
Any intervention could have wide-reaching ramifications for the United States and the region. It would bring the U.S. closer to a conflict that has killed almost 80,000 people since Assad cracked down on protesters inspired by the Arab Spring in March 2011 and sparked a war that has since been increasingly defined by sectarian clashes between the Sunni-led rebellion and Assad's Alawite-dominated regime.
And it would essentially pit the United States alongside regional allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar in a proxy war against Iran, which is providing much of the materiel to the Syrian government's counterinsurgency and, through Hezbollah, more and more of the manpower.
Syria's precarious position in the heart of the Middle East makes the conflict extremely unpredictable. Lebanon, across the western border, suffered its own brutal civil war in the 1970s and the 1980s and is already experiencing increased interethnic tensions. Iraq, to Syria's east, is mired in worsening violence. And Israel to the southwest has seen shots fired across the contested Golan Heights and has been forced to strike what it claimed were advanced weapons convoys heading to Hezbollah, with whom it went to war with in 2006.
Iran could wreak havoc in the region through its support of Shiite militant groups, and U.S. officials fear Iran may seek to retaliate for any stepped-up American involvement by targeting Israel or U.S. interests in the region. It's also unclear what American action would mean for relations with Russia, which has provided Assad with military and diplomatic support even as it claims that it working with the United States to try to organize a Syrian peace conference.
At the same time, it's unclear how Washington could fundamentally change the trajectory of a conflict that has increasingly tilted toward Assad in recent months without providing weapons to the opposition forces or getting involved itself.
The administration has been studying for months how to rebalance Syria's war so that moderate, pro-democracy rebels defeat the regime or make life so difficult for Assad and his supporters that the government decides it must join a peace process that entails a transition away from the Assad family's four-decade dictatorship.
But Assad's military successes appear to have rendered peace efforts largely meaningless in the short term. While Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov have been trying to rally support for the planned conference in Geneva ? first envisioned for May and since postponed until July at the earliest ? even America's allies in the Syrian opposition leadership have questioned the wisdom of sitting down for talks while they are ceding territory all over the country to Assad's forces.
Beyond weapons support for the rebels, administration officials harbor deep reservations about other options.
They note that a no-fly zone, championed by hawks in Congress such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would require the U.S. to first neutralize Syrian air defense systems that have been reinforced with Russian technology and are far stronger than those that Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi had before the U.S. and its Arab and European allies helped rebels overthrow him in 2011. And unlike with Libya, Washington has no clear international mandate for authorizing any strikes inside Syria, a point the Obama administration has harped on since late 2011 to explain its reticence about more forceful action.
Homs has one of the biggest Alawite communities in Syria and is widely seen as pro-Assad. The rebels control the city center, however, with regime forces besieging them on the outskirts.
Many towns north of Homs also are rebel-controlled, while to the south Hezbollah-backed government forces have been clearing rebels from villages and towns. Fierce fighting there over the past three weeks has killed dozens of rebels, troops and Hezbollah fighters and wounded hundreds.
Seizing control of Homs would clear a path for the regime from Damascus to the Mediterranean coast, and firm up its grip on much of the country.
___
AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-sources-us-close-ok-arming-syrian-rebels-225528415.html
crossbow airhead atherosclerosis steven tyler tropic thunder carnie wilson missing
Streaming service provider Twitch is updating its software development kit to help its developer partners increase engagement with players and viewers that are tuning in to their games. The new online toolkit will be especially useful for community portals, providing more social features, as well as tools to improve content discovery.Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/YSsyOLeiDiw/
Sunil Tripathi Tavon Austin Ella Fitzgerald Kenny Vaccaro Kate McKinnon gwyneth paltrow Pink moon
The app ecosystem is showing no signs of slowing down. That’s what Apple essentially announced today, revealing that there are now 900,000 iOS applications?available for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch. Though the app stores are getting filled up and shifting more of the revenue to top publishers, the market itself is not decreasing as a result. The company added 250,000 more iOS applications to its App Store from 2012 to 2013, in between its annual WWDC announcements. The year before, it had added 225,000 applications (between 2011 and 2012), and before that, some 200,000 new apps?came on board. That’s incredible growth, actually, because you would almost think that App Store growth would have been the other way around – that there would have been an initial gold rush as developers filled its virtual shelves with new apps, then growth would have slowed over the years as all the “good ideas” were taken, so to speak. Even now, it’s harder than ever for indie developers to really make it on the App Store, but that doesn’t seem to be impacting the number of new apps available. And while it’s true that some are just now starting to shift their focus to Android and Google Play (which is starting to see a few success stories of its own), it appears that shift has not come at the expense of Apple’s iOS. App Growth Over The Years: 900,000-650,000 = 250,000 new apps between 2012-2013 650,000-425,000 = 225,000 new apps between 2011-2012 425,000-225,000 = 200,000 new apps between 2010-2011 The App Store gold rush is clearly still in its early days yet.Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/dS7F1gNLEhY/
