Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos dan lyons Related Posts Tags:#Facebook Facebook is gathering the world’s press to its Menlo Park, California, headquarters on January 15 for a very special, very huge announcement. Like, mega huge. Like, the-world-will-never-be-the-same huge. And because it is not yet tomorrow, at this point, today, nobody actually seems to know exactly what Facebook will announce, and this is what the tech blogs want you to know, which is that they have no idea what Facebook will announce tomorrow, and they want you to know that.In fact they are so determined to inform you about how completely they don’t know that they are reporting on this, over and over again, because they want you to know this so badly. Toward that end, they now are listing all the things that they don’t know whether Facebook is going to announce.Like there may be a new Facebook Phone, says TechCrunch. Or there will maybe or maybe not be better search, and/or an easier way to find things on Timeline, and/or better way to manage your list of friends, and/or Facebook for Cars, and/or real video chat like Google+ has, and/or new ad technology, and/or a kitchen sink, says TechCrunch. Or maybe it’s Messenger for iPad, reports … um … TechCrunch. Or maybe or maybe not something to do with music, news and TV, reports Business Insider, although at the same time maybe or maybe not a Facebook Phone, as Business Insider reports on TechCrunch’s original maybe-or-maybe-not report. The event “may pack a surprise,” but then again it may not, as MarketWatch reports with certainty. My prediction? Probably yes. But maybe not. Image courtesy of Shutterstock. A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro…
Electronic Arts, the publisher of popular video-game franchises like Madden, SimCity and Mass Effect, has done it yet again. In another highly contested match-up against Bank of America, EA has kept its iron grip on the crown for Worst Company In America.EA’s penchant for micro-transactions, insistence on always-online requirements and overall anti-consumer activities lifted the company to “victory” yet again, with its SimCity launch disaster earlier this year perhaps the most influential of causes. The Consumerist, a popular website owned by not-for-profit advocacy organization Consumer Reports, has held The Worst Company In America poll since 2006. The contest has come to resemble an NCAA March Madness bracket, pitting companies against direct competitors (Apple vs. Google; Comcast vs. DirectTV) before the Sweet 16 round begins crossing industry lines. This year’s Final Four also included TicketMaster and former winner Comcast. EA clinched a surprise victory in 2012 by beating out Bank of America, AT&T and Wal-Mart in the Final Four. After taking an astounding 77.53% of the vote this year, EA kept its crown. Video Game Publisher vs. Utility Companies & Banks?It’s hard to imagine a mere video game publisher beating out the bank that bought mortgage-lending scapegoat Countrywide, not to mention a slew of widely reviled cell service and cable providers. As EA’s COO Peter Moore complained during the semifinals:This is the same poll that last year judged us as worse than companies responsible for the biggest oil spill in history, the mortgage crisis, and bank bailouts that cost millions of taxpayer dollars. The complaints against us last year were our support of SOPA (not true), and that they didn’t like the ending to Mass Effect 3.While a bit snide and self serving, Moore does raise an interesting point. Just how did a game publisher come to be so hated? EA’s Big MistakesOne factor promoting EA’s worst-ness is that BofA is just one hated bank among many, while EA has become the poster child for conglomerate greed and anti-consumerism in gaming. The company’s sins even put it on the ReadWrite DeathWatch list last year. Here’s a rundown of some of the bad decisions and debacles plaguing the company recently:The first SimCity in nearly 10 years was released last month to disastrous performance and near-universal connection issues. The cause: EA’s servers, which must be accessed with a solid Internet connection at all times just to play the game. Refunds for digital copies were not permitted. Microtransaction policies sucking the fun out of various games. Most recently Real Racing 3, a free driving game, included a feature that limits players to 30 minutes of playtime before they are required to pay more. In March, right after the SimCity launch, EA CEO John Riccitiello resigned amid failure to meet operational plans and Wall Street financial forecasts. EA has also presided over poor endings and seemingly rushed sequels to several highly acclaimed game series. Mass Effect 3’s final act was so poorly received that fans demanded, and received, a revised ending, and EA was sued for false advertising. Finally, the video game world is not just a niche market any more. It’s become a pervasive, multibillion-dollar industry worming its way onto smartphones, tablets, social networks, television sets, PCs and pretty much anything else with a screen. Can EA Snag A Three-Peat? Peter Moore’s blog post – titled “We Can Do Better” – was more a rude and careless