Wireless Security Alarm

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A Virginia man accused of threatening on Facebook to detonate pipe bombs on the D.C. subway system was ordered Tuesday to undergo a mental evaluation.

Awais Younis, a native of Afghanistan, was arrested last week and charged with communicating threats across state lines. Younis, 25, who lives in Arlington, described to a friend last month during a Facebook chat how he could build a pipe bomb with specific types of shrapnel to cause maximum damage on the Metro system, according to a sworn statement from an FBI agent. He also discussed planting pipe bombs underneath a sewer head in D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood.

When the friend suggested he was not serious, Younis responded “Watch me.”

The friend alerted the FBI. In a subsequent Facebook chat, Younis threatened the unidentified tipster and told her that “the problem with Americans they cant leave well enough alone until something happends then they sit there wondering why we dropped the twin towers like a bad habit.”

Authorities arrested Younis, who also used the name Sundullah “Sunny” Ghilzai, on Dec. 7, two days after the second chat. The arrest was first reported by The Washington Examiner.

Younis’ attorney, federal public defender Todd Richman, declined comment Tuesday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ivan Davis has ordered Younis remain jailed pending a mental health evaluation. Another hearing is scheduled for Dec. 21.

The case against Younis differs from the recent arrest of Farooque Ahmed, who was charged in October with conspiring with people he thought were al-Qaida members to bomb the D.C. Metro system. In the Ahmed case, prosecutors brought terrorism charges against Ahmed after a monthslong investigation in which Ahmed met with undercover operatives to advance what he thought was an al-Qaida plot.

Younis was not charged under terrorism statutes and never conspired with undercover operatives.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement that Younis has not been charged with any federal terrorism violation.

“The public should be reassured that his activities prior to his arrest were carefully monitored and that there is no threat against Metrorail or the general public in the Washington, D.C. area,” he said.

PRLog (Press Release) –
Dec 14, 2010 – Best Herbal Weight Loss Pills

It may be a good idea to do your own research first before deciding to take herbal slimming pills to lose weight. You can go online and learn more about the product from the manufacturer's website, or you can go to your personal certified nutritionist to find out more about what the pills are made of, or you can even opt to do a trial period to use the pills to see if they really work.

When you get the opportunity to look at an actual bottle of herbal slimming pills, you will want to look at the label and find out what ingredients the herbal diet pills are actually made of. If you don't know the effects of some ingredients, you can even search online and find out more about them. Or give your doctor or nutritionist a call to ask about certain ingredients, just to be sure.

You can even get more advice and information from people who have actually used the product. It is easy to find them by just going online and joining forums that cater to that particular product or to groups who share information about herbal weight loss pills. Through these forums you can get unbiased opinions about certain herbal diet pills. There are also some reviews given by users of the product that can be found on different online websites. Get Internet #1 - Best Herbal Weight Loss Pills @ http://dietcure01.webs.com and start keeping slim without cutting food!

These diet pills which are all-natural are mainly sold by manufacturers directly, so you can actually find their websites easily through a simple search online. There may also be online individual distributors who will offer great deals on the product prices as well, and will also chat with you to help you decide whether to take them or not.

The surest way you can decide would be to visit your nutritionist or your doctor to learn more about the product. Your doctor will best know what kind of health you are in and whether or not it is advisable to take herbal diets pills or not. They can give you the best information about how such pills should be taken and the effects they have on the body.

There are many distributors and companies that will have special trial periods wherein the customer can try out their product for free for a month or less. Taking advantage of these offers may be the best way that you can find out if the herbal slimming pills work or not. Of course, consult your certified nutritionist on it and maybe her or she can monitor your use during the trial period.

Generally, it is advisable for people who want to lose weight using herbal pills to consult their doctor or nutritionist first. Whether one takes an herbal or non-herbal product, either will have effects on your body that you may or may not be comfortable with. Your best bet is to get the best advice from your doctor before making the final decision to use herbal slimming pills to lose weight. Get Internet #1 - Best Herbal Weight Loss Pills @ http://dietcure01.webs.com and start keeping slim without cutting food!


Reference research: finance research and health research and general research and my bookmark page




travel promote

You know how hard it is when a family pet goes missing, and then actually stays lost. There is the moment when you have to explain what's going on to the children, the part where you have to paste signs across the neighborhood, and the worst element - the waiting for your beloved bed to hopefully find its way back home. But now something even worse is happening as these 'lost pets' are being picked up and sold to universities for dissection and medical research in its science labs.