mick jagger Newton Shooting Newtown Shooting Gangnam Style Ryan Lanza Sandy Hook Univision
Last week I had an interesting Twitter conversation regarding a popular rhetorical strategy surrounding maker-spaces, New Librarianship, participatory culture, and the other assorted ?big ideas? for the future of libraries.? Now, I think makerspaces are pretty cool and I certainly don?t want anyone to think I want to be slagging on making/hacking/tinkering but, even though makerspaces are rad, they?re being marketed with some pretty suspect rhetoric. Let me give you a few examples:
?We believe the library of the last century is the library of consumption, an institution that reflects the broadcast era of media, the place where you watch, read, and listen passively from an armchair. The library of this century is the place where new social relationships are forged and knowledge is created, explored, and shared.? (Nate Hill & Jeff Goldenson, ?Making Room for Innovation?, Library Journal, May 16, 2013 [link])
?Librarianship is not about artifacts, it is about knowledge and facilitating knowledge creation. So what should we be spending our precious resources on? Knowledge creation tools, not the results of knowledge creation.? (Dave Lankes, The Atlas of New Librarianship, p. 43)
?So what does it mean for libraries to give our communities the tools, access, training, and permission to make, hack, and tinker instead of simply consume?? (Laura Britton, ?The Makings of Maker Spaces, Part 1?, Library Journal, Oct. 1, 2012 [link])
?By bringing makerspaces into libraries, we can adapt to changing student needs and supporting knowledge creation in addition to knowledge consumption.? (Erin Fisher, ?Makerspaces Move into Academic Libraries?, ACRL TechConnect, November 28, 2012 [link])
?Based on the idea that libraries are for creation, not just consumption, maker spaces don?t just upend the normal programming model?they have the potential to reinvent the public library.? (Brian Kenney, ?Meet Your Makers?, Publishers Weekly, Mar. 29, 2013 [link])
?The consumption library, to me, is the library that sort of sits back and waits for people to come inside of its doors, to discover what they have, to take it home, to consume it in the privacy of their own home, to consume it one as a time as individuals. Whereas the creation library is the library that sort of embraces that idea of imagination and begins to redesign even its physical space in terms of creation.? (Ken Roberts, ?The Future of Libraries?, Dec. 6, 2012 [link])
Did you catch it??The common thread and the?favored tactic in the literature surrounding libraries and maker-spaces is to draw a sharp distinction between the consumption of knowledge and the creation of knowledge. By ?knowledge consumption? most writers seem to mean reading; by ?knowledge creation? most seem to mean hacking, tinkering, building, making, or collaborating. And the way the conversation is being shaped by this rhetoric, it?s clear that knowledge consumption is old and in the way and what we really need is to forge ahead into a bright future of knowledge creation. Yes, some librarians make the case that we need both creation and consumption (e.g., ??in addition to knowledge consumption?), but the rhetorical device is still in play: knowledge can be either consumed or created, and the library of the future is weighted towards creation.
And, so, I tweeted:
This sparked a long discussion of creation vs. consumption, but as is usually the case with Twitter, it was sort of all over the map. So, I figured I should explain my reasoning here on the blog. Put simply, the rhetoric of knowledge consumption versus knowledge creation equivocates over the concept of knowledge, forcing an adversarial false dilemma. What?s worse, if we try to clarify the equivocation, it quickly becomes apparent that it makes absolutely no sense to contrast knowledge consumption with knowledge creation because, in the context of a library, they?re the same damned thing. Allow me to explain?
First of all, there are two wildly different senses of ?knowledge? at play in the consume/create rhetoric. Start with the type of knowledge in ?knowledge creation?: what is getting created? Well, makerfolk surely aren?t talking about printing knowledge on a Makerbot. At least, I hope they aren?t, because that would be some next-level craziness. No, makerbrarians are most likely talking about creating a certain type of new beliefs, which brings us to the first type of knowledge: epistemic knowledge. And all we mean by creating epistemic knowledge is something along the lines of coming to new justified, true beliefs. It?s like, ?if you tinker with an Arduino, you will acquire knowledge? and there?s nothing wrong with that at all. We acquire new beliefs and new knowledge all the time: it?s called learning.
But, what about the type of knowledge in ?knowledge consumption?? Can we consume beliefs? That is, can we consume mental states?? Ummm, no; your psychic vampire otherkin friend is just delusional. But, we can consume recorded knowledge. Someone knows or believes something, they want to share it, and so they write it down, film it, paint it, and so on. That recorded knowledge is now something consumable: you can read it, watch it, view it, and so on. And we consume recorded knowledge/belief all the time: it?s called information.
