Regenerative Medicine Policy Issued by FDA
The FDA created a framework to create safe and effective regenerative medicine products.
The FDA recently announced a novel policy for the development of regenerative medicine products. The policy adds to the existing risk-based regulatory approach to define what products are characterized as drugs, devices, and biologics, according to a press release.
“We’re at the beginning of a paradigm change in medicine with the promise of being able to facilitate regeneration of parts of the human body, where cells and tissues can be engineered to grow healthy, functional organs to replace diseased ones; new genes can be introduced into the body to combat disease; and adult stem cells can generate replacements for cells that are lost to injury or disease,” said FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD. “This is no longer the stuff of science fiction. This is the practical promise of modern applications of regenerative medicine.”
The proposed framework is described in 4 guidance documents, 2 of which support an efficient, science-based process to ensure the safety and efficacy of regenerative medicine products, while also encouraging innovation, according to the FDA. The guidance documents also address how the agency plans to take action against products that have potential safety concerns.
The FDA said the policy aims to balance safety concerns with mechanisms that help bring novel products to market.
“With the policy framework the FDA is announcing today, we’re adopting a risk-based and science-based approach that builds upon existing regulations to support innovative product development while clarifying the FDA’s authorities and enforcement priorities,” Dr Gottlieb said. “This will protect patients from products that pose potentially significant risks, while accelerating access to safe and effective new therapies.”
Finalized Guidance Documents
The first finalized guidance document clarifies when cell- and tissue-based products would be excepted from the regulations if they are derived from and implanted back into the same patient during surgery and the cells remain in their original form, according to the release.
The second guidance document clarifies how current regulatory criteria applies to regenerative medicine products by detailing how the FDA defines “minimal manipulation” and “homologous use.” The FDA said there are numerous products that require pre-market authorization and the new guidance discusses how the agency provides the risk-based framework for oversight, according to the release.
Draft Guidance Documents
The first draft guidance document builds on provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act by streamlining regulatory requirements for devices used in the recovery, isolation, and delivery of regenerative medicine advanced therapies, according to the FDA.
The second guidance document aims to speed the approval of regenerative medicine products, including a new Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation. Additionally, the framework outlines the types of products eligible for RMAT designation, such as cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, combination products, and gene therapies, according to the release.
The first gene therapies to gain FDA approval are tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) for refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. It is likely that many more will come to market over the next few months, according to the FDA.
This guidance provides a new framework for the therapies to ensure that treatments are safe.
“As a molecular and cell biologist and physician, it has been exciting to witness the approval of the first 2 gene therapies in the US this year. Given the great opportunities that the field of regenerative medicine presents, we have undertaken a rigorous process to clarify our regulations that included solicitation of public input, and I believe today marks a significant step forward for all stakeholders,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “In addition to clarifying some of the more complex areas of the regulations, we have taken meaningful new steps to encourage and expedite the development of innovative therapies. We welcome public comment on our draft guidance documents as we work toward finalizing this framework.”
Is a 90-Day Supply the Best Option to Improve Medication Adherence?


Clear Springs Choir
TMEA
Sightread
Tri-M
2nd period: Concert Mixed Choir (Mr. Moseley and Mr. Phillips)
3rd period: Charger Chorale (Mr. Phillips and Mr. Moseley)
4th period: Rhythm & Blue (Mr. Phillips)
5th period: Bella Voce (Mr. Phillips)
Rob Phillips has been directing the choirs at Clear Springs since it opened in 2007. Prior to that he directed at Clear Lake High School and Pasadena Dobie High School. Mr. Phillips is a Clear Creek High School graduate and a member of the 1989 Texas All-State Choir. He has degrees from Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas, and the University of Houston-Clear Lake. His wife Rachel is an engineer-manager with Leidos at NASA. They have two children, Lyra and Micah, who attend Campbell Elementary School, and an old sweet dog named Barkley.
Peyton Moseley began teaching at Clear Springs in 2021. He is a graduate of Sterling High School in Baytown and the University of Houston.
Voice Teachers
David Smith was awarded the degree Master of Music in Vocal Performance from the Moores School of Music at the University of Houston. He also holds a baccalaureate degree from Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. His vocal instructors have been Drs. Timothy Jones, Joyce Farwell, Oliver Worthington, and Bruce Cain.
Mr. Smith's performing career has included roles in My Fair Lady, On the Twentieth Century, Galveston!, Don Giovanni, Amahl and the Night Visitors, Die Fledermaus, Cosi fan tutte, Gianni Schicchi, The Gondoliers, The Cunning Little Vixen, Il viaggio a Reims, The Grapes of Wrath, and Les Plaisirs des Versailles. He has also performed in numerous concerts in Houston, Clear Lake, and Texas City.
In addition to maintaining an active performing schedule, he also serves as a voice teacher in schools of Clear Creek ISD and Texas City ISD. Voice lessons are given at these schools during and after school. Mr. Smith also teaches private voice lessons through his Clear Lake Voices studio. clearlakevoices.com
Mr. Smith has been married for 7 years to his college sweetheart, who is a middle school choir director in Texas City ISD and an accomplished soprano. In March 2014, they had a very healthy baby boy named Jackson Paul Smith. While Jackson isn't singing yet, he sure makes a lot of noise and definitely has potential! They also have one large cat. In his spare time, Mr. Smith is an avid reader of historical and science fiction novels, plays computer games, and watches TV. Mr. Smith also loves tennis and football, and played competitive tennis at the college level before singing and parenthood took up all his practice time.
On Facebook at cshschoir.
On Twitter at @cshschoir.
On Instagram at @charger_choir.
Charms Data Management at charmsoffice.com. Choir students and parents can find private student information important to their participation in the choir program.
Parents/Students/Members login using school code cshschoir
Default password is the student ID (all digits, including the leading zeros if there are any)
Campus main number: (281) 284-1300
Mr. Phillips' number: (281) 284-1487
Mr. Moseley's number: (281) 284-1427
Clear Springs High School, Room 1330
501 Palomino Ln
Clear Springs High School Choir
Rob Phillips
rphillip@ccisd.net
Peyton Moseley
pmoseley@ccisd.net


‘Visible: Out on Television’ Gets into Why ‘Golden Girls’ and ‘Designing Women’ Are LGBTQ Cultural Icons
By Brett White Twitter @brettwhite Feb 18, 2020 at 12:00pm
Photos: Everett Collection ; Illustration: Dillen Phelps
Visible: Out On Television
Stream It Or Skip It: 'March' On The CW, A Docuseries About The Marching Band At Prairie View A&M
Stream It Or Skip It: 'The Estate' on Hulu, a Nasty Dark Comedy About Rich People Behaving Deplorably
Stream It Or Skip It: 'Somebody Somewhere' On HBO, Where Bridget Everett Plays A Woman Who Sings In A Quirky Choir In Her Hometown
When I came out to one of my best friends, at the age of 21 and standing outside a gas station next to the college pub, she proclaimed that she should’ve pieced it all together years ago because of my love for The Golden Girls. To be frank, I should’ve as well. My love for The Golden Girls predates me being aware of my love for men. It goes way back, encoded in my DNA, almost as if I was born a Golden Girls fan just as much as I was born gay (never mind the fact that I was 1 when Golden Girls debuted). But the connection between Golden Girls (and its younger sitcom sister Designing Women) and gay culture has always been a given. They just go hand in hand, and you need not think about why.
As a methodical and comprehensive examination of queer representation on television over the last 70 years, it’s part of Visible: Out on Television’s gig to get into the why. The new Apple TV+ docu-series breaks the connection down in Episode 3, “The Epidemic,” providing vital context for the connection between queer people and queer-coded sitcoms that I’d never really noticed. It is, without a doubt, the most succinct explanation as to why these shows matter to who they matter to that I’ve ever heard.
The segment comes 18 minutes into Episode 3, the must-watch episode of the series as it tackles how the AIDS epidemic unfolded on TV and how the coverage (or rather lack of coverage) led to the deadly stigmatization of gay men and many setbacks for LGBTQ rights. With people suddenly associating gay men with a mysterious plague, the friendly fop archetype that popped up on TV often in the ’70s was replaced with tortured gay victims in the ’80s, if queer people were presented on TV at all. The AIDS epidemic pushed representation off TV, and therefore queer audiences had to look elsewhere to see themselves reflected.
Photo: Hulu
Golden Girls immediately resonated just because of the premise, based on a foundation of found family. “I think a lot of gay people, especially my age and older who may’ve not always been embraced by their families—we really connect with those characters who are kind of a chosen family,” explained Carson Kressley in the episode.
Margaret Cho added, “I look at Golden Girls as really, they’re all gay archetypes. There’s a real genius there, because you couldn’t get away with having guys on it at that time period, but there’s a way to subvert that and trick the status quo by making it about these older women.” Also fostering this subtextual connection were the textual LGBTQ storylines told in Golden Girls. The show championed acceptance, championed gay marriage, and the destigmatization of AIDS years, even decades before that was the norm.
’80s sitcoms weren’t the first time that storytellers used women as a stand-in for gay characters. Billy Porter said that he calls this trick the “Tennessee Williams effect.” “For a long time, gay men had to be in the mouths of female heroines,” said Porter. “Every story that Tennessee Williams told was about a gay man, and that replacement that we had to make for many years is why we love our divas so much. It’s like we can relate to those narratives inside of something like The Golden Girls, inside of something like Designing Women.”
Porter singled out Dixie Carter’s character Julia Sugarbaker, whose passionate speeches have become part of the gay canon. “Julia Sugarbaker, all of those speeches, you could’ve put into the mouth of a gay activist and that’s why we responded so much, because it’s like you’re saying the shit that needs to be said.”
Photo: Sony Pictures Television
With fear and misinformation spreading about AIDS, Designing Women took action in 1987 with the episode “Killing All the Right People.” The episode, wherein Sugarbaker & Associates are hired by a young gay man to design his funeral, was directly inspired by creator Linda Bloodworth-Thomason’s personal life. Her mother contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion during heart surgery, and Bloodworth-Thomason got to know several AIDS patients—and see how they were treated—while staying with her mother at the hospital.
“There were 17 other young men on the floor and they were all dying of AIDS,” said Bloodworth-Thomason. “My mom was treated abysmally, probably better than any of the gay men but still horribly. Nobody knew how you get it, so we’re all in gloves and masks and her medicine’s kicked into the room in a bucket. And one day I heard one of the nurses say, ‘Well if you ask me, this disease has one thing going for it: it’s killing all the right people.’ And I just thought, okay, I’m going to remember that and that’s going to be on TV.”
It was on TV, spat out by a client/villain-of-the-week who immediately incurred the wrath of Julia Sugarbaker. “I told my mom, ‘I wrote this show for you.’ And it was justice for her, and I felt a little bit of justice for those 17 young men who died while I was on the same floor with them.”
The connection between these female-driven sitcoms and queer culture isn’t superficial, and it’s not just because gays love a strong dame with quips to spare. It’s because when television turned its back on the community, when the American government was slow to even acknowledge the existence of a plague, when nurses held their patients in contempt, these shows were there for us, representing us, and fighting for us. This context mostly goes unnoticed 35 years later, as younger generations fall for the shows in reruns and on streaming. But this important episode of Visible reminds us that we can’t forget that this connection was forged during a great struggle—and that’s why we’re still thanking them for being a friend.
Stream Visible: Out on Television "The Epidemic" on Apple TV+
Stream The Golden Girls on Hulu
Stream Designing Women on Hulu


