Fresh fire in Fukushima N-plant

Japan races to avert a catastrophe after fire broke out on Wednesday at a nuclear plant that has sent low levels of radiation wafting into Tokyo, prompting some people to flee the capital and triggering growing international alarm at the escalating crisis.
When tragedies strike, perhaps the saddest question that surfaces in the aftermath is "Could this have been avoided?". That question surfaced in relation to the Japan calamity, with Steven Swinford and Christopher Hope of the Telegraph, UK, reporting that an official from the International Atomic Energy Agency as warning, way back in December 2008, that safety rules in some Japanese nuclear plants were out of date, and that a strong earthquake could cause serious problems. Citing cables from Wikileaks, the Telegraph reported that the Japanese government had at the time pledged to upgrade safety measures at all its plants. However, though an emergency response center was built at the Fukushima plant, it was only designed to withstand tremors of 7.0 magnitudes, and not able to resist the 8.9 quake that struck on March 11

how to earn money online

Minute Workers is giving a unique opportunity to users by allowing them to generate REAL money and even sustain a continuous income. We are not a scam or greedy scheme, check us out in the forums there are 100's of payment proofs which workers have posted.
To earn money you have to complete simple jobs online which are created by employers, they are short jobs which take minutes. These tasks will pay a minimum of $0.10 per task and the maximum payment is unlimited. You pick which jobs you want to complete, we have 100's to choose from every week which are updated every 4 hours.
Once you have earned a minimum of $2.00 from completing tasks you have the ability to withdraw your money through paypal. This low payout means everyone can get money fast.
For more Visit  http://www.minuteworkers.com/

How to Remove a Virus from Your Computer Successfully

 

1. DISCONNECT INTERNET: First order of business is to isolate the virus and that means interrupting the internet connection (and any network hookup.) Many external modems provided by ISP's have a button which will allow you to disengage from the internet. If not, turn off power to the modem or physically disconnect the internet cable. http://tinyurl.com/33ef5
   
   Note: Many viruses derive there power through the internet connection by establishing comm links with outside sources. It can be very difficult to remove a virus with the connection maintained.
   
2. TERMINATE WEB BROWSER: Close Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox or the web browser of choice you are using.
   http://tinyurl.com/33ef5
   Note: Viruses sometimes lock the web browser and you may be unable to close it or it may still be running in the background without your knowledge. Run the program PRCView. This lists all software processes and applications running on your computer. If iexplore.exe, firefox.exe or the name of your browser is listed, it is still active. Highlight the application and terminate the process (using the PRC View control menu.)
   
   WARNING: Do not terminate any other processes listed. Many are actually needed to run your computer.
   
3. SCAN FOR VIRUSES: Run Spybot - Search & Destroy and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (consecutively not concurrently.) These two free anti-spyware programs will detect and remove most viruses.
   
   Note: The majority of viruses detected early will be eradicated quickly and easily with these first 3 steps. If you have a stubborn virus that cannot be removed (because it is entangled with working processes) or your virus removal software is not allowed to work go to Step 4.
   
4. ENTER SAFE MODE: Windows has a diagnostic mode which you can access to try and fix problems. To access, reboot your computer. As it boots up, hit the F8 key repeatedly on your keyboard. A menu screen will show different operational modes. Use the arrow keys to scroll up to SAFE MODE and hit enter.
   
   The next screen will ask which Operating System do you want to start (i.e. Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition). Use the arrow keys to select and hit enter. Windows will now be directed to SAFE MODE - your Windows screen will look different than normal.
   http://tinyurl.com/33ef5
   Note: Before entering SAFE MODE, some operating systems will prompt with a query screen. Hitting YES will continue to Safe Mode while Hitting NO will take you to SYSTEM RESTORE. You can choose either since SYSTEM RESTORE is our next step.
   
5. SYSTEM RESTORE: In SAFE MODE, use this function to return your registry to a previous time - a day or two (or more if you are unsure) before the computer started acting up. To access, go to Control Panel and look under Performance & Maintenance or Help & Support. Click on System Restore - a user driven menu will guide you from there.
   