So, when I hear makerbrarians proclaim that traditional libraries are about knowledge consumption and future libraries are about knowledge creation, I make a mental substitution: traditional libraries are about information, future libraries are about learning, and so libraries must move away from information in order to facilitate learning.
Wait?what?
This may come as a shock, but libraries have been places of learning for quite some time. It?s kind of our schtick. On the flip side, it?s not clear what a pure creation space would be in the absence of? information ?consumption.? I?m pretty sure that you need to manipulate some information to make that 3D print of Chewbacca riding on a TARDIS, or whatever it is that 3D printers do.
KHAAAANNNN!!!!
Anyway, it should be pretty obvious that, when taken literally, the knowledge creation vs. knowledge consumption distinction is simply bad rhetoric. If anything, consumption and creation?understood as information and learning?are inseparable: you need one to achieve the other. So, saying that we need to replace one with the other is, for lack of a better term?dumb. But, of course, it?s just sloppy rhetoric; the participabrarians don?t really mean to imply that libraries have never been about knowledge creation. Perhaps they mean something more like this?
Traditionally, libraries have invested mostly in the collection, preservation, and provision of access to certain types of information and certain types of cultural objects (i.e., literature) all for the purposes of self-directed learning and/or enculturation. But, in the future, libraries will need to invest more heavily in providing their communities with the tools needed to create technologically-mediated cultural objects and information. It?s not that creation and consumption are opposed to one another, rather, the balance is simply shifting away from collecting information and shifting towards collecting the tools required to process information.
Is that better? Closer to the intent of the consume/create distinction? I think it probably is. But, even the watered down version is still problematic because it highlights a rather sizable lacuna in the maker movement manifesto: what makes learning to build a small computer or learning to design and 3D print a small plastic object a greater social good or more intrinsically valuable than the myriad other types of learning available in the library?* Is learning how to make your iPhone open your garage door a more valuable skill than learning a new language? Is there something available in the Thingiverse to help patrons study for finals? For the GED? For the citizenship exam? Is there an app for storytime? Sure, geek elites like Cory Doctorow will argue that making and hacking are absolutely critical to the future of information literacy (?If computers are on your side, they elevate every single thing we use to measure quality of life. So we need to master computers???to master the systems of information, so that we can master information itself. That?s where makers come in? [link]). But, we?re not all technological determinists like Doctorow and it?s a hell of a category mistake to assume that understanding a piece of hardware is necessary for information literacy. It?s like saying that you have to be able to make a paintbrush to appreciate art (or to be a painter). Other fablabrarians make vague pronouncements about improving communities, like, ?instead of building better bombs, emerging technology can help build better communities? [link]. Again, I?m sure you can improve a community through tinkering, but you can also improve it through promoting literacy or providing information about sustainability or literally a million other activities. So, it?s still not clear how the future of libraries is in tinkering.
I?m not saying that the things you can do in a maker space aren?t cool, useful, and important. They absolutely are. I?m completely okay with saying that makerspaces have a place in the library because they do address certain, important information needs. But, I?m not sold on the thoroughly Whiggish rhetoric that makerspaces are the inevitable future of what libraries should be?and, moreover, I am uncomfortable with rhetoric that pits makerspaces against other library offerings. Even if the makerbrarians concede that the consume/create distinction is just a catchy soundbite or elevator pitch to throw out when we need to show the ?continued relevance? of libraries to potential funding sources, all that implies is that non-maker services somehow aren?t relevant. Put another way, not only is the consume/create distinction a false dichotomy, and not only does it avoid questions of social value, but it?s also unnecessarily adversarial. A library patron who wants to read a book is not ?simply consuming.? Story-time can also ?embrace imagination.? The ?results of knowledge creation? are often cherished parts of a community. Let?s change the rhetoric and treat all of our community and patron needs with respect, not just the needs that can be met with ABS and LEDs.
* I should acknowledge that some makerspaces also include activities like sewing, crafting, bicycle repair, and other non-digital offerings. Some rent tools or guitars. Some will even show you how to butcher a hog. These are all awesome. Shoot, I?d love to be able to take a bike tech class. And, if you squint hard enough, you can probably come up with a story that all learning is, in a way, making. But, generally speaking, when librarians talk about makerspaces they?re talking about the 3D printing/hacking/app-building/Arduino programming sort of digital makerspace.
Loading...
Source: http://senseandreference.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/creation-consumption-and-the-library/
tori spelling marion barber marion barber syracuse ohio state girl with the dragon tattoo ohio state basketball