Former Federal Prison Official and Factory manager at USP-Marion Sentenced to Prison
10 months ago By Savion Buehler
Shawn E. Whitecotton, 50, of Herrin, Illinois, was sentenced to 16 months confinement today, consisting of 8 months in federal prison and 8 months of home confinement after his release. At his sentencing, United States District Court Judge Staci M. Yandle agreed with federal prosecutors that Whitecotton knowingly obtained thousands of dollars by abusing his management position at the federal penitentiary at Marion, Illinois (USP-Marion), lied about it, and then obstructed justice while trying to cover up his scheme.
“It is important for the community to have faith in our institutions, including our federal prisons,” U.S. Attorney Steven D. Weinhoeft said. “We will always hold public officials accountable if they abuse positions of public trust for their own financial benefit.”
“Whitecotton failed to inform the government that, while he was a UNICOR factory manager, he was also being paid directly by a contractor he oversaw; and he doubled down when he thought he’d get caught. Today’s sentencing shows that there is no place for lying and deceit among federal employees,” said William J. Hannah, Special Agent in Charge of the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Chicago Field Office.
Whitecotton was a career federal corrections officer and served as the factory manager of the UNICOR manufacturing facility operating within USP-Marion. In 2014, USP-Marion’s UNICOR facility contracted with a private company, PGB Hanger, Inc. (“PGB”), to manufacture wire clothing hangers. As factory manager, Whitecotton was directly responsible for the PGB contract. Shortly after the work began, Whitecotton approached PGB’s owner and offered to work for PGB as a salesperson – in direct violation of government ethics rules. PGB agreed and they signed a written contract setting Whitecotton’s compensation at $1,500.00 a month, plus a commission for each hanger sold on new accounts and a monthly phone allowance. He then accepted over $20,000.00 in payments from PGB during the following year.
UNICOR is a wholly-owned government corporation administered by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that operates manufacturing facilities in certain BOP facilities. The goal is to prepare federal inmates for successful reentry into society by providing them with job training and work skills. UNICOR hires BOP inmates to work in its factories, at different locations. In some circumstances, UNICOR contracts with private vide product manufacturing services.
In 2015, while Whitecotton was continuing to work for PGB as a salesperson, he became aware that federal investigators were interviewing staff and inmates working in his factory. Worried that his prohibited job with PGB might be exposed, Whitecotton concocted a cover-up. He amended documents to make it appear that his son had been working for PGB, as opposed to Whitecotton. He also instructed PGB’s owner not to cooperate with investigators if anyone asked for an interview. Whitecotton further told PGB’s owner that if he did agree to speak to investigators, the owner should say that Whitecotton’s son, not Whitecotton, had been working with PGB as a salesperson and receiving payments for the past year.
Whitecotton further attempted to conceal his prohibited job with PGB by making false statements on certified government forms. As a supervisory employee in the executive branch of the United States, Whitecotton was required to annually report his financial interests, any outside employment activities, and any positions held outside his role at the prison. The purpose of this requirement was to uncover any possible conflicts of interest a supervisory employee may have in the performance of his or her duties. The forms specifically required Whitecotton to disclose any sources of income over $200. At the time, Whitecotton had received over $20,000 in payments from PGB, but he knowingly failed to disclose that information, to prevent federal investigators from discovering the truth.
In December 2020, Whitecotton pled guilty to two counts of making materially false statements related to those government forms.
Along with 8 months in prison and 8 months of home confinement, Judge Yandle ordered Whitecotton to pay restitution in the amount of $23,475.25 – the total amount he earned from PGB. As part of his sentence, Whitecotton was also ordered to serve 10 months on supervised release after his home confinement ends.
This case was investigated by the FBI and Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Luke J. Weissler.
Savion Buehler
Factory Manager Hid Outside Government Contractor Payments
49-year-old Shawn E. Whitecotton of Herrin, Illinois pleaded guilty to a two-count felony information charging
Chicago Tech Executive Guilty of Illegally Exporting Computer Equipment to Pakistan
CHICAGO —A Chicago technology executive pleaded guilty today to a federal criminal charge and admitted
Two Thomson Penitentiary Inmates Sentenced to Additional Prison Time for Assaulting Another Inmate
ROCKFORD — Two Thomson Penitentiary inmates have been sentenced to additional prison time for assaulting another
FOP President Dan Hils Slams The View’s Joy Behar Comments After Columbus, Ohio Police-Involved Shooting
Sergeant Dan Hils, president of Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police, discusses the officer-involved shooting in
Man Charged With Threatening Violence Against Federal Judge in Chicago
A man has been indicted on criminal charges for allegedly threatening to assault and murder
Man Who Set Fire to Chicago Police Vehicle During Civil Unrest Pleads Guilty In Federal Court
A man admitted in federal court today that he threw a lit firework into a
Woman Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison for Coercing Members of Church Ministry Into Forced Labor
The self-appointed bishop of a Pennsylvania ministry has been sentenced to 12 years in federal prison
Tags: Benton, Chicago Crime, Federal Bureau of Prisons, UNICOR
Previous Federal Grand Jury in Chicago Indicts Five Alleged Associates of Sinaloa Cartel on Drug Trafficking Charges
Next Junior Golfapalooza Set for April 17 at Springbrook Golf Course


Rice and the Toughness Fallacy
March 10, 2014 Topic: Grand StrategyGreat Powers Region: RussiaIranGeorgiaUnited StatesUkraine Blog Brand: Paul Pillar
Will more U.S. obduracy and military spending always make others cower?
by Paul R. Pillar
The rhetorical drumbeat from rightward portions of the commentariat, to the effect that Russia's moves in Ukraine should be attributed to a supposed pusillanimous “retreat” of American power and to adversaries responding by becoming more aggressive, shows no signs of abating. It continues even though, as Robert Golan-Vilella nicely explains and I have noted, the historical evidence simply does not show that the world works that way and that other governments make foreign policy decisions that way. The impetus for the drumbeat includes broader habits of exceptionalist thinking about American power and the more specific political objective of disparaging Barack Obama by blaming him for just about everything going wrong in the world. The theme regarding the latter objective is that Obama is weak and unassertive—this notion being basically a continuation of the mythical “apology tour” that Mitt Romney used to talk about.
An opinion piece by Condoleezza Rice illustrates another, complementary motivation, which is to try to paint over the failures of past policies that have laid claim to being strong and assertive. Rice's message is a simple one that more military spending, more obduracy, more militancy, and more deployments of armed forces are a good thing, and always will make others cower in the face of U.S. power. There is nary a bit of analysis, even of the limited sort that would fit in the confines of an op ed, as to exactly how any specific policy implied by what she is saying would be, with respect to any of the topics that she quickly mentions, better than the alternatives.
Rice even still seems to be in regime change mode. She says, “ We should reach out to Russian youth, especially students and young professionals...Democratic forces in Russia need to hear American support for their ambitions. They, not Putin, are Russia’s future.” So what conclusion is Putin supposed to draw, and how exactly is that supposed to influence his behavior or the behavior of any adversary anywhere else? Is he going to pull back from Crimea because our “reaching out” would cause his regime to totter? Hardly.
Give Rice credit for having the audacity to try to go on the argumentative offensive on some of the very topics on which she ought to be most defensive. One is the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. The invasion—which was, as with Crimea, a Russian use of military force in a former Soviet republic—is Exhibit A for the proposition that the ostensibly tough policies that Rice favors do not dissuade people like Putin from doing things like that. The invasion occurred in the last year of the George W. Bush administration, after nearly eight years of such policies. Yet Rice would have us believe that by sending U.S. warships to the Black Sea and airlifting Georgian troops back home from Iraq, a Russian goal of toppling the Georgian government was foiled (“an admission made to me by the Russian foreign minister”). She blames the Russian military occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on lily-livered Europeans unwilling to take tougher anti-Russian actions—later exacerbated, of course, by Obama's policies. She makes no mention of just what threat of military action was being communicated by U.S. moves, whether any such threat was credible given the consequences if it were executed, and what those consequences would be (a U.S.-Russian land war in the Caucasus?)
Rice says “signs that we are desperate for a nuclear agreement with Iran cannot be separated from Putin’s recent actions.” That's an odd formulation to begin with, given that Russia is part of the diplomatic coalition, as a partner of the United States, that is negotiating the agreement—so Russia must be just as “desperate.” And if one looks at the negotiations as not just an exercise in demonstrating toughness or weakness but instead in terms of their actual objective of placing strict and verifiable limits on Iran's nuclear program, Rice again is quietly whitewashing recent history. The Bush administration, uninterested in doing any business with Iran, blew an opportunity to limit that program when there were only a fraction of the Iranian centrifuges spinning that there are now. The preliminary agreement reached last November is the farthest-reaching restriction on the Iranian program ever achieved, with only minimal sanctions relief in return. If that's desperation, we need more of it.
In trying to connect assorted messiness in the Middle East to Obama's “retreat,” Rice refers to a “vacuum being filled by extremists such as al-Qaeda reborn in Iraq and Syria.” Al-Qaeda in Iraq was born, nor reborn, as a direct consequence of the Bush administration's war in Iraq. It didn't exist there before, and since the U.S. invasion it never went away. Now, in the form of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS), it has become as well the most extreme participant in the violence in Syria.
If one were to try to make an argument about connections between the crisis in Ukraine and reputations nurtured by previous U.S. policies, a more plausible argument—more plausible than the one about lack of toughness encouraging tough guys to make trouble—involves the Iraq War. That act of U.S. aggression is recent enough that it still is a prominent detriment to U.S. credibility whenever the United States tries to complain about someone else's use of military force against another sovereign state, including Putin's use of force in Crimea. This damage is, along with ISIS and heightened sectarian conflict in the Middle East, part of the mess from his predecessor that Obama is having to deal with today.
As national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice had one of the most egregious failures that anyone holding that position could have: the absence of any policy process leading to a foreign policy decision as major as launching an offensive war. No meeting or option paper ever considered whether launching the war was a good idea. Had there been a policy process, maybe the likelihood of some of the resulting mess would have been considered. That horrendous failure cannot be undone, but we can at least resist Rice's later revision of history.


