L.Q.L. is made up of 3 brothers ages Letarrian 7, Quan 13 and Lee 14 years of age. They are from Clearwater, Florida and hoping to make an impact nationally!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
- Jun 30, 2012 -
Lee Jones is not only a seasoned music producer but also the proud father of 3 talented boys. He is pleased to introduce his 6, 13, and 14 year old talented son’s, L.Q.L which are born and raised in Clearwater, Florida. L.Q.L was raised in a Christian home where the whole family has a musical background of singing, dancing, rapping, acting and or preaching. The love of performing runs through their veins.
Currently L.Q.L has completed a 13 track Hip-Hop/ R&B inspirational album with guest appearances of family & friends soon to be released in 2012.
L.Q.L is not only musically inclined but they are well grounded honor students with a gift to master anything they put their minds to. They have maintained A’s, B’s, & C’s since preschool and they would like to go to college and play sports too. Their father makes sure they stay grounded and humble with the Lord at the center of their lives.
Songs on their album talk about things the youth can relate to; teenage relationships, uniting people, playing sports like basketball, and just dancing and being kids! You can view their first music video on Facebook and Youtube under leeandquan called “Girl I once knew."
Basically if you don't buy health insurance your going to be penalized for not having it. Who do you think will up hold this law, that's right a tax agent. Wrong on so many levels! ~ Covan Magee
In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, joining the liberal wing of the court to save the law. The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. In its argument to the court, the government left open the possibility that the mandate is a tax, but did not rely much on that argument. Under the law, people who do not have health insurance will have to pay 1 percent of their income to the IRS starting in 2014. (There are exceptions for some religious beliefs and financial hardship.)
"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."
A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." In a 65-page dissent, he and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed Roberts' arguments, writing that there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," they write.
Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.
Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.
House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.
Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Medicaid will be expanded by 16 million low-income people, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.
An estimated 32 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law.
Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.
Despite this intentional front-loading of consumer friendly, popular provisions of the law, the American public is pretty evenly split on the law's benefit. Slightly more people wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the law than uphold it in a recent poll.Source: Liz Goodwin Yahoo News
This may seem like something out of a science fiction movie: researchers have designed microparticles that can be injected directly into the bloodstream to quickly oxygenate your body, even if you can't breathe anymore. It's one of the best medical breakthroughs in recent years, and one that could save millions of lives every year. The invention, developed by a team at Boston Children's Hospital, will allow medical teams to keep patients alive and well for 15 to 30 minutes despite major respiratory failure. This is enough time for doctors and emergency personnel to act without risking a heart attack or permanent brain injuries in the patient.
The solution has already been successfully tested on animals under critical lung failure. When the doctors injected this liquid into the patient's veins, it restored oxygen in their blood to near-normal levels, granting them those precious additional minutes of life.
Particles of fat and oxygen The particles are composed of oxygen gas pocketed in a layer of lipids, a natural molecule that usually stores energy or serves as a component to cell membranes. Lipids can be waxes, some vitamins, monoglycerides, diglycerides, triglycerides, phospholipids, or—as in this case—fats.
These fatty oxygen particles are about two to four micrometers in size. They are suspended in a liquid solution that can be easily carried and used by paramedics, emergency crews and intensive care personnel. This seemingly magic elixir carries "three to four times the oxygen content of our own red blood cells."
Similar solutions have failed in the past because they caused gas embolism, rather than oxygenating the cells. According to John Kheir, MD at the Department of Cardiology at Boston Children's Hospital, they solved the problem by using deformable particles, rather than bubbles:
We have engineered around this problem by packaging the gas into small, deformable particles. They dramatically increase the surface area for gas exchange and are able to squeeze through capillaries where free gas would get stuck.
Kheir had the idea of an injected oxygen solution started after he had to treat a little girl in 2006. Because of a lung hemorrhage caused by pneumonia, the girl sustained severe brain injuries which, ultimately, lead to her death before the medical team could place her in a heart-lung machine.
Soon after, Kheir assembled a team of chemical engineers, particle scientists, and medical doctors to work on this idea, which had promising results from the very beginning:
Some of the most convincing experiments were the early ones. We drew each other's blood, mixed it in a test tube with the microparticles, and watched blue blood turn immediately red, right before our eyes.