It's bad enough to tell your children that Sparky is lost, but it'd be much worse to tell them that Sparky is being dissected by the college students downtown. The Humane Society estimated that about 18,000 dogs and cats are picked up each year and then sold to university laboratories. Some of these animals are found through classified 'looking for a good home' adoption listings, and some are lost pets.

Those who scoop up the stray animals and sell them to labs are called Class B Dealers, and it is estimated that there are fewer of them around today than in the past, but they are still around. These Class B Dealers scour the streets of neighborhoods looking for dogs and cats that may have become lost from their homes. They also search the classified ads for animals that have been listed for adoption. The Humane Society estimates that 20% of all animals that are used in medical research labs come from these Class B Dealers

Animal advocacy groups are now hoping that it will be made illegal to sell strays for scientific purposes. However on the other side of the coin, medical research labs are arguing that animals that come from unknown origins are not used in their testings. Animal advocacy leaders are hoping that a change will be imminent. They believe that only animals that are donated by their owners, are not strays, or are living in a shelter should be given over to medical research labs.

Right now the bill, entitled 'Buck's Bill' after a black hound dog who was mistreated by a Class B Dealer, is still up for debate in Congress. Many people treat their pets as part of the family, almost as if they're just another relative. It is heart wrenching when a pet becomes lost, but at least if Buck's Bill were passed it would be a much less likely scenario that the cherished pet would end up in a medical laboratory.

Associated Press, " Humane Society Pushes to Ban Pet Sales to Labs." MSNBC News. URL: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18662520/)




Reference research: beauty research and computer research and travel research and my social page




blog

Patricia L. Sullivan, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia's School of Public and International Affairs recently completed a study advancing a new model which predicts a nation's probability of accomplishing military objectives. Sullivan's research, reported in the June issue of the Journal of Conflict Resolution and by the UGA Office of Public Affairs News Service, found that since WWII major countries, including the United States, the Soviet Union, Russia, China, Britain or France, have failed in 39% of 122 military objectives against smaller, weaker nations.

Under a grant funded by the National Science Foundation and institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation Sullivan conducted research to explain the "circumstances under which more powerful nations are likely to fail and creates a model that allows policymakers to calculate the probability of success in current and future conflicts, "according to the UGA News Service.

Factors which Sullivan found important are the objective, the nature of the target, whether or not the target cooperates with the objective, whether the target or country initiating the action has allies, whether allies will intervene on either side, and the military strength or weakness of allies.

The factor most easily defined is the objective. The objective is the reason for military intervention. Objective, in Sullivan's model, is based on a continuum from "brute force" to "coercion." According to UGA News Service, the nature of the target is defined by the type of group which composes the target: guerilla, formal nation states, or terrorists. Examining these factors allows you to draw some conclusions about the odds of winning a military conflict.

Of the factors Sullivan identified the most important as whether the objective can be reached by military strength alone, or if target cooperation is essential in the military objective.

Sullivan explains that in the 1991 Gulf War Kuwait was a cooperative target. The citizens and government of Kuwait wanted the assistance of the United States. Driving out Hussein's forces was accomplished quickly and efficiently with the compliance of the nation of Kuwait.

Iraq has proven to be a different war story. Iraq did not invite the United States to enter their country. Although the United States entered on the stated premise of humanitarianism and a quest to end Hussein's reign of terror, that doesn't mean the U.S. was invited, and it doesn't mean the target is cooperative. The United States' objective to free the people of Iraq from the iron rule of Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard was based on the plausible assumption that no human being wants to live in a state of suffering, euthanasia, and general brutality from a dictator. The United States government presumed the people of Iraq preferred freedom and democracy to the dictatorial, totalitarian government under which they lived. However, as a nation, Iraq has not proven cooperative to that objective.

Sectarian violence has kept the United States from meeting their military objective. Rather than welcoming international assistance in building a free nation, divided allegiances in the country have prolonged the military action. Many Muslim extremists view the United States as the face of the enemy, literally and spiritually. They continue to fight hard against governmental and social changes.

The lack of cooperation in Iraq is a huge indicator, according to Sullivan's model of the future of the war. It illuminates the need for target cooperation in military objectives. It does not, however, satisfy the question as to whether the probability of victory affirms or denies the call for military force to implement changes in the interest of humanitarianism.