Getting to Know All About Makar Sankranti 2022
A Compendium of Zodiac Signs: Who Is the Most Loyal?
7 Zodiac Signs Who Will Benefit Financially in 2022
Foreign Settlement In Kundli: Combinations & Remedies
6 of the Happiest Zodiac Signs and What Will Make Them Happy in 2022
By : Akagra Sharma
Makar Sankranti is a Hindu holiday that is extremely important to believers. Devotees across the Indian subcontinent celebrate Makar Sankranti with a magnificent festivity. Continue reading to learn more about the festival. India is {…}
Loyalty is a must-have quality! We frequently start relationships with someone we don’t know, whether it’s a friendship, a collaboration, or a love relationship. Loyalty is a characteristic that allows us to put our {…}
Whatever the year 2021 has been like for us, we all are expecting a better 2022, especially when it comes to our financial stability. With the standard of living rising with each passing {…}
Foreign settling is one of the most desired ‘to-dos’ for many people. People move abroad to work, study, and for a variety of other reasons. But, as much as your hard work and the {…}
When it refers to a person’s basic requirements, happiness is the only thing that matters. To be satisfied or not to be concerned— we all yearn for calm and the possibility of fulfillment. Not only do {…}
6 Zodiac Signs Who Will Almost Certainly Find Their Valentine in 2022
As we are all set to embrace the year 2022, we have so much to look forward to, with love being one of those things. Like honestly, isn’t love something that we all want {…}
Numerology Predictions for 2022: How Will Your Year Be?
As we bid farewell to a busy 2021, it is time to look ahead to a promising 2022. What does the new year hold in store for us? Every time a year comes to {…}
The Best Christmas Gift tips for the Zodiac
With the holidays lining up, you must be racking your head for gifting ideas for your friends and family. Rather than enjoying the holiday season, spending your time worrying about what gifts to buy {…}
The Best Personality Traits and Qualities of the 12 Zodiac Signs
The 12 Zodiac signs are used to categorize Astrology, and one of the most common classifications is based on four core elements: Fire, Earth, Air, and Water. These four elements are the primary source {…}
7 Reliable Reasons Why Kundli Matching Is Required to Marriage.
Marriage is a significant milestone in a person’s life. It is a lovely relationship that brings two souls together for the rest of their lives. It marks their transition into a new stage of {…}
Powered by Astrology WordPress Theme


A Threat Intelligence Strategy Map: Connecting Technical Activities to Business Value
By Anthony Lim	onOctober 24, 2019 inSecurity
You’re trying to make the business case for your organization’s threat intelligence initiative, but members of the senior leadership team remain puzzled about the value of their investments in cybersecurity.
Should we really be surprised? Consider the cold, hard facts:
Companies worldwide are investing tens of billions of dollars per year on security, with a forecast increase of more than 9 percent per year, according to IDC.
Security solution providers number in the thousands, which underscores the importance of the problem — but also highlights the complexity of managing a large portfolio of solutions.
Attackers are consistently outperforming defenders, with attacker dwell times — i.e., the time it takes defenders to detect a successful compromise by the attackers — improving to a global median of 78 days (10 to 11 weeks) in 2018, but with 25 percent of compromises still going undetected for one to four years, according to FireEye.
Data breaches continue unabated, with public disclosures of more than 3,200 in 2017–2018. And while 75 percent of these breaches involved less than 10,000 records, the run rate for mega breaches of 1 million records or more was more than two per week.
To put this in perspective, when you consider both the likelihood and the total business impact of a data breach, a straightforward Monte Carlo analysis conducted by Aberdeen in June 2019 found that the median annualized total cost of a data breach under the status quo is about $500,000 — with a 10 percent likelihood of exceeding $1.8 billion (this particular quantification is about the compromise of confidentiality, and doesn’t address the impact of a compromise to the availability or integrity of the organization’s information assets).
Said another way: In spite of their ever-growing investments in a dazzling array of security solutions, the risk of a data breach remains unacceptably high. This is the starting point for making a business case for investing in your organization’s threat intelligence initiative; a clear and quantified explanation, expressed in business terms, of why it matters.
Connecting Activities With Outcomes
The business case should be described from the top down (i.e., starting with outcomes), but execution obviously happens from the bottom up. Now it makes sense to talk about the value chain for threat intelligence, in the context of how it will help to prevent and detect compromises and reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
The data that’s relevant to your organization needs to be collected from multiple sources and integrated. To be useful, the data you’ve integrated must be processed — ideally, in an automated manner — to be put into the specific context of your organization’s business environment. Contextualized information must then be analyzed to uncover insights about what’s happening and develop recommended actions. Most importantly, these insights and actions need to be effectively shared with the people and teams throughout your organization who will use it to inform their decisions.
Making the Case for Threat Intelligence
The next step is to explain how a successful threat intelligence initiative can generate insights and actions to help inform the decisions of multiple people and teams throughout your organization, including:
Level 1 analysts — for example, to support the real-time monitoring, detection, initial investigation and escalation that takes place in the security operations center (SOC).
Level 2/3 analysts — for example, to support the in-depth prioritization, investigation, containment and remediation of an incident response team and the proactive efforts of experts on threat hunting and counter-fraud teams.
Operational leaders — for example, to help the leaders of security operations and IT operations guide and prioritize the day-to-day actions and activities of their respective technical staff.
Strategic leaders — for example, to help chief information security officers (CISOs) and other senior leaders allocate resources and make better-informed business decisions about managing cybersecurity-related risks to an acceptable level.
Making the connections between technical activities, critical capabilities and, ultimately, the resulting value to the organization is a perfect application for the well-known balanced scorecard framework, which, since 1992, has helped organizations of all types describe, communicate and execute their strategies more effectively. The graphical depiction of these connections is referred to as a strategy map.
Build Your Threat Intelligence Strategy Map Today
With this in mind, stay tuned for the upcoming white paper that includes a general-purpose strategy map for threat intelligence — a model for a one-page summary of how investments in your organization’s threat intelligence initiative translate to business value. With a little practice, you’ll find that it supports a wide range of discussions with the senior leadership team, from higher-level strategy to deeper technical dives.
Learn more about threat intelligence in practice during the webinar on November 7th, and keep an eye out for the upcoming white paper.
Reigster for the webinar
The post A Threat Intelligence Strategy Map: Connecting Technical Activities to Business Value appeared first on Security Intelligence.