   Note 1: To gain a foothold on your computer, a virus will often make changes to your system registry (a set of command protocols that tell how your system to operate when you boot up). Windows makes a daily backup of the registry so you can roll back to a previous time - up to 3 months - if you have problems.
   
6. REBOOT INTO SAFE MODE: After rolling back your registry reboot your computer again and enter SAFE MODE (as described in Step 4.)
   
   Note: This allows the computer to boot up with the rolled back registry settings. Key registry components will still be loaded even in SAFE MODE.
   
7. SCAN FOR VIRUSES: In SAFE MODE, run Spybot - Search & Destroy and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware again (consecutively not concurrently) to detect and remove viruses.
8. REDUNDANCY SCAN: To be on the safe side, go to Spybot and adjust settings so that it will run once on next system startup (before anything is loaded on your computer.)
   
   To adjust settings, go to the Spybot Menu Bar and click on MODE. Make sure mode selected is Advanced (and not Default.) On the left column, select SETTINGS MENU. Choose SETTINGS. Scroll down the center screen until you get to the SYSTEM START heading. Click on "Run Program Once on Next System Startup."
   
   Close Spybot and Reboot the computer. Let it go through the normal boot process. Before Windows is loaded Spybot will run another system scan to detect and remove viruses. Upon completion Spybot will prompt to close and the normal boot process will complete.
   
9. At this point all viruses should be removed from your system. If the software was unable to remove the virus - mark down the exact VIRUS NAME detected. Gain access to another computer and do a Google or Yahoo search of the VIRUS NAME (+ Removal.)
   
   Note: You may need to a locate and install in your computer a specialized SOFTWARE REMOVAL TOOL that is designed to remove your particular virus (this may be because of its complexity or its newness.)
   http://tinyurl.com/33ef5
   

How Google Search Engine Works

Google's search engine is a powerful tool. Without search engines like Google, it would be practically impossible to find the information you need when you browse the Web. Like all search engines, Google uses a special algorithm to generate search results. While Google shares general facts about its algorithm, the specifics are a company secret. This helps Google remain competitive with other search engines on the Web and reduces the chance of someone finding out how to abuse the system.
­Google uses automated programs called spiders or crawlers, just like most search engines. Also like other search engines, Google has a large index of keywords and where those words can be found. What sets Google apart is how it ranks search results, which in turn determines the order Google displays results on its search engine results page (SERP). Google uses a trademarked algorithm called PageRank, which assigns each Web page a relevancy score.
A Web page's PageRank depends on a few factors:

• The frequency and location of keywords within the Web page: If the keyword only appears once within the body of a page, it will receive a low score for that keyword.
• How long the Web page has existed: People create new Web pages every day, and not all of them stick around for long. Google places more value on pages with an established history.
• The number of other Web pages that link to the page in question: Google looks at how many Web pages link to a particular site to determine its relevance.

Out of these three factors, the third is the most important. It's easier to understand it with an example. Let's look at a search for the terms "Planet Earth."



As more Web pages link to Discovery's Planet Earth page, the Discovery page's rank increases. When Discovery's page ranks higher than other pages, it shows up at the top of the Google search results page.
Because Google looks at links to a Web page as a vote, it's not easy to cheat the system. The best way to make sure your Web page is high up on Google's search results is to provide great content so that people will link back to your page. The more links your page gets, the higher its PageRank score will be. If you attract the attention of sites with a high PageRank score, your score will grow faster.

Hitting the Links Google uses lots of tricks to prevent people from cheating the system to get higher placement on SERPs. For example, as a Web page adds links to more sites, its voting power decreases. A Web page that has a high PageRank with lots of outgoing links can have less influence than a lower-ranked page with only one or two outgoing links.

Google initiated an experiment with its search engine in 2008. For the first time, Google is allowing a group of beta testers to change the ranking order of search results. In this experiment, beta testers can promote or demote search results and tailor their search experience so that it's more personally relevant. Google executives say there's no guarantee that the company will ever implement this feature into the search engine globally.­
Google offers many different kinds of services in addition to chat. In the next section, we'll see how some of them work.