defense than an acknowledgement that consumers really, really don’t like his company. He even ended it by saying, “The tallest trees catch the most wind. At EA we remain proud and unbowed.” Learning from mistakes is always difficult for big corporations, but EA seems determined not to pay attention to the blow-back on micro-transactions, always-online functionality and customer satisfaction. As The Consumerist put it: When we live in an era marked by massive oil spills, faulty foreclosures by bad banks, and rampant consolidation in the airline and telecom industry, what does it say about EA’s business practices that so many people have — for the second year in a row — come out to hand it the title of Worst Company In America?For anyone interested, here’s a rundown of the contest in bracket form: Tags:#Electronic Arts nick statt A Web Developer’s New Best Friend is the AI Wai… Why Tech Companies Need Simpler Terms of Servic… 8 Best WordPress Hosting Solutions on the Market Related Posts Top Reasons to Go With Managed WordPress Hosting
Learn how to quickly and easily replace watermarked audio tracks with the real thing in Premiere Pro.Watermarked audio tracks are a great way for video editors to “test drive” songs in their projects, and a lot of royalty free music providers (like your pals here at PremiumBeat) allow you to download them for free. You can edit watermarked audio tracks just like regular audio tracks. Then, once you decide the temporary track meets the needs of your project, you simply replace it with the watermark-free purchased track. No problem.So how does one go about replacing the temporary watermarked track with the permanent track? Let’s take a look at the process as it works in Premiere Pro.Step 1: Edit Your Project With the Watermarked TrackThe first step: edit your project with the watermarked track included. Set levels, add effects, add keyframes, and splice the watermarked track any way you like. This is one of the main reasons why this technique is so much better than replacing the track by hand.Step 2: Replace the AudioTo replace the watermarked track, navigate to the project panel in Premiere Pro. Find your original track listed in the panel. Right click on the audio clip and select Replace Footage. Select the watermark-free version of your track (as seen below) and click Open.Boom. Your audio is now replaced and your project is ready to go. You will, of course, want to watch through your project to make sure everything imported correctly, but as long as your watermark-free track is the same duration as your watermarked track, you should have no issues at all.Everything About Audio in Premiere Pro CCIf you want an incredible overview of exactly what you can and can’t do with audio in Premiere Pro, then check out this super-extensive tutorial from Adobe’s Colin Smith.What’s your favorite Premiere Pro audio hack? Share your secrets in the comments below!
L’AQUILA, ITALY—Shouts of “Shame, shame!” greeted the appeals court here today after the acquittal of six scientists convicted of manslaughter 2 years ago for advice they gave ahead of the deadly earthquake that struck this central Italian town in 2009. The scientists were convicted in October 2012, and handed 6-year jail sentences, for their role in a meeting of an official government advisory panel.Only one of the seven experts originally found guilty was convicted today: Bernardo De Bernardinis, who in 2009 was deputy head of Italy’s Civil Protection Department and who will now serve 2 years in jail, pending any further appeals.The experts attended a meeting of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks, held on 31 March 2009 to evaluate the threat posed by a series of small and medium-sized tremors that had been shaking L’Aquila for several months. The meeting took place 6 days before the fatal quake struck, and in 2012, Judge Marco Billi ruled that the commission members carried out a “superficial, approximate and generic” risk analysis, and that they made a number of reassuring statements that led 29 of the quake’s 309 victims to remain indoors at the time of the disaster, despite the occurrence of two moderate tremors several hours beforehand.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)In their verdict today, a panel of three judges headed by Fabrizia Francabandera told the court that only in De Bernardinis’s case could a link be proven between the expert’s words and the actions of some of the victims.Speaking immediately after the verdict, De Bernardinis said he could face “God and men” with a clear conscience—although he previously declared that had he been a father of one of the victims, he, too, would have sought justice. “I am relieved but I can’t say I’m happy. I am embittered but relieved,” said volcanologist Franco Barberi, who at the time of the meeting was the commission’s vice president, about his acquittal. His lawyer, Francesco Petrelli, described the verdict as “inevitable,” adding that the original sentence was “visibly wrong in the facts and in law.”Others in the packed courtroom, including some of the relatives of the quake victims, reacted angrily. Angelo Colagrande, representing bereaved surgeon Vincenzo Vittorini, said he