Mattel, Hasbro, Viacom reach deal to stop tracking children online for marketing purposes
Children visiting websites for SpongeBob SquarePants, Barbie and other popular kids’ brands will no longer have their personal data illegally tracked for marketing purposes under a deal between New York’s top cop and four companies including Viacom and Mattel.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said on Tuesday that a two-year probe of the companies, including Hasbro and JumpStart Games, found they violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The companies used technology that allowed third-party vendors to collect and use personal information from children under the age of 13 without parental approval, Schneiderman said in a statement.
The investigation “revealed that some of our nation’s biggest companies failed to protect kids’ privacy,” Schneiderman said. “Federal law demands that children are off-limits to the prying eyes of advertisers.”
The probe, which Schneiderman said is the first of its kind in the U.S., covered sites for Viacom’s Nick Jr. and Nickelodeon brands; Mattel’s Barbie, Hot Wheels, and American Girl toys; Hasbro’s My Little Pony, Littlest Pet Shop, and Nerf; and JumpStart’s Neopets, a virtual pet community it purchased from Viacom in 2014. The companies will pay $835,000 in total as part of the agreement.
Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/13/tracking-children-online-marketing-purposes/


How Trump Will Weaken the Presidency
By Keith E. Whittington
Thursday, May 16, 2019, 11:20 AM
President Donald Trump at the White House (Source: Flickr/Official White House Photo by Benjamin Applebaum)
Donald Trump has stoked new fears of an imperial presidency. His obvious fascination with the powers of foreign autocrats is unprecedented for an American president. His ignorant and dismissive attitude toward the rules and norms that help limit presidential power has generated widespread anxiety about the fragility of American democracy. His repeated assertion in tweets and public statements of the rarely imagined powers that he claims to hold in his hands is dismaying (though often highly dubious). He tries to convey the image of an American strongman.
But as is often the case with Trump, the appearance does not match the reality. There is ample evidence that the Trump presidency is quite weak, and he may well leave the office of the presidency weaker than he found it. Where his predecessors since Watergate have been gradually reacquiring power for the White House, Trump might find himself giving power back.
Political scientists have long emphasized that the real power of the presidency lies in the informal influence that a president can exercise, not in the formal constitutional power that he can wield. It is a sign of weakness, not strength, when a president must resort to using the weapons in his constitutional arsenal. A strong president does not need to issue vetoes, because he can shape the legislative agenda and persuade legislators to enact policies of which he approves. A strong president does not need to remove executive branch officers, because he can staff his administration with people who share his vision and can help him implement his goals. A strong president does not need to fall back on claims of executive privilege, because he can persuade legislators to channel their oversight in other directions and to trust the president’s judgment about information that must remain confidential.
A strong president persuades; he does not command. When persuasion fails, a president must fall back on giving orders or, even worse, find himself stymied by recalcitrant politicians and subordinates. Trump has issued few vetoes, but mostly because Congress has passed only a few bills. He has not been terribly effective in transforming his own policy agenda into legislation, which has forced him to fall back on often ineffectual executive orders. Even with the advantage of a Senate controlled by his own party and generally friendly to his nominees, he has barely been able to staff his own administration. His greatest success has been in the realm of judicial appointments, where he has ceded the decision making to others. The president has been able to publicly and privately humiliate his own staff and officers, but he often fails to convince them to carry out his wishes. If President Trump is a would-be autocrat, he has shown no capacity to exercise autocratic power.
On the formal dimensions of presidential power, Trump might well wind up weakening the presidency by overreaching. The president has made a habit of issuing executive orders, such as his travel ban and his swipe at sanctuary cities, without much planning or careful thought about either their legality or their policy efficacy. As a consequence, the Trump White House has created opportunities for opponents of his administration to exploit vulnerabilities and encourage greater judicial scrutiny of how the president exercises his discretionary authority. The administration has repeatedly advanced policies, such as the declaration of a national emergency to fund a border wall, with the thinnest veneers of legal justification—veneers that the president himself, to the consternation of his lawyers, often strips away with his own words. As a result, the administration has ended up daring the courts to show the kind of deference traditionally granted to presidents who have more carefully and more cautiously used the powers available to them. Now Trump has embarked on an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of congressional oversight that will likely force the courts to reevaluate the scope of executive privilege and the limits of legislative investigatory authority.
It is a familiar refrain that bad cases make bad law. Legal rules that are drafted to account for unusual fact situations can deform the law in ways that make it less well adjusted to respond to more routine situations. Trump’s attempts to push his legal powers to their outermost extremes risk having the courts trim away those powers. In the past, presidents who have won the trust of judges and legislators have been accorded more practical power to exercise discretion and to enjoy deference. With the loss of trust, that discretion is likely to be restricted.
By persistently testing the limits of the president’s constitutional and legal powers, Trump forces his defenders to offer increasingly strained legal arguments to justify his actions. By declaring a national emergency where none exists and proposing to use funds to pay for “military construction projects” that have no military purpose, Trump dares the courts to call his bluff and expose the fact that his legal arguments are offered in bad faith. By declaring that, in his view, preexisting oversight efforts were “enough” and so the administration will be “fighting all the subpoenas,” he invites Congress and the courts to assume that his resistance to congressional oversight is purely personal and has no firm basis in a reasonable desire to protect the institutional prerogatives of the executive branch.
And by making blanket assertions of executive privilege over testimony and documents that cannot be easily tied to the traditional grounds for protecting the internal confidences of the executive branch, he challenges Congress and the courts to strip away the veils of privilege. When, in 1958, Attorney General William P. Rogers explained the importance of executive privilege to a Congress that was frequently trying to cast it aside, he emphasized that “non-disclosure can never be justified as a means of covering mistakes, avoiding embarrassments, or for political, personal, or pecuniary reasons.” Trump’s “blanket refusal” to cooperate with congressional investigations, on the other hand, invites the conclusion that the administration’s actions are guided less by constitutional scruples than by a desire to avoid the exposure of dirty laundry.
The president is, of course, not alone in rushing into a constitutional game of chicken. Members of the Democratic leadership have been cautious to emphasize that they are not “going to rush in and beat up on Trump,” but both sides understood that the Democratic victory in the midterm elections would result in the House making Trump’s life miserable. House committees have moved remarkably quickly to issue subpoenas, contempt citations and impeachment threats at the expense of more routine and informal negotiations. The American separation of powers works in no small part because government officials have built up norms and practices that ease tensions and provide the means for navigating impasses. The current polarized political climate has encouraged officials to strip away these informal mechanisms of comity and cooperation, leaving the gears of government to grind away and lock up.
The president will no doubt win some of these legal battles, but he will lose some as well. In doing so, he will leave his successors hemmed in by more constricting legal rules and adverse judicial precedents, and will encourage legislators and judges to be more mistrustful of presidential claims and less willing to invest the presidency with authority and discretion. Future presidents who will need the flexibility to respond to genuine emergencies and to protect valuable secrets will find themselves less well situated to do so because this president has squandered political and legal capital. In the past, presidents have benefited from the fact that they have not generally had to put the limits of their legal authority to the test. His bold assertions of executive prerogative might make President Trump temporarily feel powerful, but that sense of potency will likely prove fleeting.
President Trump,
Keith E. Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He teaches and writes about American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency. He is the author most recently of "Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech."
The Law of Individual Disqualification in a Democracy
Aziz Huq, Tom Ginsburg, David Landau Mon, Nov 8, 2021, 2:44 PM
The Trump Impeachment as Precedent for Future Late Impeachments
Brian C. Kalt Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 10:26 AM
Reflections on Reform of the Impeachment Process
Bob Bauer Fri, Feb 19, 2021, 10:59 AM
Livestream: Second Trump Impeachment Trial Day 5
Tia Sewell Sat, Feb 13, 2021, 9:39 AM
The Constitutionality of Trying a Former President for Impeachment–A Reply to Frank Bowman
Philip Bobbitt Fri, Feb 12, 2021, 2:53 PM


Quarto Publishing Plc
Power to the Princess
Murrow, Vita und Bereciartu, Julia
15 Favourite Fairytales Retold with Girl Power
Like Snow White, who gets on with her stepmother just fine (in the end). And Belle the Brave, whose open heart helps her become a member of the Fairyland Police. And Prime Minister Cinderella, who just wants to help everyone have a better life. These fifteen girls are smart, funny, and kind, and can do anything they set their minds to. Power to the princess! von Murrow, Vita und Bereciartu, Julia
Vita Murrow is an educator, an artist, a writer and a mum. Vita has a quirky sense of humour and an eye for the weird. When she was in 8th grade she was rejected from a special writers' retreat for kids. But that didn't stop her from pursuing her passion. Since then, Vita has been a teacher, a producer, a film maker, a program director and even a puppeteer. She currently works as a children's author reinventing old stories for a new generation and crafting wordless pictures books together with her husband Ethan Murrow. Their book The Whale was nominated for a CILIP Carnegie and Kate Greenaway Medal. She is also the author of two volumes of fairytales retold for a new generation: Power to the Princess and High-Five to the Hero. Vita loves working with other artists and writers and is always looking to share a chocolate chip cookie with someone.Julia Bereciartu (a.k.a. Juliabe) is a Spanish illustrator, born in 1980 in the northern city of San Sebastian. From an early age, she spent most of her time drawing, even if that meant using markers on her parents' new couch. She also loved reading books and dreamed of painting the illustrations that accompanied them when she grew up. She now lives in Madrid with her partner and their ginger cat, and has fulfilled her childhood dream of becoming an illustrator. Julia works for clients such as American Girl, Google, Cartoon Network and Simon & Schuster, and loves giving life to quirky, sassy characters and the occasional fluffy pet.
Kundenbewertungen für "Power to the Princess"
24 Seiten Seiten
It's a Small World (Disney Classic)
Golden Books;