Military force and humanitarianism, philosophically, should be mutually exclusive terms. However, often, in the face of brutality and oppression force is necessary to break the bonds of oppression. This creates a paradox which the United States government and citizens continue to grapple. It is, however, the same paradox that prompted the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolutionary War.

Sullivan reported to the UGA news service, "We can try to use brute force to kill insurgents and terrorists, but what we really need is for the population to be supportive of the government and to stop supporting the insurgents. Otherwise, every time we kill an insurgent or a terrorist, they're going to be replaced by others."

Once Sullivan developed her model, she tested it and found that her paradigm was accurate in 80% of the conflicts she examined, according to the UGA news service. Her model was used to examine the current war between the U.S. and its allies, and Iraq. Extrapolating an end to the war in Iraq based on Sullivan's model, theUGA news service estimates that there is a 26% chance of victory, in a war that could endure approximately ten years. Sullivan points out that factions, insurgents, and covert allies, such as Iran and Syria, seriously undermine the U.S. objective in Iraq.

Sullivan's conclusions regarding the war with Iraq were reported by the UGA news service as follows:

"No one could have predicted exactly what would happen after we overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein," Sullivan said. "But what my model could say was that if the population was not supportive of whatever new regime we put in power and the American strategic objective shifted from regime removal to maintaining the authority of a new government, the likelihood of a successful outcome would drop from almost 70 percent to just under 26 percent."

Sullivan's research and reporting prove timely as the fierce debate over whether to pull our troops out of Iraq rages in the United States. According to Sullivan, the chances for the successful establishment of a new government in a free and independent Iraq are slim, without the cooperation of the Iraqis and surrounding nations. The research, however, does nothing to discourage those who believe in the fight in the name of higher moral law and justice.

Sullivan's paradigm is helpful, but must be weighed against the one's acceptance of age old adage, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how (or why) you play the game." One factor that Sullivan's research did not address includes an equation which may never be quantified: How much is one life worth in the pursuit of freedom and justice for all?

Sources:

Fahmy, Sam. "UGA study finds that weaker nations prevail in 39 percent of military conflicts, UGA Office of Public Affairs News Service, June 11, 2007.

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/070611_Sullivan.shtml

http://www.uga.edu/intl/sullivan.htm

http://jcr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/3/496





Reference research: beauty research and home research and sport research and my social page




social bookmark

July 24, 2006: In May 2006, the American Diabetes Association publicly urged the United States Senate to lift restrictions on stem cell research, and to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. It had been stalled in the Senate for over a year, despite strong bi-partisan support.

The bill is no longer stalled. This past Tuesday, the bill was passed by a 67-37 vote, again, with strong support from both parties. The next day, President George W. Bush vetoed the bill.

In the first ever veto issued by the President, after 5½ years in office, embryonic stem cell researchers and patients living with myriad diseases and debilitating conditions were disappointed in their quest for better federal funding for research.

Hours after the veto was issued, the House of Representatives convened to hold a vote to override. They fell 51 votes short of the 286 required to override the veto.

Surrounding himself with adopted babies born from frozen embryos, Bush announced his veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act from the East Room of the White House. “These boys and girls are not spare parts,” he said. “They remind us of that is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” said President Bush.

Advocates for the bill ranging from patients and researchers to politicians on both sides of the political fence cried “foul,” Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former first lady Nancy Reagan among them, both of whom urged the president to reconsider his position.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the day after the veto, Governor Schwarzenegger authorized $150 million in loans to California’s stem cell agency, a move that quadrupled the amount of money the agency had previously had access to for their embryonic stem cell research.

Nationally, however, the sting has been deeply felt by those invested in embryonic stem cell research and the potential outcomes of better funding for it. “We're just profoundly disappointed with the president's decision,” said pathologist Leo Furcht of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. “The fact that legitimate prospects are there for treating terrible diseases with these cells makes it very troubling.” (USA Today: July 20, 2006)

In a 2005 survey of 2,200 people conducted by the Genetics and Public Policy Center, 67% of people polled responded that they “approved” or “strongly approved” of embryonic stem cell research, according to USA Today. 

President Bush remained unmoved by public and political support for the issue. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect,” said the President. “So, I vetoed it.”