was certain that the court acted in “good faith,” but that there existed proof of the experts’ guilt. “Today we have an earthquake after the earthquake,” he said.Billi’s original verdict generated controversy the world over and led many to argue that science itself had been found guilty. In explaining his sentence, the judge was at pains to emphasize that he had not convicted the experts for having failed to predict the earthquake—something, he said, that is beyond the powers of current science—but rather for having failed to carry out their legally binding duties as “public officials.” He said that the experts had not analyzed a series of factors indicating a heightened seismic risk, including the fact that previous quakes to have destroyed the town were accompanied by smaller tremors, as well as the nature of the ongoing swarm itself.In their appeals, the lawyers of the convicted experts objected to the sentence on multiple grounds, taking aim at both the alleged negligence of their clients and the existence of a “causal link” between the experts’ statements and people’s decision to stay indoors on the fateful night.One aspect of the ruling that came under particular fire was the notion that the earlier, smaller tremors were a good thing because they discharged energy—an idea that many trial witnesses said led their relatives to remain indoors, but which many scientists regard as incorrect.The defense lawyers claim that this idea could not have been endorsed by the commission as a whole, as Billi argues, because it was stated publicly only by De Bernardinis, in an interview carried out ahead of the commission’s meeting. “It wasn’t the commission that reassured; no one said, ‘Stay at home because there is a discharge of energy,’ ” said Marcello Melandri, the representative of Enzo Boschi, former head of Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, to the court. “I challenge anyone to find a word in the minutes of the meeting that are not exactly the opposite of a reassurance.”What’s more, Petrelli said, it was not the experts’ responsibility to communicate with the public. That was the job of De Bernardinis and two other civil protection officials present at the meeting, he argued: L’Aquila’s mayor, Massimo Cialente, and Daniela Stati, then a regional councilor.In his response to the defense, prosecutor Romolo Como had railed against what he described as a “discharge of responsibility,” telling the court that the convicted scientists weren’t “four mates in a bar” but “an official commission.” He pointed out that during the meeting Barberi had asked the other experts what they thought of the energy-discharge idea, but that none of them replied. “Why didn’t anyone object to this?” Como demanded.Earlier on in the appeal trial, Como also spoke in support of former laboratory technician Giampaolo Giuliani, who claims to have predicted the 2009 earthquake by monitoring emissions of radon gas and whose alarming statements prompted the then–civil protection boss, Guido Bertolaso, to convene the 31 March meeting. Giuliani was “no charlatan,” Como said.Wania Della Vigna, who represents relatives of several students killed in the earthquake, said she will challenge the latest ruling in the Court of Cassation in Rome, Italy’s highest appeal court. In the meantime, Como must decide whether to press ahead with a parallel manslaughter investigation against Bertolaso, who allegedly orchestrated the experts’ presumed reassurances. The main prosecutor in the original trial, Fabio Picuti, twice requested that this separate investigation be shelved, but his request was contested by lawyers of some of the plaintiffs.
JUST IN: Pacio yields ONE strawweight title after a split-decision loss to Saruta. | @MarkGiongcoINQ #EternalGlory pic.twitter.com/y15mS6vPSL— INQUIRER Sports (@INQUIRERSports) January 19, 2019FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSWin or don’t eat: the Philippines’ poverty-driven, world-beating pool stars SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion MOST READ Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting LOOK: Joyce Pring goes public with engagement to Juancho Triviño ONE: Team Lakay’s Edward Kelly stopped by Christian Lee in 1st round of rematch Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Saruta was as good on the standup as he was on the ground. He took down Pacio several times including in the final minute of the fifth round.Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next The 34-year-old Japanese, who was rewarded with a split decision victory, won the belt in just his second fight on the ONE Championship stage. He was tapped as replacement just three weeks ago after his compatriot Hayato Suzuki pulled out from the bout due to an injury. TS Kammuri to enter PAR possibly a day after SEA Games opening LATEST STORIES ONE CEO believes Joshua Pacio won the fight PLAY LIST 00:52ONE CEO believes Joshua Pacio won the fight01:04Team Lakay’s rough start lights a fire under Danny Kingad00:50Trending Articles02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss “I was just really focused on winning the fight and I couldn’t recall much of what happened but one thing I remember is it was a really, really tough fight,” Saruta (19-8) told reporters through an interpreter.Pacio’s heartbreaking loss trimmed Team Lakay’s world champions to three with flyweight king Geje Eustaquio staking his title six days from now in third meeting with former champion Adriano Moraes in Manila.The Indonesian crowd rallied behind the spry Filipino as they kept chanting “Pacio” throughout the fight.But the tough-as-nails Saruta was unfazed and sustained his aggressiveness up to the final bell.The 23-year-old Pacio (13-3), whose four-fight winning run was snapped, had described Saruta as an “explosive and well-rounded fighter” and he was on cue.ADVERTISEMENT Yosuke Saruta edges Joshua Pacio to take the ONE strawweight world title. Photo from ONE ChampionshipJAKARTA, Indonesia—Yosuke Saruta quickly turned from a replacement fighter to world champion in less than a month.Saruta proved he was a worthy challenger after toppling Joshua Pacio in five grueling rounds to earn the strawweight world title in the main event of ONE: Eternal Glory late Saturday night at Istora Senayan here.ADVERTISEMENT SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion LOOK: Joyce Pring goes public with engagement to Juancho Triviño Is Luis Manzano planning to propose to Jessy Mendiola? View comments
A traffic stop Sunday night in Woodbury County led to the seizure of over five and a half pounds of cocaine.Woodbury County Sheriff’s Sergeant Nate Sands stopped an eastbound vehicle on Highway 20 at Osceola Avenue that was traveling 82 mph in a 65 speed zone.The driver, 37-year-old Jacob Rios, had a California drivers license and a car registered out of Oregon.Court documents state Rios was very nervous and couldn’t give the correct name on the registration.He also stated he was going to see a friend in Chicago but couldn’t immediately think of the friend’s name.Sgt. Sands had his K-9 Rico sniff the vehicle and around 5.6 pounds of a substance which field tested positive for cocaine was found in the trunk under the floor where the spare tire should have been.Rios was taken into custody and charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine, speeding, no drug tax stamp, no vehicle insurance and was put on a federal hold for ICE.Rios is being held in the Woodbury County Jail on $30,000 bond.Photo by Woodbury County Sheriff’s Department
It’s Time to Ditch Your Sleeping Bag for a Versatile, Lightweight Camping Quilt The Best Sleeping Bags for Backpacking and Camping Patagonia Goes 100% Sustainable with New Line Called Shell, Yeah! Editors’ Recommendations The Best Diaper Bags for Stylish Dads 14 Scandinavian Clothing Brands You Need to Know Man isn’t meant to stay indoors — our weekly “Trekking” column can attest to that. It’s a column dedicated to the adventurer inside of all of us, the one pining to ditch the office humdrum for a quick surf session or seven-week jaunt in the Grand Tetons. One day we may highlight an ultra-light stove and the next a set of handmade canoe paddles. Life doesn’t just happen inside the workplace, so get outside and live it.Serious ascents and jaunts in the backcountry require serious gear — anyone who’s spent the evening freezing at 17,000 feet could tell you that much. Weight is at a premium when you’re away from home and crafting a piece of apparel that sheds the weight while retaining a sense of warmth is what all gear companies strive for. You want to be comfortable, sure, but you don’t want to (literally) shoulder the burden of unnecessary weight if you don’t have to. Patagonia knows this, having spent the past 40 years designing ultra-lightweight apparel that will curb frostbite and keep you warm even under the most hostile of circumstances.That said, it was only a matter of time before the California-based company applied that same technology to wares other than apparel. The aptly-titled Hybrid Sleeping Bag ($299) represents one of Patagonia’s first ventures outside its everyday wheelhouse — and it’s a welcome one. It’s a bag designed for light-and-fast alpine climbing, and as such, it boasts a minimalist aesthetic that works to eliminate redundancies that may crop up with other bags. The plush, windproof bag does this by incorporating what Patagonia refers to as an “elephant foot” build, which essentially consists of two components working in tandem.The bottom half of the Patagonia hybrid sleeping bag uses 850-fill down and a lightweight shell, while the top consists of a single layer of 1.2-ounce, 15-denier nylon that’s coated with a water-repellent finish, much like the company’s excellent Houdini jackets. Unlike most sleeping bags, however, the Hybrid is supposed to be used in conjunction with a parka or similar jacket, meaning the bag’s temperature rating is entirely reliant on the jacket worn with it. A half-length zipper saves additional weight, and draw-cords atop the baffled portion and built-in hood help you better retain warmth while you’re resting for your grueling push to the summit. This lack of insulation might seem like a hindrance, but, honestly, how else would Patagonia craft a sleeping back that weighs a mere pound?Check out Patagonia online for more information, or to browse the company’s gear and apparel lineup.