Former Journal-Constitution editor stresses the importance of effective writing to students
September 26, 2013 thesewaneepurple News Leave a comment
by Emily Daniel
On the evening of September 19, Sewanee residents were treated to an engaging discussion on the importance of effective communication in writing. The discussion took place in Gailor Auditorium and was led by Glenn Hannigan, a former editor for The Atlanta Journal-
Hannigan is certainly no stranger to writing. He wrote and edited for The Journal-Constitution for nearly thirty years before striking out on his own and founding TruVine Communications, LLC in 2008. He is currently the pastor of Ebenezer United Methodist Church in Roswell, Georgia and routinely holds writing workshops for various newspapers, corporations, and colleges.
With both frankness and sense a of humor, Hannigan instructed his audience in the fundamentals of clear, effective writing. He particularly emphasized the importance of simplicity, saying that, although it’s a role that few like to assume, “the world needs an editor.” He also stressed the idea that the best writers are often not the most educated ones—but the ones who are willing to take risks, who appreciate and learn from feedback, and who genuinely like people and want to share their stories. Hannigan’s talk was made possible by The Sewanee Purple.
According to Julia Wallace (C’14), editor-in-chief of the Purple, he first came to her attention last spring when it was discovered that Sewanee student Becca Hannigan (C’16) his daughter. However, Wallace admits that actually bringing him to campus was “a long time coming.” “I emailed him in March and he confirmed for September,” she says. Wallace, like Hannigan, believes that learning to write effectively is vital. “People…forget about the basics of writing all the time,” she says. “It is so easy to get ahead of yourself, and after a while people end up writing…nonsense. There is no substitute for clear communication.”
Anyone interested in learning more about Glenn Hannigan and his work can visit the TruVine Communications, LLC website: http://www.truvinecommunications.com.
Glenn HanniganjournalismNewsspeakers
Previous Post: Archaeology makes its mark on the Domain
Next Post: Breaking ground: sorority housing project underway


Home News COVID and Trump – taking stock as the election count continues
COVID and Trump – taking stock as the election count continues
Despite everything else going on here in Ireland, the U.S. election has been given huge coverage in the Irish media in recent weeks. Hours of TV news time, pages and pages in newspapers.
*Editor’s Note: This column first appeared in the November 4 edition of the Irish Voice newspaper, sister publication to IrishCentral.
Ireland has always been interested in what happens in America, but not since JFK have we seen such fascination with who will occupy the White House.
Much of the coverage here has been apocalyptic in tone. All of it has been anti-Trump. If the orange ogre gets back the U.S. is doomed, etc.
Joe Biden may be old and a bit forgetful but he’s the only hope, for America and the world. And he’s one of us, of course, which plays well here.
But let’s step back for a moment and try to be objective. There’s a momentary quiet time after all the noise, the accusations, and insults of the last few weeks.
Since this column was written before the result is known, we can use this quiet time for a dispassionate assessment of what became the biggest issue of the election — in fact the ONLY issue — the way the Trump administration has handled Covid.
Despite Trump’s increasingly desperate attempts to shift attention to the economy and jobs, to foreign policy or anything else, there really was only one story in the election. Covid, Covid, Covid, as Trump began to say in frustration. The doomsday coverage was relentless and as far as the media was concerned, the dire situation in the U.S. was all Trump’s fault.
The media concentration on Covid was justifiable, of course. It’s the biggest threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world in decades.
But there is a difference between reporting the Covid story fairly and using it to destroy the candidate in the election that almost all the U.S. media hates. They may have many good reasons for disliking Trump, but that does not make this either justifiable or good journalism.
In this column last week, we pointed out that although the Covid numbers in the U.S. are tragic and shocking, the Covid death rate in the U.S. is exactly the same as it is in the U.K.
Instead of drawing attention to this, however, the media in America prefer to point out that the U.S. has four percent of the world’s population but almost 20 percent of the world’s Covid deaths.
That brings to mind the phrase “lies, damned lies, and statistics.” It ignores the fact that many big countries around the world are not counting Covid deaths accurately or at all, because they are too poor and disorganized to do so. Some are actively suppressing the numbers and others we simply cannot believe anything they say.
In contrast with the global figure, the comparison with the U.K. figure is valid. It’s a developed country like the U.S., and both are honestly and accurately reporting the number of people dying with Covid.
So to repeat, the Covid death rate in the U.S. and the U.K. is the same. Now that the campaign is over, is it too much to expect that CNN, etc. might start focusing on this?
None of this is to justify Trump’s handling of the virus, the early promise that it will “go away” like the flu, the ongoing refusal to take it seriously, the idiotic meandering at press conferences about swallowing bleach, about unproven therapeutics, etc. In particular, his cavalier attitude to mask-wearing and social distancing, and more recently his facile claims that the U.S. is “rounding the turn” all underline a gross failure in leadership.
He could have made a difference by taking the threat seriously and leading by example. In doing so, he could have helped to save lives.
Instead, in an attempt to shore up his vote by pretending that everything was under control, he continued to talk nonsense about the virus and downplay what we all have to do to suppress it. Whoever wins the election, he and his conscience will have to live with that.
Despite this litany of failure, however, it is simply not true that Trump did nothing to fight the virus. There was his early shutdown of travel from China (although not as early as some of its neighbors in the region who acted immediately because they knew from experience the Chinese regime cannot be trusted).
There was his provision of massive funding, emergency hospital beds, and the impressive ramping up of ventilator production. And there was the hugely expensive pandemic payments to help the millions losing their jobs and the business supports to try to keep companies afloat.
He didn’t get credit for any of that because it did not fit the media narrative of failure. Instead, the aim every day was to belittle and undermine whatever he did.
Stupidly, he played into this by continuing to talk off the top of his head about unproven “cures” for the virus when he should have been strictly limiting his remarks to proven science.
Where Trump was most culpable was in his lack of leadership on the simple things, the mask-wearing, hand washing, social distancing, and so on. Coupled with that was his determination to reopen the economy, to get back to “normal” as quickly as possible, well before the election.
He was not alone in this misjudgment, however. Countries across Europe (including Ireland) made the same mistake this summer and are now paying the price with a rampant second wave of the virus.
This week the U.K. is starting a four-week national lockdown. Several other EU countries, including the big players France and Germany, have now joined Spain and Italy in full or partial lockdowns. Smaller countries like Austria and Greece are doing the same. Here in Ireland, we are in the second week of a six-week national lockdown.
Major parts of the European economy have stopped functioning, travel has ground to a halt again and people are just hanging in there, hoping the lockdowns may make it possible to partially reopen for Christmas. Even if that does happen, there is the fear that we will be back into lockdown again in the new year. The truth is that nothing is going back to “normal” either here or in the U.S. until we have a vaccine.
On that front, Trump has been promising for some time that a vaccine is only weeks away, and again this has been either ridiculed or downplayed by the media. Having destroyed his own credibility on Covid, he is partly to blame for this himself. The fact is, however, that at this stage Trump appears to be right.
Luke O’Neill, professor of immunology at Trinity College in Dublin and an expert in biochemistry with wide contacts in the industry, produced some interesting information for an article in the Sunday Independent paper here at the weekend.
More than half a dozen of the big pharma companies (many of whom are based here) have now successfully concluded Phase 2 trials of their vaccines and are into the final Phase 3 stage. Pfizer, according to O’Neill, is getting ready to produce 1.3 billion doses of its vaccine in anticipation of the Phase 3 trials being a success.
Of course, there may still be setbacks, but it would not be doing that if it was not confident, including preparing a facility in Kalamazoo in Michigan to store several hundred million doses and another massive storage facility in Europe.
Pfizer has been working on rapid distribution for some time so that it will be ready once final approval of its vaccine is forthcoming. According to O’Neill, Pfizer has booked dozens of cargo jets and hundreds of trucks. Each truck will be able to carry seven million doses. “That means one truck could vaccinate all of Ireland and more,” O’Neill wrote.
The U.S. government has ordered 100 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, with an option to buy a further 500 million doses. Trump has repeatedly stated that he has the military on standby to assist in rapid distribution once a vaccine gets the green light.
All going well, Pfizer and another big pharma company, Moderna, are now just three weeks away from concluding Phase 3 trials of their vaccines, O’Neill said. And other candidates like the AstraZeneca-Oxford and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are also progressing quickly.
In all, at least half a dozen vaccines are likely to be available early in the new year, with one or two possible for front line workers and the most vulnerable even before Christmas.
Which is comforting news to all of us. But will it have been a comfort to Trump Hopefully, when you read this we will know one way or the other.
Previous articleLandlords learn on the job
Next articleWARNING!!! BITCOIN MASSIVE REJECTION!! Bears Waking Up!! [BUT STILL BULLISH] – China FUD OkEX Drama
John Lennon’s Irish connection on the anniversary of his death
Are foreclosures worth buying in Canada? Podcast FULL Episode – #44
Ireland publishes who is set to receive vaccinations first


Swedes about leadership under crisis
It has probably escaped nobody that the world is currently facing some serious turmoil due to the Coronavirus. This chaos brings about big changes, both for organizations and individuals. Many companies have had to let people go and those who have managed to keep their jobs are often forced to work from home. In moments like these, people look to great leaders for guidance. Question is, what’s the appropriate response?
Even though the present situation might feel unique, this isn’t the first time humankind has been threatened by a pandemic. The Black Death, the Spanish Flu, and the Plague of Justinian are just a few we have managed to overcome. But what can we learn from the leaders who lived through these horrible diseases?
The plague with the highest death toll is, of course, the Black Death. During the 14th century, it killed more than 200 million people. The labor force decreased, and in accordance with supply- and demand models, wages rose. King Edward III of England tried to please the landowning class by fixing the wages at pre-plague levels but this didn’t make him very popular in the eyes of the common people. Several uprisings followed causing even more instability. To pretend that the circumstances haven’t changed is therefore not a good leadership policy. A good leader needs to adapt as the environment changes.
Moving on, the Spanish flu tormented the world between the years 1918 and 1920. Over 500 million people were infected and some sources claim that more than 50 million people died. According to historian John M. Barry, the most significant mistake the governments made during this time was to lie about the gravity of the disease. After all, there was a war going on and numerous leaders felt that should be the main focus. However, people quickly realized the truth when their neighbors, coworkers and loved ones died and once they did, their trust was dramatically reduced. A good leader should thus be honest with what’s going on.
The Plague of Justinian is probably the least known pandemic of the three brought up in this article, but with its death toll of 25-100 million people, it’s one of the most deadly pandemics humankind has ever faced. Furthermore, it’s also believed that the Plague of Justinian contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. At its peak, more than 10 000 people were killed daily in Constantinople. So how did Emperor Justinian respond? He demanded not only the taxes he assessed each individual owed to the state, but also the amount which their dead neighbors were liable. The lack of compassion shown by Justinian did not sit well with the people. A good leader is empathetic, especially when times are tough.
So, to summarize, there are many lessons that can be learned from how former leaders have responded to pandemics like the Black Death, the Spanish Flu, and the Plague of Justinian. When there is a worldwide crisis, a good leader needs to be adaptable, honest, and empathetic. Only then he or she can become truly great.