For more Visit http://tinyurl.com/33ef5

poster girl

Nomination Dispute on Oscar Doc Short POSTER GIRL Ignites Divisive Fight at the Academy

For most of the world, the press release sent out by the Academy one week ago today seemed simple and direct.  Headed "Oscar Credits Determined for Documentary Short Subjects", the release was only somewhat notable in that it announced the first Oscar nomination for Mitchell Block, a veteran player and somewhat controversial figure in the documentary world, for the short film POSTER GIRL, which was directed by Sara Nesson.
But what seemed simple on the outside masked an fierce dispute within the Academy's Documentary Branch.  Two different committees had ruled that Block had not done enough work on the film to qualify for an Oscar nod, but those decisions were overturned by a four-person review committee that represented the Academy's Board of Governors.  How and why the decision went to the four-person committee is at the crux of the conflict.
Perhaps none of this would be known outside of the Academy if Freida Lee Mock, the Oscar winning filmmaker and former Doc Branch Governor, had not emailed some of the details to Roger Ebert, who last Friday wrote about the dispute and then quickly deleted the blog post, reportedly after hearing from Movie City News' David Poland.  By late Friday afternoon, all that remained was Poland's own post, which was sympathetic to Block and critical of Mock, but which remained somewhat vague as to what actually happened.
While Poland suggested that the situation was a smear job against Block, conversations with a number of Academy members over the weekend reveal a much more complicated - and a far more divisive - battle than has been publicly made known.  And while the heart of the dispute rests with the Academy's real desire to limit inappropriate producer credits, it's set against a backdrop of a series of personal grudges that date back to the late 1980s.

At its essence, the POSTER GIRL fight begins with an Academy-wide effort to confirm that the producer who is nominated is the person who actually does the work of a day-to-day producer, primarily responsible for overseeing the whole filmmaking process.
It's an open secret that producer credits are handed out indiscriminately in film, so over the past few years the Academy has worked, in partnership with the Producers Guild, to strengthen the rule and to make sure nominations aren't given to money men (or women), distributors and the like.
This is true even (and maybe especially) in the documentary branch, where only two people may receive nominations for a film (as compared to three people in the Best Picture category).  In addition to other controversies that mark the last few decades of the branch, there's a history of nominees (and even winners) who were not the true producer of record, and this recent effort is an attempt to rectify that.
In conversations with Academy members, several pointed to Michael Donovan, who shared the Documentary Feature Oscar with Michael Moore on BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, as one such example.  All agree that Donovan was the financier on the film, with two stating that the true producer on the film was Moore's wife, Kathleen Glynn (others suggested this was not the case).  Another mentioned the double wins in the 1990s by Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center as an example of an Oscar winner who didn't take on the true tasks of a real day-to-day producer.
Nearly all noted an intense, behind-the-scenes discussion last year as to who should be the second nominee on Louie Psihoyos' THE COVE - Paula dePre Pesman, who had overseen the entire production, or Fisher Stevens, who helped shape the film into its final form during post-production.  Many felt that Pesman should be the nominee, but Stevens was ultimately named as such by the Academy (and he eventually won).  One Academy member called this particular decision a "Sophie's choice" caused by AMPAS rules that allow only one award be given to a documentary film's producer.
Several people who have been nominees in the past few years described a thorough vetting process, with one equating it to a cross-examination, although most seemed to take it in stride.  One veteran player in the documentary world told me that the vetting process was even more stringent at the Primetime Emmys.
None the Academy members I spoke to were willing to speak for attribution and many would only confirm details that I'd heard from other sources.
This year, the Producers Guild told the Academy that they couldn't handle doing the vetting on the documentary short films, which turned the process over to an internal committee of documentary branch members, of which Freida Lee Mock was reportedly a member.  It was the first time that an internal documentary branch committee had overseen the vetting process since the Academy stepped up regulation of producer credits a few years ago.
In the case of POSTER GIRL, the filmmakers filled out their paperwork asserting that Sara Nesson and Mitchell Block should be that film's potential nominees.  And while Oscar procedures now allow for anonymous complaints about who should be nominated, all of the Academy members I spoke to said that there were no complaints from anyone connected with POSTER GIRL regarding Block's potential nomination.
But the history of POSTER GIRL paints a more complicated path to its inception, one that was sure to raise eyebrows of the documentary branch.