tagged w/ Guidelines
-
The American College of Physicians has new ethics guidelines to help doctors in handling sensitive issues related to patient care including end-of-life care, complementary and alternative medicine, taking care of VIPs and using social media.The American College of Physicians has new ethics guidelines to help doctors in... more
-
-
In a new policy statement published in the April 2011 issue of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatrics now advises parents to keep toddlers in rear-facing car seats until age 2, or until they exceed the height or weight limit for the car seat, which can be found on the back of the seat.
Previously, the AAP advised parents to keep kids rear-facing as long as possible, up to the maximum limit of the car seat, and this has not changed.
But it also cited one year and 20 pounds as the minimum for flipping the seat, which many parents and pediatricians interpreted as conventional wisdom on the best time to make the switch.
The new policy clarifies the AAP's recommendation, making age 2 the new guideline -- a real game-changer for parents of toddlers.
A 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention found that children under age 2 are 75 percent less likely to die or to be severely injured in a crash if they are rear-facing. Another study found riding rear-facing to be five times safer than forward-facing.
"A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body," said Dennis Durbin, M.D., F.A.A.P., a pediatric emergency physician and co-scientific director of the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of the policy statement and accompanying technical report.
Recall Finder: Check if your child's car seat has been recalled
Parenting talked to Ben Hoffman, M.D., associate professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque and a child passenger safety technician, to get answers to parents' most pressing questions about the new policy.In a new policy statement published in the April 2011 issue of Pediatrics, the... more
-
-
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services have come up with a new set of dietary guidelines which emphasizes on less sugar and fewer calories.The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services... more
-
-
Alstom
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
A web version of Playboy will be available on your iPad soon, Playboy founder, Hugh Hefner, has confirmed.A web version of Playboy will be available on your iPad soon, Playboy founder, Hugh... more
-
-
Alstom
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
The federal government has proposed new guidelines regarding the food served to children at schools. The new rules aim at adding more fruits and vegetables and decreasing salts and fats from the daily school lunch.The federal government has proposed new guidelines regarding the food served to... more
-
-
Alstom
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Robots and other machines equipped with artificial intelligence shoot military targets, distribute cash (think: ATMs), drive cars and deliver medication to patients, to name a few. If people performed these duties, they would be expected to behave in a certain way and follow moral and ethical guidelines.
:http://news.discovery.com/tech/robot-makes-ethical-decisions.htmlRobots and other machines equipped with artificial intelligence shoot military... more
-
-
suzane
-
added this
-
1 year ago
- |
-
Fight the Taliban "relentlessly." Don't tolerate corruption. Drink "lots of tea" with the locals.Those admonitions are among the two dozen guidelines for counterinsurgency warfare that Gen. David Petraeus issued to U.S. and allied troops in Afghanistan on Sunday. In his first major public pronouncement since taking command in early July, Petraeus urged American troops and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force to learn and adapt to the culture of Afghanistan while battling the Taliban insurgents and their allies.
LINK : http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/01/petraeus-rules-fight-taliban-get-to-know-the-locals/?hpt=C1Fight the Taliban "relentlessly." Don't tolerate corruption. Drink... more
-
-
Earlier today one of our community members raised a question that immediately reminded me of a drafted post sitting in my to-do pile. So I dusted this sucker off and refreshed it with some new information for all to read. Over on the announcement of our new submission tool, 02 commented:
"You guys never put my submissions up at all. It would seem as though a plan were afoot to force only designated providers - while the promise is held as Bullshit."
This isn't a anything new; in general people get a little confused when it comes to what gets featured on Current.com. It's not uncommon to find out that people either don't understand, or worse, their misunderstanding leads them to believe that there is a secret agenda conspiring against them behind-the-scenes. Trust me, this is just not the case. Our editorial team is relatively small on Current.com, especially in comparison with some of the more editorially driven sites out there. We see Current.com as a joint partnership between our internal team, and the community that frequents the site. While we produce content for TV, the amount of content we produce for the web is fairly small in comparison with what our community produces on a daily basis. Here's how things shake out:
Each channel on Current.com has a corresponding online producer who is responsible for featuring content and producing content via blog posts and original video. If you don't know them yet, here's the list:
News
Andrew Fitzgerald
Movies
John Lichman
Music
Shana Naomi Krochmal
Green
Leah Lamb
Tech
Sarah Lane
Comedy
Josh Heller
Each channel has an editorialized section called a playlist. The playlist is at the top of the channel, and the first story in the playlist is featured on the homepage (in the first slot of the corresponding channel module). I've posted about this before, so get the full breakdown here. I manage this team, and together with some off hours help from the online community team we editorialize the featured sections on the Current.com homepage and the channels with a combination of community submitted stories and original Current content. When it comes to up-to-the-minute news and stories we look to you guys, the Current community. But I'm sure it would help considerably to understand what we look for exactly when featuring content. How do we make our decisions? What goes into the process?