Extension Study Data Supporting Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Eloctate® Published in Haemophilia
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. & STOCKHOLM--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Newly published clinical data demonstrate that people on extended-interval prophylaxis regimens with ELOCTATE® [Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), Fc Fusion Protein] experienced low bleeding rates, Biogen (NASDAQ: BIIB) and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum AB (publ) (Sobi) (STO: SOBI) announced today. The interim results of this Phase 3, open-label extension study called ASPIRE were published in the online edition of Haemophilia, the journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders, and the Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Society.
Study participants completing the Phase 3 A-LONG and Kids A-LONG studies were eligible to participate in ASPIRE. The results to-date show the majority of participants in ASPIRE, maintained or extended their dosing intervals between treatments compared to the A-LONG and Kids A-LONG studies. As of the interim analysis, the median time in the ASPIRE study was 80.9 weeks for adults and adolescents completing the A-LONG study, and 23.9 weeks for children completing the Kids A-LONG study. Inhibitor development is the primary endpoint of ASPIRE and no inhibitors were reported in any treatment groups. Through the interim ASPIRE analysis, adults and adolescents experienced annualized bleeding rates (ABRs) of 0.66, 2.03 and 1.97 in the individualized, weekly and modified prophylaxis arms, respectively. Children on individualized prophylaxis also experienced low bleeding rates, with an overall median ABR of 0.0 in children less than 6 years of age, and 1.54 for children ages 6 to 12. These results were consistent with data from the Phase 3 A-LONG and Kids A-LONG studies.
In addition to efficacy and safety endpoints, the publication also reports changes in prophylactic infusion frequency from the end of the A-LONG study through the interim analysis. Of the adults and adolescents who had previously been treated prophylactically and who remained in the study through the interim analysis (n=128), 72 percent maintained their prophylactic dosing interval and 22 percent lengthened and six percent shortened the time between infusions. Extension study participants could change treatment group at any time.
"The design of the ASPIRE study provides physicians a high degree of dosing flexibility, with the goal of reflecting their real-world treatment practices," said Guy Young, M.D., Director of the Hemostasis and Thrombosis Center, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles. "The results suggest prophylaxis with ELOCTATE shows efficacy and safety for the long-term treatment of hemophilia A."
In ASPIRE, most participants received prophylactic treatment and were able to maintain protection against bleeding episodes with ELOCTATE consumption that was consistent with that observed in A-LONG and Kids A-LONG.
Growing Body of Evidence Further Validates ELOCTATE Clinical Profile
The publication reported cumulative duration of treatment from the beginning of the A-LONG and Kids A-LONG studies through the ASPIRE interim data analysis. The median cumulative duration of treatment was 117.7 weeks for adults and adolescents, and 51.5 weeks for children less than 12 years old.
Across age groups, safety results were consistent with the general hemophilia A population. There were no reports of serious allergic reactions or vascular clots. The most common adverse events (incidence of greater than or equal to five percent) included nasopharyngitis (common cold), arthralgia (joint pain) and upper respiratory infection.
"These published results add to the body of data demonstrating ELOCTATE's safety profile and ability to provide protection against bleeding episodes," said Wing-Yen Wong, M.D., vice president, Global Medical, Hematology and Immunology at Biogen. "As a company focused on bringing treatment advances to the hemophilia community, we are committed to gathering comprehensive, long-term clinical data across populations."
"We remain focused on the goal of elevating hemophilia care globally, and we believe the publication of these data is important clinical research that contributes to the advancement of medical science in hemophilia," said Birgitte Volck, M.D., Ph.D., senior vice president of Development and chief medical officer of Sobi. "These interim extension data help affirm the known efficacy and safety of ELOCTATE for the treatment of people with hemophilia A."
ASPIRE is an open-label, non-randomized, multi-year extension study for people who completed the pivotal, Phase 3 A-LONG or Kids A-LONG studies. The study enrolled 211 males, including 150 (98 percent) of those who completed A-LONG and 61 (91 percent) of those who completed Kids A-LONG. The primary endpoint is the development of inhibitors. Secondary endpoints include the annualized number of bleeding episodes per subject, ELOCTATE exposure days and a participant's assessment of response to treatment of a bleeding episode.
About ELOCTATE
ELOCTATE® [Antihemophilic Factor (Recombinant), Fc Fusion Protein], the first recombinant clotting factor VIII therapy with prolonged circulation in the body, is approved in the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan. It is indicated in the United States for the control and prevention of bleeding episodes, perioperative (surgical) management and routine prophylaxis in adults and children with hemophilia A. ELOCTATE is not indicated for the treatment of a bleeding disorder called von Willebrand disease.
Introduced in the U.S. in July 2014 and Japan in March 2015, ELOCTATE provides protection from bleeding episodes with the potential to extend the interval between prophylactic infusions. The therapy was developed using a process called Fc fusion, which is designed to prolong a therapy's circulation in the body using a naturally occurring pathway. While Fc fusion has been used for more than 15 years, Biogen is the only company to apply it to the treatment of hemophilia.
Development of Factor VIII neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) may occur following administration of ELOCTATE. Common adverse reactions (incidence of greater than or equal to 1 percent) reported in the registrational A-LONG study were arthralgia (joint pain) and malaise (general discomfort). For additional important safety information, and the United States full prescribing information, please visit www.ELOCTATE.com.
About Hemophilia A
Hemophilia A is a rare, chronic, genetic disorder in which the ability of a person's blood to clot is impaired, due to missing or reduced levels of a protein known as factor VIII. People with hemophilia A experience recurrent and extended bleeding episodes that cause pain and irreversible joint damage. Some of these bleeding episodes can be life-threatening. According to the World Federation of Hemophilia, an estimated 142,000 people worldwide are identified as living with hemophilia A.1 Prophylactic infusions of factor VIII can temporarily replace the clotting factor necessary to control bleeding and prevent new bleeding episodes.
Inhibitor development is a response of the body's immune system that interferes with the activity of therapy. About 25 to 30 percent of people with severe hemophilia A develop inhibitors during their lifetime. Inhibitors typically develop after a median of 8-10 exposure days, though this number varies widely.2
About Biogen
Through cutting-edge science and medicine, Biogen discovers, develops and delivers to patients worldwide innovative therapies for the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, hematologic conditions and autoimmune disorders. Founded in 1978, Biogen is one of the world's oldest independent biotechnology companies and patients worldwide benefit from its leading multiple sclerosis and innovative hemophilia therapies. For product labeling, press releases and additional information about the company, please visit www.biogen.com.
About Sobi
Sobi is an international specialty healthcare company dedicated to rare diseases. Sobi's mission is to develop and deliver innovative therapies and services to improve the lives of patients. The product portfolio is primarily focused on Haemophilia, Inflammation and Genetic diseases. Sobi also markets a portfolio of specialty and rare disease products for partner companies across Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Russia. Sobi is a pioneer in biotechnology with world-class capabilities in protein biochemistry and biologics manufacturing. In 2014, Sobi had total revenues of SEK 2.6 billion (USD 380 M) and about 600 employees. The share (STO: SOBI) is listed on NASDAQ OMX Stockholm. More information is available at www.sobi.com.
Biogen Safe Harbor
This press release contains forward-looking statements, including statements about the interim analysis from ASPIRE, its publication, and the potential therapeutic effect of ELOCTATE in people with hemophilia A treated with prophylaxis regimens of ELOCTATE. These statements may be identified by words such as "believe," "expect," "may," "plan," "potential," "will" and similar expressions, and are based on our current beliefs and expectations. Drug development and commercialization involve a high degree of risk. Factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from our current expectations include the risk that unexpected concerns may arise from additional or new data or analysis, regulatory authorities may require additional data or information or further studies, or may fail to approve, or refuse to approve, or may delay approval of expanded indications or uses of our drug products, or we may encounter other unexpected hurdles. For more detailed information on the risks and uncertainties associated with our drug development and commercialization activities, please review the Risk Factors section of our most recent annual or quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
1. World Federation of Hemophilia. Annual Global Survey 2012. http://www1.wfh.org/publications/files/pdf-1574.pdf. Accessed July 2015.
2. Mariani G, Konkle BA, Kessler CM. Inhibitors in Hemophilia A and B. In: Hoffman R, ed. Hematology: basic principles and practice. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier; 2013:1961-1970.