Reference research: research Dr. and computer research and sport research and my bookmark page




social bookmark

You know how hard it is when a family pet goes missing, and then actually stays lost. There is the moment when you have to explain what's going on to the children, the part where you have to paste signs across the neighborhood, and the worst element - the waiting for your beloved bed to hopefully find its way back home. But now something even worse is happening as these 'lost pets' are being picked up and sold to universities for dissection and medical research in its science labs.

It's bad enough to tell your children that Sparky is lost, but it'd be much worse to tell them that Sparky is being dissected by the college students downtown. The Humane Society estimated that about 18,000 dogs and cats are picked up each year and then sold to university laboratories. Some of these animals are found through classified 'looking for a good home' adoption listings, and some are lost pets.

Those who scoop up the stray animals and sell them to labs are called Class B Dealers, and it is estimated that there are fewer of them around today than in the past, but they are still around. These Class B Dealers scour the streets of neighborhoods looking for dogs and cats that may have become lost from their homes. They also search the classified ads for animals that have been listed for adoption. The Humane Society estimates that 20% of all animals that are used in medical research labs come from these Class B Dealers

Animal advocacy groups are now hoping that it will be made illegal to sell strays for scientific purposes. However on the other side of the coin, medical research labs are arguing that animals that come from unknown origins are not used in their testings. Animal advocacy leaders are hoping that a change will be imminent. They believe that only animals that are donated by their owners, are not strays, or are living in a shelter should be given over to medical research labs.

Right now the bill, entitled 'Buck's Bill' after a black hound dog who was mistreated by a Class B Dealer, is still up for debate in Congress. Many people treat their pets as part of the family, almost as if they're just another relative. It is heart wrenching when a pet becomes lost, but at least if Buck's Bill were passed it would be a much less likely scenario that the cherished pet would end up in a medical laboratory.

Associated Press, " Humane Society Pushes to Ban Pet Sales to Labs." MSNBC News. URL: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18662520/)




Reference research: research Dr. and home research and sport research and recent update




Social Browse

Citizens in Missouri will be voting November 7 to decide whether to amend the state’s constitution for medical reasons.
The vote in Missouri may have national implications regarding the future of stem cell research and its implications. Both sides of the issue have launched aggressive media campaigns regarding the issue, and politicians are choosing sides.
The question becomes what exactly does the amendment allow and disallow.
The specific wording of the ballot questions is, "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:
• ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
• ban human cloning or attempted cloning;
• require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;
• impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and
• prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures?"
Opponents claim that the amendment will allow biotech companies to promote human cloning in the name of research. One organization, Missourians Against Human Cloning, has a web-site and radio ads claiming that the language of the amendment is sufficiently vague as to allow cloning if corporations justify it as research.
Other opponents claim that the amendment is vague as to whether it is in support of stem cell research or not. Still others view the amendment as acquiescing the state’s responsibility to the federal government by saying Missouri researchers would be allowed “to conduct any research permitted by federal law.”
Proponents, led by the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, claim that the amendment is needed to make sure that politicians don’t take any action to prevent Missouri residents from accessing medical research completed with stem cells that results in new medical treatments.
The ads for the coalition feature doctors and prominent medical researchers discussing the types of diseases that scientists hope might be cured or at least treated due to stem-cell research. Specific diseases touted as targets for stem cell research include diabetes, Lou
Gehrig’s disease (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ALS), Parkinson’s disease, cancer, sickle cell disease and many others.
The coalition has enlisted the support of former Senator and Epicopalian Minister John Danforth as well.
In a statement released by the coalition, Danforth said, “I'm pro-life. During my entire career, I voted pro-life. I strongly support the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative because it will save lives and because it respects the sanctity of life."
The issue has many complex sides that are side-stepped or addressed only by vagaries in the advertising. Danforth mentioned his anti-abortion stance, but did not discuss why that was pertinent to the amendment. The amendment does not limit the manner in which stem cells for research may be obtained.
Anti-abortion foes have at other times opposed stem cell research because stem cells can be obtained through aborted fetuses. The amendment does not address that issue.
Both sides also have made an issue of the discussion of human cloning. Opponents claim that the bill will allow or possibly even force government funding of human cloning. Proponents say the language of the amendment specifically forbids human cloning.
The amendment is a designed to define the state’s approach to a national issue aand will be decided Nov. 7.