It sounds like magic, but it was just the start of what, after years of investigation, became this real life-giving liquid in a bottle.
This is what the future is about. And it's a beautiful one indeed, one that is arriving earlier than we ever could have expected. I wonder if this would find its way to other uses. I can see it as an emergency injection in a spaceship, for example. But what about getting a shot for diving? [ScienceDaily]
(CNN) -- Every week, there's a new Facebook thing to gripe about.
This week, there have been two -- and it's only Tuesday.
On Sunday, it was discovered that the 900 million-person social network was "testing" a feature that would let people see a digital list of the people who were nearby in real life. Called "Find Friends Nearby," the app was pulled down by Tuesday morning after the Internet freaked out. Commenters said things like "Hell to the naw" and "BAD FACEBOOK!!" and generally complaining that the feature, which was difficult to find, much less use, invades privacy and will lead to stalking.
If that's not enough, a company named Friendthem reportedly threatened a lawsuit, saying Facebook stole its idea for the location-aware feature. Apparently, Friendthem would like to share the heat.
Item two: A blogger noticed over the weekend that Facebook, without asking permission, had changed the default e-mail addresses of all of its digital residents to @facebook.com accounts. It's easy enough to change back, as the site Lifehacker and others have detailed, but that little invasion of the hub of digital identity -- the Facebook Timeline -- was enough to make quite a few Facebookers fire back at their digital overlords. Security researchers called the move dangerous. Normal people felt violated.
The title says it all. Watch the video below.
Now the way I feel, is that Rubio's plan on immigration was not stolen, it was shared. They all work together to bring fourth the same goal. It's pretty obvious. If not then why wouldn't any stand up politician not answer a question on a secret illegal organization determining him as a Vice Presidential candidate. Wouldn't he want to investigate these people? I mean I would If I had no ties & I don't. So, I think it's hoopla and confirms our previous post.
Oh, Sorry for my cat Keyma, getting in the way :)~ Covan Magee
The kinds of drones making the headlines daily are the heavily armed CIA and U.S. Army vehicles which routinely strike targets in Pakistan - killing terrorists and innocents alike.
But the real high-tech story of surveillance drones is going on at a much smaller level, as tiny remote controlled vehicles based on insects are already likely being deployed.
Over recent years a range of miniature drones, or micro air vehicles (MAVs), based on the same physics used by flying insects, have been presented to the public.
The fear kicked off in 2007 when reports of bizarre flying objects hovering above anti-war protests sparked accusations that the U.S. government was accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies.
Official denials and suggestions from entomologists that they were actually dragonflies failed to quell speculation, and Tom Ehrhard, a retired Air Force colonel and expert on unmanned aerial craft, told the Daily Telegraph at the time that 'America can be pretty sneaky.'
The following year, the US Air Force unveiled insect-sized spies 'as tiny as bumblebees' that could not be detected and would be able to fly into buildings to 'photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.'
Around the same time the Air Force also unveiled what it called 'lethal mini-drones' based on Leonardo da Vinci's blueprints for his Ornithopter flying machine, and claimed they would be ready for roll out by 2015.
That announcement was five years ago and, since the U.S. military is usually pretty cagey about its technological capabilities, it raises the question as to what it is keeping under wraps.
The University of Pennsylvania GRASP Lab recently showed off drones that swarm, a network of 20 nano quadrotors flying in synchronized formations.
The SWARMS goal is to combine swarm technology with bio-inspired drones to operate 'with little or no direct human supervision' in 'dynamic, resource-constrained, adversarial environments.'
However, it is most likely the future of hard-to-detect drone surveillance will mimic nature.
Research suggests that the mechanics of insects can be reverse-engineered to design midget machines to scout battlefields and search for victims trapped in rubble.
Scientists have taken their inspiration from animals which have evolved over millennia to the perfect conditions for flight.
Nano-biomimicry MAV design has long been studied by DARPA, and in 2008 the U.S. government's military research agency conducted a symposium discussing 'bugs, bots, borgs and bio-weapons.'
Researchers have now developed bio-inspired drones with bug eyes, bat ears, bird wings, and even honeybee-like hairs to sense biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.