Let Freedom Ring: “Bad Start”
adcheck	• April 23, 2012
Let Freedom Ring’s minute-long ad attacking the New START nuclear weapons treaty President Obama negotiated with Russia places that group firmly in the small club of ideologues that opposed the treaty when it was ratified by the Senate in 2010. Support for the treaty encompassed nearly the entirety of the American national security establishment – including every living former Secretary of State – and the handful of specific claims about the treaty’s provisions in the ad range from disingenuous to blatantly false.
Vast, Bipartisan List Of National Security Experts Urged Ratification Of New START
71 To 26: Bipartisan Senate Vote For Ratification. From the Washington Post: “The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved a new nuclear arms-reduction treaty with Russia, the broadest such pact between the former Cold War foes in nearly two decades. The Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as New START, by a vote of 71 to 26, easily clearing the threshold of two-thirds of senators present as required by the Constitution for treaty ratification.” [Washington Post, 12/22/10]
National Security Network: “Opposition On The Merits Is Now Limited To A Small Group Of Ideologues” And Anti-Obama Partisans. From NSN: “Opposition on the merits is now limited to a small group of ideologues – Frank Gaffney, Rick Santorum, John Bolton, Newt Gingrich – whose worldview simply excludes pragmatic partnership with powers such as Russia. One of the worst offenders has been Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who has displayed not only a shaky grasp on history, but on national security fundamentals. Appearing at an event sponsored by the Foreign Policy Initiative, DeMint made a series of astonishing comments, confusing Russia with the Soviet Union: ‘As I look at…the proposed START treaty…we had a lot of hope that Russia would become democratic and a free market…those things have really not happened…as we look at who we’re doing business with…clearly the USSR as a democracy is a fraud…very little free market activity…the rule of law is very loose…murders go unpunished…the USSR…Russia…It’s synonymous, remember, the Russians are coming.’ In addition to this ideological worldview, there is also a political dynamic at play. Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations puts this in a broader context, ‘Cast aside any doubts. There seems to be nothing Republicans won’t do to deny President Obama a political success at home-even if it means jeopardizing U.S. national security.'” [NSNetwork.org, 12/15/10]
Supporters Of New START Ratification Included “High-Ranking Members” Of The Last Seven Administrations And “Every Former Living Secretary Of State.” From the National Security Network: “The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, the director of the Missile Defense Agency, the directors of the nation’s three national laboratories, high-ranking members of the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 administrations-including George H.W. Bush and every former living secretary of state, the Treaty’s negotiators, high-ranking intelligence officials, and numerous outside experts-have all unequivocally endorsed New START.” [NSNetwork.org, 12/15/10]
Secretaries Of State From Past Five GOP Administrations Wrote Letter Urging Ratification. In a Washington Post op-ed, former Secs. Of State Kissinger, Shultz, Baker III, Eagleburger and Powell wrote: “Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers. That is why Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements. It is why President George W. Bush negotiated the Moscow Treaty. All four recognized that reducing the number of nuclear arms in an open, verifiable manner would reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe and increase the stability of America’s relationship with the Soviet Union and, later, the Russian Federation. The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons. As a result, we urge the Senate to ratify the New START treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. It is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago. It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit.” [Kissinger, Shultz, Baker III, Eagleburger & Powell Op-Ed, Washington Post, 12/2/10]
“The Commander Of Our Nuclear Forces Has Testified That The 1,550 Warheads Allowed Under This Treaty Are Sufficient For All Our Missions – And Seven Former Nuclear Commanders Agree.” In a Washington Post op-ed, former Secs. Of State Kissinger, Shultz, Baker III, Eagleburger and Powell wrote: “Along with our obligation to protect the homeland, the United States has responsibilities to allies around the world. The commander of our nuclear forces has testified that the 1,550 warheads allowed under this treaty are sufficient for all our missions – and seven former nuclear commanders agree. The defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency – all originally appointed by a Republican president – argue that New START is essential for our national defense.” [Kissinger, Shultz, Baker III, Eagleburger & Powell Op-Ed, Washington Post, 12/2/10]
New START Doesn’t ‘Give’ Anybody Tactical Nukes – But It Paves The Way For Talks On Russia’s Longstanding Stockpile
AP Fact Check: Previous START Treaty Didn’t Touch On Tactical Weapons, But “Talks On Tactical Nuclear Weapons Are Unlikely To Occur Unless New START Is Approved.” From the Associated Press:
THE CLAIM: The treaty favors Russia because it doesn’t deal with Russia’s much larger arsenal of smaller tactical nuclear warheads intended for use on the battlefield in a conventional war. “New START gives Russia a massive nuclear weapon advantage over the United States. The treaty ignores tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia outnumbers us by as much as 10 to 1,” former Massachusetts GOP governor and 2012 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wrote last summer in The Washington Post.
THE FACTS: New START is intended to replace the 1991 START treaty, which also did not deal with tactical nuclear weapons. Russian and U.S. officials have both said that issue would be addressed in subsequent negotiations, along with the large number of U.S. warheads now in storage. Those U.S. warheads also weren’t addressed by New START. Russia has maintained a large number of such weapons to address weaknesses in its conventional forces. But military analysts are dismissive of the military usefulness of these weapons, given the small chance that the U.S. and Russia would face off in a conventional war of tanks and combat forces. Talks on tactical nuclear weapons are unlikely to occur unless New START is approved. [AP, 11/19/10, emphasis added]
Secs. Clinton And Gates: New START Reduces Both U.S. And Russian Strategic Arsenals To 1,550 Warheads And “Will Also Set The Stage” For Discussion Of Tactical Warheads. In a Washington Post op-ed, Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and then-Sec. of Defense Robert Gates wrote: “New START will advance critical national security objectives: Reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons while retaining a safe and effective deterrent; providing direct insight into Russia’s nuclear arsenal; and creating a more stable, predictable and cooperative relationship between the world’s two leading nuclear powers. It will put in place an effective verification regime to track each side’s progress in reducing its arsenal to 1,550 strategic warheads. We will be able to count the number of deployed strategic weapons more accurately, because we will exchange more data on weapons and their movement than in the past. We will also conduct 18 short-notice inspections of Russian nuclear forces each year, including checking warheads on individual missiles. New START will also set the stage for future arms reductions, including negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons.” [Clinton & Gates Op-Ed, Washington Post, 11/15/10]
President George H. W. Bush Ordered All Ground-Based Tactical Nukes Destroyed, And All Sea-Based Tactical Nukes Removed From Deployment. From Air Force magazine: “In 1991, with a stroke of his pen, President George H. W. Bush forever changed America’s nuclear force structure. Twenty years ago this fall, President George H. W. Bush announced sweeping changes to the US nuclear force structure. In a speech to the nation on Sept. 27, 1991, Bush said he ordered the destruction of all American ground-based tactical nuclear weapons. Sea-based tactical nukes would be withdrawn from deployment as well. All Air Force strategic bombers and 450 Minuteman II missiles were taken off alert status. Mobile US ICBM programs were halted—as was the AGM-131 nuclear short-range attack missile. Bush made these moves unilaterally, with a few strokes of his pen. He indicated the US would carry them out regardless of Soviet reaction. But he invited Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev to take similar actions. ‘If we and the Soviet leaders take the right steps—some on our own, some on their own, some together—we can dramatically shrink the arsenal of the world’s nuclear weapons,’ said Bush in his address. Days later, Gorbachev responded with his own reductions. He said the USSR would match the US on removal and dismantlement of tactical nuclear weapons, while taking 500 missiles off alert and canceling some strategic modernization programs.” [Air Force, September 2011]
Conservative Foreign Policy Expert Howard Baker Supported New START In Part Because Nearly A Year Had Passed Without U.S. Nuclear Inspectors At Russian Facilities. In a USA Today op-ed, Baker wrote: “The Senate is ready to vote in the next few weeks on a new strategic arms limitation treaty with Russia. Having worked on such treaties since the 1970s, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as minority and majority leader of the Senate, and as White House chief of staff under President Reagan, I believe this treaty should be ratified — and soon. President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: ‘Trust but verify.’ Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. And, of course, it’s not just about us and the Russians any more, if it ever was. A world of dangerous characters out there would love to gain access to a nuclear weapon, and we need to be doing everything we know how to do to keep watch over the supply of such weapons. We and the Russians keep more than 90% of them in our respective arsenals— the other 10% still keeps me awake at night — and it’s beyond me how anyone could conclude that refusing to ratify this inspection treaty would somehow enhance America’s security.” [Baker Op-Ed, USA Today, 12/1/10]
Baker: “Under The Terms Of This New Treaty, We Give Up No Rights To Maintain An Effective And Reliable Nuclear Arsenal.” In a USA Today op-ed, Baker wrote: “Under the terms of this new treaty, we give up no rights to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal. In fact, one of the core principles of the treaty is that each side should have the right to determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms. That means the United States will have the flexibility to modernize its nuclear weapon systems as it sees fit.” [Baker Op-Ed, USA Today, 12/1/10]
Claims Of Restricted Missile Defense Programs Contradicted By Think Tanks, Experts, Top Missile Defense General
National Security Network: Treaty Preserves “Effective Missile Defenses” And Has “Unanimous Backing” Of Military Leaders. From the National Security Network: “The treaty enjoys the unanimous backing of the United States military leadership and overwhelming bipartisan support. It has now been over a year since we’ve had U.S. inspectors on the ground in Russia to inspect its nuclear facilities. New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses; it is accompanied by unprecedented long-term funding to ensure our nuclear stockpile remains safe, secure and effective; and it will reinstate a stringent verification regime that our military planners say is essential. What is debated on the Senate floor will be less about the treaty itself and more about two visions of our national security: the tested, pragmatic views of our national security leaders versus the views of a small ideological fringe.” [NSNetwork.org, 12/15/10]
Conservative Foreign Policy Expert Howard Baker: “Under The Terms Of This New Treaty, We Give Up No Rights To Maintain An Effective And Reliable Nuclear Arsenal.” In a USA Today op-ed, Baker wrote: “Under the terms of this new treaty, we give up no rights to maintain an effective and reliable nuclear arsenal. In fact, one of the core principles of the treaty is that each side should have the right to determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms. That means the United States will have the flexibility to modernize its nuclear weapon systems as it sees fit.” [Baker Op-Ed, USA Today, 12/1/10]
Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly: New START Treaty “Actually Reduces Constraints On The Development Of The Missile Defense Program.” Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, U.S. Army, is Director of the Missile Defense Agency of the Department of Defense. At a hearing of the House Armed Forces Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Lt. Gen. O’Reilly testified: “Relative to the recently expired START Treaty, the New START Treaty actually reduces constraints on the development of the missile defense program. Unless they have New-START accountable first stages (which we do not plan to use), our targets will no longer be subject to START constraints, which limited our use of air-to-surface and waterborne launches of targets which are essential for the cost-effective testing of missile defense interceptors against MRBM and IRBM targets in the Pacific area. In addition, under New START, we will no longer be limited to five space launch facilities for target launches.” [Gen. O’Reilly Testimony, 4/15/10, emphasis added]
Associated Press Fact Check: No “Practical Restraints On Missile Defense.”. From the AP: “The treaty doesn’t place any practical constraints on missile defense. The document’s preamble, which is not legally binding, acknowledges a link between nuclear weapons and missile defense. It’s an assertion that was accepted by George W. Bush’s administration: The point of missile defense is to counteract nuclear-tipped missiles.” [AP, 11/19/10]
[NARRATOR:] The U.S. and Russia signed a New START treaty that contains two fatal flaws. First, it gives Russia ten times more tactical weapons than the US. Just one of these bombs could destroy almost all of New York City. Second, START prevents America from building more defensive missiles that can intercept incoming enemy warheads. [ON-SCREEN TEXT: “Tactical Warheads are 6x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb”] [NARRATOR:] Because of the START treaty, America can only increase its missile defense arsenal against possible missile attacks from North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or other rogue nations if Russia gives America permission to do so. Americans need to ask two important questions: First, should America’s defenses be controlled by Russia? And second, according to the Constitution, isn’t the president supposed to protect America’s national security? This treaty isn’t good for America. In fact, we call it a bad start. Paid for by Let Freedom Ring, which is responsible for the content of this ad. [Let Freedom Ring, 4/21/12]
Hardworking Americans Committee
#Mitt Romney
U.S. Chamber of Commerce: “A Serious Threat To Jobs”
American Future Fund: “Security”
#National Security
American Action Network: “Again”
Gaffney: ATR’s Norquist Is “Working For A Bunch Of Islamists” And “Fragging His Own Team”
Let Freedom Ring: “Gas Price Hypocrisy”
#Let Freedom Ring