LUNENBURG COUNTY: Bridgewater Bridge The Bridgewater Bridge, on Old Bridge Road, that spans the LaHave River is closed to vehicles to carry out repairs. The bridge will remain open to pedestrians but motorists are advised to use the Veterans Memorial Bridge. Repairs are expected to be complete by Friday, Feb. 25. -30-
The refugees — 42 Tamils from Sri Lanka, three Rohingya from Myanmar and a Kuwaiti — brought their complaints to Human Rights Committee, arguing that they were unable to challenge the legality of their detention in the Australian courts. Australia’s indefinite detention of 46 recognized refugees, including 42 Tamils from Sri Lanka, on security grounds amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, inflicting serious psychological harm on them, a UN Committee has found after examining their cases.The Geneva-based Human Rights Committee said Australia should release the refugees, who have been held for at least two and a half years, and offer them compensation and rehabilitation. They had been recognized as refugees who could not be returned to their home countries but were refused visas to stay in Australia because they were deemed to pose a security risk, and so were held in immigration detention facilities. This constituted treatment contrary to Article 7 of the ICCPR, under which “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” they added.The Human Rights Committee said that Australia is obliged, under Article 2 of the Covenant, to provide all 46 refugees with effective remedy. This includes releasing them under individually appropriate conditions, and offering them rehabilitation and appropriate compensation.Australia is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future, the Human Rights Committee concluded. The Human Rights Committee monitors implementation of the ICCPR by States parties. It considered this case under the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant which gives the Committee competence to examine individual complaints. The Committee, composed of 18 independent human rights experts, found that the refugees’ detention was arbitrary and violated Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)*, which states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The Committee reached its conclusion based principally on the fact that the refugees were not told the reasons for the negative security assessment and so were unable to mount a legal challenge to their indefinite detention.“The combination of the arbitrary character of (their) detention, its protracted and/or indefinite duration, the refusal to provide information and procedural rights to (them) and the difficult conditions of detention are cumulatively inflicting serious psychological harm upon them,” the Committee members wrote in their conclusions adopted on 25 July and made public on Thursday. Most of the refugees arrived in Australian territorial waters between March 2009 and December 2010 and were first disembarked at Christmas Island. Five were rescued at sea and initially disembarked in Indonesia before arriving at Christmas Island. At the time of their submission to the Committee, they were being held at several detention centres, including Scherger Immigration Detention Centre in Queensland; Villawood Immigration Residential Housing in Sydney; Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation; Darwin Immigration Centre; Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Centre in Victoria and Christmas Island.In their complaints, lodged in 2011 and 2012, the refugees argued that, as they were not informed of the reasons for their security assessment, they were unable to identify any possible legal errors which could allow them to apply for a judicial review in the Australian courts.The Australian authorities argued that all the claims were inadmissible. They also said solutions were being explored, including resettlement or the safe return to the refugees’ countries of origin if the risk of harm no longer existed. However, it was not appropriate for individuals with an adverse security assessment to live in the Australian community while solutions were sought. Providing people with the classified details would also undermine the security assessment process and compromise Australia’s security. Since the complaints were lodged, seven of the refugees — a mother and her son, who was born in 2007, and a family of five — have now been granted visas and released from immigration detention into the Australian community. (Colombo Gazette)
JUNEAU, Alaska — Alaska’s primary provider of real-time marine vessel tracking has lost a portion of its funding to cuts by the governor to the 2020 capital budget.CoastAlaska reported Wednesday that the Marine Exchange of Alaska lost 11% of its state funding.Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed line items equaling $444 million in reductions to Alaska’s operating budget in June, including $34.7 million in cuts from the capital budget.The Legislature restored $400,000 in cruise ship passenger revenue to support the network of ship-tracking stations.The Marine Exchange funding was to be drawn from the $34.50 head tax paid by every cruise ship passenger visiting Alaska.Dunleavy retained the cut through a second veto.The governor has suggested the tax revenue should be redirected to port projects across coastal communities.___Information from: KTOO-FM, http://www.ktoo.orgThe Associated Press