Editorial Guidelines
When we pick stories for featuring, we look at a combination of things including: interesting-ness, popularity, relevance, and trending. These can seem fairly vague, so let me explain:
Interesting-ness
These are stories that are potentially under reported, but have unique angle that could spark worthwhile discussions.
Popularity
These are ongoing mainstream stories that are also picking up page views, comments, and votes on Current. We take a look at these and determine which ones to feature throughout the day.
Relevance
As expected, stories get repeatedly submitted from different sources outside of Current. When we find a story that is feature worthy, we consider whether or not the story is still relevant (timely), and we also take a look at the overall submissions on Current while asking the following questions:
Is this the first version of the story?
Is there a newer version of this story that has updates, developments, or new information?
Trending
Sometimes a story on Current is not popular with the mainstream crowd, but is picking up steam on Current via discussion, page views, and votes. We identify this trend and feature these stories.
Ok, this covers how we recognize stories in the system, but what about the barebones requirements for a story in order to be featured? Specifically, a story needs a title and a description to be submitted, but depending upon how you support your story may or may not include a piece of media (image, video, etc.) If a story doesn't have media, we can't feature it. If you pick a source without media, you could always pick something from the Creative Commons on Flickr (be sure to abide by Creative Commons licenses and give credit back to the photographer wherever applicable) or you could simply record a quick webcam and upload that with a link to the source in your story description. Additionally, some sources are quite simply better than others. If you submit a blog post from an unknown source with no links to factual research, you'll be less likely to get featured when compared to a story with deep links and research to back up the story. So, now that you have an idea about how we pick stories for featured spots on Current, let's look at 02's latest submission from 10 days ago. Here are the details: Anthropologist Peter McAllister: "The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male." This is a great story, and definitely could have been feature worthy based on interesting-ness given a couple circumstances. It doesn't fall into the popular designation, but that's OK. We love unique stories. Where it gets the hook is in the relevance department. You see the same story was already submitted to Current by another community member. Here's a search on the last name "McAllister" (sorted by most recent). As you can see, remanns version of the story preceded 02's by 5 days. If any version of the story were to be featured, it would've been remanns version because the two stories contain identical information. As it turns out, neither version of the story was actually featured, and this has to do with the trending portion of our process. Discussion on these two stories never really picked up, and both had relatively low votes and page views. When compared to other stories trending in the system at the time, both were seconded to other stories submitted that were a better fit with our featuring designations. There are a whole slew of variables that play into this process which can only add to the confusion for some of you out there. Here are some commonly asked questions: Q: "I see <$user>'s stories featured ALL. THE. TIME. Admit it, you play favorites."
I really wish there were an easy way to convey this to everyone, but the simple fact is that the more active (and attentive to breaking news) a community member is, the more likely their stories will be featured. Volume and timing is everything. We actively go out of our way consider stories from new or underrepresented members of the community. If you're a rock star at finding stories before everyone else, I'd ask that you share your tips with the rest of the crowd. Find someone in the community who isn't commonly featured and give them some pointers. Additionally, if you're finding yourself on the short end of the stick as far as featuring is concerned, look to some of the regular faces you see in the featured spots. Go ahead, message them, ask them for pointers, or just make a friend. One thing is certain, the more you put into the system on a regular basis, the more likely you'll find yourself featured on the homepage.
Q: "Why do you guys push all content down that doesn't fall in line with your agenda?"
It's easy to believe that something like this is true, but it's just not in line with reality. First, we don't have an agenda in play when selecting stories. We routinely hang all personal biases up at the door with our coats when we come into work. True, we select stories to feature based on the criteria I listed before, but we do not actively push content down in popularity. Period. There are typically two reasons why content appears to be pushed down: It is voted down by the community. It is improperly added to groups that it shouldn't be. For example, a story about marijuana legalization added to News, Music, Movies, Green, Tech, and Comedy will commonly get removed from Music, Movies, Green, Tech, and Comedy.
Q: "I added this story already, why isn't mine featured?"