Alt 96.5 The daughter of Wu-Tang leader RZA has launched her Country music career
The daughter of Wu-Tang leader RZA has launched her Country music career
Introducing O.N.E. The Duo
By Marty Rosenbaum, Audacy
What if Wu-Tang Clan went country? While that hasn’t officially happened yet, Tekitha and Prana Supreme Diggs are forging their own path and bringing their Wu-Tang ties with them.
Listen to Wu-Tang Clan and more on East Coast Rap
East Coast Rap
Diggs, Tekitha’s daughter with RZA, and Tekitha form the mother-daughter duo O.N.E. The Duo , a collaboration that was born out of a jam session. The two took part in an interview with Rolling Stone as Diggs recalled how one session with her mother gave her an idea.
“‘What if we sang and wrote our own songs together?’” Diggs asked her mother. Tekitha shot down her idea, but Diggs was persistent and determined to not take no for an answer. Eventually, Tekitha agreed to work with her daughter, under one condition.
“She’s like, ‘We’re not gonna do this as a hobby. You want to do this, then we’re gonna do it to the best of our ability,’” Diggs recalled. Additionally, Tekitha wanted to make something that was a “complete departure” from her work with Wu-Tang Clan, where she was a vocalist.
In order to distance themselves from the sounds of Wu-Tang Clan, the duo turned to Country and Americana music. “I thought the best way for us to approach the creative was going to be super organic, very acoustic,” Tekitha said.
The duo first went to Nashville in 2015 where they had their first co-writing session, a process that was much different than what Tekitha was used to in the Hip Hop and R&B world. “Making that transition here has been really eye-opening actually, and challenging for sure,” Tekitha admitted.
It wasn’t until 2020 when the band began to take shape as the duo hired management and began to look for a label. Once that happened, things began to move fast.
Their debut single “Guilty” was released in September and used in the Hulu drama Wu-Tang: An American Saga. Shortly afterwards, they released the song “River of Sins.” While there’s no firm timetable on an official release, the duo is looking to put something out this summer.
Aside from the inherent joy that comes with working as a mother-daughter duo, Tekitha and Diggs also learned there’s a long familial connection to Country music. “When we started this project together, my auntie Angie called me and was crying after I had sent her some songs,” Tekitha said. “She said, ‘You know, [your] mom would be just thrilled about this.”
Hot AC


JSR #3
JavaTM Management Extensions (JMXTM) Specification
Maintenance Review Ballot
Ballot duration: 2013-12-10 to: 2013-12-16
These are the final results of the Maintenance Review Ballot for JSR #3. The EC has approved this ballot.
Arm Limited
Azul Systems, Inc.
Eclipse Foundation, Inc
Ericsson AB
Freescale Semiconductor
Fujitsu Limited
Gemalto M2M GmbH
Goldman Sachs & Co.
Keil, Werner
London Java Community
MoroccoJUG
SouJava
V2COM
Not voted
View Vote Log
On 2013-12-13 Gemalto M2M GmbH voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 Fujitsu Limited voted Yes with the following comment: Fujitsu's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-12 Oracle voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 V2COM voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-14 MoroccoJUG voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-13 TOTVS voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-15 Nokia Corporation voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 SouJava voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-14 Ericsson AB voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 Hewlett-Packard voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 Eclipse Foundation, Inc voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-12 Arm Limited voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-12 Software AG voted Yes with the following comment: Makes sense to move this to the Platform JSR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 Red Hat voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 IBM voted Yes with the following comment: IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms. IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage. We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction. This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-14 London Java Community voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-13 CloudBees voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-13 Goldman Sachs & Co. voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 Twitter, Inc. voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2013-12-16 Keil, Werner voted Yes with no comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yunnan germplasm bank provides a safe home for wild species
Scientists from the Germplasm Bank of Wild Species in Southwest China pose for a photo on Mount Qomolangma during a seed collecting mission in 2021. (Photo from the website of the Germplasm Bank of Wild Species in Southwest China) By Zhang Fan, Li Maoying Located in the suburbs of Kunming, capital city of southwest China’s Yunnan province, the Germplasm Bank of Wild Species in Southwest China is the only national preservation facility for the storage of wildlife germplasm resources in China, as well as one of two such facilities in the world built to meet international standards.
Yunnan gears up for biodiversity protection
Photo shows protected wildlife in the Gaoligong Mountain National Nature Reserve, including crestless monal (upper left), black snub-nosed monkeys (lower left), and blood pheasant (right).(Photo provided by the Gaoligong Mountain National Nature Reserve) By Zhang Fan, Yang Wenming, People's Daily Southwest China's Yunnan Province is one of the biodiversity hotspots of the world.
OTHERS-NATURAL-DISASTER
Miao village in SW China’s Guizhou Province becomes increasingly livable
Photo taken on May 15, 2019, shows two villagers passing the ridge of terraced fields in the Moon Mountain of Southwest China’s Guizhou Province. Photo by Chen Peiliang/People’s Daily Online By Lu Peifa, People’s Daily Overseas Edition Thanks to efforts of a poverty alleviation working team to improve the living conditions of Jiayi village, the traditional stockaded village where people of Miao ethnic group inhabit has become cleaner and more attractive day by day. Located in Jihua township in
Chongqing lifts environment for its Longxi River
Dianjiang section of Longxi River, Southwest China’s Chongqing municipality. Photo from the radio and television station of Dianjiang county By Liu Shuwen, People’s Daily Sonorous sound of suona horn goes afar along the clear and green Longxi River, on the banks of which pedestrians are strolling in lush trees and bushes. “The beautiful Longxi River has come back,” said Long Ronghua, an inheritor of intangible cultural heritage who loves to play suona horn by the river. However, the “beautiful Longxi
Man sets up glacier water protection office 6,000 meters above sea level in Tibet.
Luobu Renqing after graduating from the University went back to his home town to work at the local waterworks. Luobu Renqin, a Tibetan man who works at a local waterworks in Danxiong Country, Southwest China's Autonomous Region sets up and outdoor office near the glacier in Tanggula Mountains, over 6,000 meters above sea level. His job is to protect the water resources near the glacier. For convenience and easy access to the water to the water he needs to control, he sets up an outdoor office near the glacier.
Meet The Woman Yang Chenglan, Who Uses Traditional Weaving To Tackle Poverty In Southwest China
Meet the woman who uses traditional weaving to tackle poverty. Fengdeng Dong Village is located in Rongjiang County, southwest China's Guizhou Province and is inhabited by the Dong ethnic group. For many young people here, it is their dream to go out of the mountains and work in big cities. Yang Chenglan, 34, is the first person in the village who graduated from university. However, she gave up her stable job in the city and returned to her hometown to start a business in 2016. In her village, weaving and dyeing
China nears nationwide victory in poverty alleviation
Tsering Tarchin, a poverty-alleviation official, explains national policies and guidelines to villagers in Ali prefecture in Southwest China's Tibet Autonomous Region. Photo: Courtesy of Tsering Tarchin Although the COVID-19 epidemic has increased the difficulties of China's poverty alleviation work, the country is approaching a final victory as three remaining provincial-level regions are having their poverty-alleviation achievements undergo public scrutiny before announcing the result, while at least 19 other