And the U.S. isn't the only country to have poured money into spy drone miniaturisation. France has developed flapping wing bio-inspired microdrones.
The Netherlands BioMAV (Biologically Inspired A.I. for Micro Aerial Vehicles) developed a Parrot AR Drone last year - which is now available in the U.S. as a 'flying video game'.
Zoologist Richard Bomphrey, of Oxford University, has conducted research to generate new insight into how insect wings have evolved over the last 350 million years.
He said last year: 'Nature has solved the problem of how to design miniature flying machines.
'By learning those lessons, our findings will make it possible to aerodynamically engineer a new breed of surveillance vehicles that, because they are as small as insects and also fly like them, completely blend into their surroundings.'
The insect manoeuvrability which allows flies the ability to land precisely and fly off again at speed may one day prove a crucial tactical advantage in wars and could even save lives in disasters.
The military would like to develop tiny robots that can fly inside caves and barricaded rooms to send back real-time intelligence about the people and weapons inside.
Dr Bomphrey said: 'Scary spider robots were featured in Michael Crichton's 1980s film Runaway - but our robots will be much more scaled down and look more like the quidditch ball in the Harry Potter films, because of its ability to hover and flutter.
'The problem for scientists at the moment is that aircrafts can't hover and helicopters can't go fast. And it is impossible to make them very small.
'With insects you get a combination of both these assets in miniature. And when you consider we have been flying for just over a hundred years as opposed to 350 million years, I would say it is they who have got it right, and not us!'Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2161647/Is-really-just-fly-Swarms-cyborg-insect-drones-future-military-surveillance.html#ixzz1yLYWLeyW
Rich countries will have to stop the consumer high life as part of any deal to heal the world's social and environmental stresses, a top UN official said ahead of a key development summit this week. "We don't need more cars, more TVs, more whatever" UN Development Program chief Helen Clark told AFP in an interview ahead of the Rio+20 summit starting Wednesday.
The 116 heads of state and government and their populations -- rich and poor -- face "chaos" unless the three day summit can at least lay the groundwork for economic growth that eases poverty and preserves natural resources, said the former New Zealand prime minister. "I think there is a high level of awareness that the planet is in peril, to put it bluntly," said Clark, who will be one of the key figures at the Rio de Janeiro event. Negotiators are struggling to get agreement on the final declaration. Differences between rich and poor, east and west on topics such as how to define "green economy" and how to set new global development goals have bedeviled negotiations for months. Clark insists though that every leader agrees on the key problem: how to ensure economic growth that helps the most destitute without further damaging an environment that is being "wrecked underneath our feet."
"So the issue is how to get human development that will see it continue to rise for the world's poorest people and people in developing countries. Because frankly human development in the West -- we don't need more cars, more TVs, more whatever. "Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that." "There is, in my opinion, a very heavy responsibility on the countries of the north to look at how they sustain their living standards with a much lower environmental footprint," Clark added. Setting up a new index for economic progress to rival the venerable Gross Domestic Product and pressing the case for the Green Economy -- economic decision-making that takes into account the impact on the environment -- will feature highly on Clark's summit agenda. There is a growing campaign by many governments, including from Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, to use a wider measure for economic and human progress for key decisions. Clark says the UN Development Program should have a new version ready for next year of its annual human development index, adding environmental sustainability factors to the equality measures already used.
The UNDP will hold an event in Rio on the need for new measures. Bhutan's Prime Minister Jigmi Thinley will discuss his "gross national happiness" index there. Many poorer countries are suspicious of the West's demands for tighter environmental regulations in international negotiations. Clark says they see the green economy as a code for "green protectionism" that could hinder their economic growth. Clark and UN leader Ban Ki-moon say however that moving toward a green economy can be a source of growth, much-needed jobs, investment and exports. So do the 116 heads of government and state understand the stakes? "Quite a number do. Often with these issues, short term politics get in the way," Clark said.
"I doubt you will have anyone come who says 'this is completely irrelevant to me' because everyone knows it is relevant." "The world economy ain't what it was. Societies are under a lot of strain," said Clark. "The toxic combination of falling incomes, social unrest and environmental degradation. This is reality. We have got a common problem here. We need to have a shared vision of how to tackle it. "We are heading for chaos if we don't tackle these issues," she said.