Many times this can come down some of our minimum requirements. As I mentioned before, there are times when a story has newly developing information, or there has been an update to the larger story (different angle, etc.). In these cases we will feature a newer version of the story, tweak the title of the original post (depending upon whether or not the story is still relevant), or unfeature it altogether if neither option works. If you are an avid contributor to Current.com, there could be cases where you are already featured for one story, and we wish to feature another story that you also happened to submit before anyone else. In these cases we might make an exception and feature another lesser known community member despite your story being technically first.
Q: "You changed my title, what gives?"
In previous posts I've mentioned that we will update headlines to meet AP Style, but on occasion we also need to actually re-word a title because a story has changed and no new story has been published to reflect the change, the title is just plain wrong, or the title leaves out key information about the discussion/story submitted. In these cases we always reach out to the original poster and notify them of the change via comment on the item (so everyone else can see) or via private message.
Q: "I thought featured stories were for news, why is [enter story type here] featured? I demand it be pulled!"
This is one question that will not go away, but I'll state again that "Current Stories" (on the Current.com homepage) is not strictly dedicated to news content. If it's news you want, then Current News is the place to be. Make it your homepage, and you'll never be the wiser to the varied mix of stories in "Current Stories." For those of you who don't mind the occasional crunch berry in your Capt. Crunch, you'll find that we feature a variety of stories ranging from recent episodes or sneak peeks of Current TV content alongside any story that meets our featuring criteria on Current regardless of type or group.
Q: "So, with all of these online producers blogging and producing video, does that mean Current is less about community contributions now?"
No, not at all. Our online producers are here to provide a bit of direction in some ways, while making sure that areas like News are not overrun with Britney Spears-style news. In addition, some of our more tradition aspects of community contribution will be making their way into each channel as time goes on. For example, The Rotten Tomatoes Show is closely aligned with Movies, and the show is largely comprised of community webcam reviews of the prior week's releases. If you want to participate and potentially get on TV, well then Current Movies is the place to hang out. John is also brewing up a Current Movies-specific plan involving written movie reviews, so keep an eye out for that as well. Shana just posted about Common's video pick from the "Make Common's Day" call out on the Current Music blog. This was sort of like a hybrid between a VCAM and a VC2 piece, where producers created a video for Common using greenscreen footage he shot while visiting the Current offices in LA. Andrew is prepping to embark on a deep Current News investigation that will include REQUIRE the participation of news-minded community members both on and off Current.com in order to be successful. He's finalizing the topic for the investigation, and a look at some of his recent blog posts will clue you into the direction that's taking shape. When this is fully underway, he'll lay out the details on the Current News blog. Lastly, when these folks blog they are pulling from both community contributions on Current AND content from our TV network. Think of these blog posts as our online playground where you're guys' content gets married to Current TV content -- all contextualized under trends going on in our world. And most importantly, Current community members are the key to making it all happen.
So, there it is in a nutshell. I hope this helps explain some of the question you, and others, may have about the site. We're going to be doing a lot of growing over the next few months, and we want you along for the ride. As always, shoot feedback and recommendations our way via comments here or posts on Get Satisfaction. Thanks for reading and contributing. Earlier today one of our community members raised a question that immediately... more
-
-
Conducting effective training programs is listed in the 2005 Federal Sentencing Guidelines as one of the factors the Department of Justice will take into account when a company, accused of an Federal Corrupt Practices Act violation, is being evaluated for a sentence reduction. But what is an effective training program?
http://information-security-resources.com/2010/01/24/effective-compliance-training-development/Conducting effective training programs is listed in the 2005 Federal Sentencing... more
-
-
In his excellent FCPA Blog, Richard Cassin has written about an effective compliance program. He notes that the purpose of an effective compliance program is to prevent and detect criminal conduct. Mr. Cassin based his guidance on the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In the coming weeks, we will review each of these suggested guidelines and provide nuts and bolts recommendations for you to use in crafting your own effective compliance program.
http://information-security-resources.com/2010/01/14/effective-enterprise-compliance-systems/In his excellent FCPA Blog, Richard Cassin has written about an effective compliance... more
-
-
Are CIOs spending less time on supervising what they should be doing the most—strengthening the citadel and securing the digital assets—particularly when corporate wide cyber crimes and espionage have started to show a quantum jump even in developing economies like India? Security may be a key thing that worries CIOs, but there are other things that keep him occupied these days.
http://information-security-resources.com/2009/12/17/lest-we-forget-about-enterprise-security/Are CIOs spending less time on supervising what they should be doing the... more
-
-
-
Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
While breastcancer.org predicts that 40,480 American women are expected to die in 2008 from it, the good news is that death rates have been decreasing since 1990. The organization largely credits earlier detection among the top reasons for the decrease. So it’s understandable why women all over the U.S. are riled up about the new breast exam guidelines released Monday by the United States Preventive Services Task Force: it shockingly discourages early mammograms and self-exams.