Reference research: finance research and health research and shopping research and my bookmark page




Reseller Hosting

July 24, 2006: In May 2006, the American Diabetes Association publicly urged the United States Senate to lift restrictions on stem cell research, and to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. It had been stalled in the Senate for over a year, despite strong bi-partisan support.

The bill is no longer stalled. This past Tuesday, the bill was passed by a 67-37 vote, again, with strong support from both parties. The next day, President George W. Bush vetoed the bill.

In the first ever veto issued by the President, after 5½ years in office, embryonic stem cell researchers and patients living with myriad diseases and debilitating conditions were disappointed in their quest for better federal funding for research.

Hours after the veto was issued, the House of Representatives convened to hold a vote to override. They fell 51 votes short of the 286 required to override the veto.

Surrounding himself with adopted babies born from frozen embryos, Bush announced his veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act from the East Room of the White House. “These boys and girls are not spare parts,” he said. “They remind us of that is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” said President Bush.

Advocates for the bill ranging from patients and researchers to politicians on both sides of the political fence cried “foul,” Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former first lady Nancy Reagan among them, both of whom urged the president to reconsider his position.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the day after the veto, Governor Schwarzenegger authorized $150 million in loans to California’s stem cell agency, a move that quadrupled the amount of money the agency had previously had access to for their embryonic stem cell research.

Nationally, however, the sting has been deeply felt by those invested in embryonic stem cell research and the potential outcomes of better funding for it. “We're just profoundly disappointed with the president's decision,” said pathologist Leo Furcht of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. “The fact that legitimate prospects are there for treating terrible diseases with these cells makes it very troubling.” (USA Today: July 20, 2006)

In a 2005 survey of 2,200 people conducted by the Genetics and Public Policy Center, 67% of people polled responded that they “approved” or “strongly approved” of embryonic stem cell research, according to USA Today. 

President Bush remained unmoved by public and political support for the issue. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect,” said the President. “So, I vetoed it.”




Reference research: research Dr. and computer research and general research and my bookmark page




Social Bookmark Button

When you consider starting a business then you need to do a little bit of research. The research will help you see how successful the business would most likely become. You can also find out the small details within a field regarding a business that we often forget or aren't aware of because the business isn't in operation yet. Here are ten ways to help you research a business opportunity.

1. Talk to experts that you know that are already in the field. You need to speak to people that are already in the type of business that you are interested in. You need to ask them questions. You want to know basically how it works from start to finish and any problems that the person may run into. You want to basically know what it is like on a regular basis to run a business. You need to talk to a few people in order to get a more in depth information. You need to speak to the owners of the business instead of just an employee since the owners does know exactly what goes on from day to day in the business.

2. See how profitable it is. You want to make sure that that the type of business that you want to start will make you enough money. The important thing is to consider if it is worth it depending upon how much time and energy you have to put into it. If the other businesses in the area are struggling to keep their doors open each day then it probably isn't a good idea since those other businesses don't generate enough sales or services rendered.

3. Can your company be better than the competition? You need to ask yourself that question. If every person in town always want to go a certain company for a certain item or even service then you need to become better than the competition. You want your customers to think that your company is better than your competition even with excellent customer service and cheap prices.

4. Does the type of business that you are interested in starting require a lot of funding in the beginning? Some companies are cheaper than others to start in the beginning. You need to figure out if you will have enough money for advertising and all the other expenses. You want to have enough money saved in the bank for your personal use too besides money for business. It is important to able to support yourself for basic living expenses along with being able to have enough money for your business too.

5. Will you be able to generate enough sales? Is their enough people in the city or town to offer services or items to the customers? You need to think about it. If your competition doesn't have a website then make sure that you have a business website. You always want to offer the next best thing or something else that they don't offer. If your competition doesn't offer credit accounts then you probably should offer credit accounts to business owners and individuals. You want to be different than your competition. If your competition doesn't advertise on radio then you need to advertise on radio.

You need to go to the city to look all the new companies that have been started recently within the last few years. Make sure to see how many of them ever renewed their business license. Look to see how many companies haven't been successful in the same field that you want to start a business in. You want to see many companies have been successful offering the same type of products or items. The records will give you a general idea of how well your company should succeed.




Reference research: research Dr. and law research and shopping research and my bookmark page




Hostgatorstep