Among their "new" advice? Women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently, such as every two years instead of every year. They also suggest that it’s not important for doctors to teach women to examine their breasts on a regular basis since it - yes - found “too little evidence” that self-exams were effective.
The task force are trivializing early screenings because, they say, they often lead to “unnecessary” and “costly” treatments.
Many cancer survivors and doctors are outraged, saying that it will communicate to women age 50 and younger that skipping exams is OK because they are at less of a risk of the disease, which is entirely untrue. Some doctors, such as Donald A. Berry, a statistician at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, are speculating the motive behind the new guidelines is to reduce health costs. Dr. Berry told the New York Times that if they're followed, billions of dollars will be saved.
Check out the new guidelines here: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htmBreast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among women in the United... more
-
-
We get questions about our featuring and editorial practices on a regular basis. So, it felt like the right time to open the doors, spell out our policies, and make sure everyone understands what goes on behind closed doors with regards to editorial decisions. Here's a snippet from the blog post:
"Our editorial team is relatively small on Current.com, especially in comparison with some of the more editorially driven sites out there. We see Current.com as a joint partnership between our internal team, and the community that frequents the site. While we produce content for TV, the amount of content we produce for the web is fairly small in comparison with what our community produces on a daily basis."
To read the details behind our processes and guidelines, please make the jump over to the blog post.
Sources:
Featuring on Current: What do we look for? — [Editorial Guidelines] -- Current.com Blog
http://blogs.current.com/currentdotcom/2009/10/30/featuring-on-current-what-do-we-look-for-editorial-guidelines/
L'ecrivain by gilles chiroleu on Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/porcherie/3192488394/?editedcomment=1#comment72157622696422188We get questions about our featuring and editorial practices on a regular basis. So,... more
-
-
Enterprise applications choke the corporate IT networks, and the blame invariably falls on bandwidth scarcity. Jeff Barker, VP solutions and Technical Marketing at Blue Coat Systems, talks exclusively to Rahul Neel Mani about application optimization and secured delivery.Enterprise applications choke the corporate IT networks, and the blame invariably... more
-
-
As part of their storage security strategy, enterprises must understand the value of such intellectual property in combination with the risk tolerance of the organization before they can address how to appropriately secure it and store it. Moreover, because the value of information changes over its lifetime, so should its storage.As part of their storage security strategy, enterprises must understand the value of... more
-
-
Firewalls must be considered in Risk Management, Data Consolidation, and Change Management. As a business grows, so does the rule set to account for new risks, network segments, and users. If the organization does not understand its risk exposure, such tools are of little use.Firewalls must be considered in Risk Management, Data Consolidation, and Change... more
-
-
Currently, people rely on obscurity to keep their data safe. But with progressively more intelligent search engines available that can churn through vast amounts of data and make sense of it – even your email – security is something that needs to be addressed.Currently, people rely on obscurity to keep their data safe. But with progressively... more
-
-
Excerpt From Article*---
The Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA), was signed into law in 1994 for the purpose of ensuring that safe and appropriately labeled products would remain available to those who wanted to use them. In the findings associated with this law, Congress stated that there may be a positive relationship between sound dietary practice and good health, and a connection between dietary supplement use, reduced health-care expenses, and disease prevention. Under DSHEA, nutrients and herbs are classified as food. There is no upper limit set, and access is freely given. Americans are allowed to have any nutrients they want, because under English common law, anything that is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
Codex, on the other hand, is based on Napoleonic law under which anything not expressly permitted is forbidden. Therefore, only what is expressly allowed under Codex will be permitted, and everything else is forbidden. In 1994, the same year DSHEA was signed, Codex had nutrients declared to be toxic and poisonous. And as poisons, they claimed people must be protected from them through the use of toxicology and risk assessment, under which scientists test small doses on animals until they are able to discern an impact. They then take the first sign of the most minimal impact and divide this amount by 100 to establish a safety margin required from these poisons. This means that the largest dose of any nutrient allowed under Codex is 1/100th of the amount shown to produce the first discernable impact.
Nutrients allowed under codex are limited to those on the positive list, expected to contain only 18 nutrients, one of them being fluoride. Dr. Laibow points out that although fluoride has no biological benefit whatsoever, it does make people complacent.
*Read Full Article At Link*Excerpt From Article*---
The Dietary Substances Health and Education Act (DSHEA),... more
-
