gaming for 8 year olds
Heavy travel day starts with brief grounding of all American Airlines flightsis taking steps toward making life on the Moon a reality, with and construction giant teaming up to develop a lunar habitat that generates artificial gravity, local media reported on Dec. 22. The "Neo Lunar Glass" project aims to create a paraboloid structure capable of mimicking Earth-like conditions by using rotation to generate gravity. A ground-based prototype is expected to be completed by the 2030s, according to Kyodo News. "This project demands a significant technological leap, but we aim to achieve it and pave the way for space colonies," said Yosuke Yamashiki, a professor of advanced integrated studies in human survivability at Kyoto University. The Lunar Glass structure will be approximately 200 meters in diameter and 400 meters high, capable of housing up to 10,000 people, according to the agency. The project is expected to be launched in the current fiscal year. Private companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Blue Origin and Astrobotic are working alongside government agencies like NASA and the Eruopean Space Agency to develop new technologies for sustainable lunar operations. Analysts project that the lunar economy could grow into a multi-billion-dollar market within the next two decades.
Charity supporting Hampshire landmark launches new websiteMagnus White Cyclist Safety Act introduced in US to protect vulnerable road users
Learn new developments in chosen field to shine in career, Nayanta University CEO tells students
NoneIran supports lasting stability, security in Afghanistan: FM
HAECO Partners with Dallas for New 290,000-Square-Foot Facility to Drive Job Creation and Engine Innovation
Why TikTok is one step closer to being banned in the US
Missing trees, misleading ornaments, mini inflatables: Holiday decor scams leave shoppers less jollyBy Kevin Baxter, Los Angeles Times (TNS) LOS ANGELES — As Joan Benoit Samuelson negotiated the hairpin turn into the Coliseum tunnel, ran past the USC locker room and onto the stadium’s red synthetic track for the final 400 meters of the 1984 Olympic marathon, her focus wasn’t only on finishing, but on finishing strong. Women never had been allowed to run farther than 1,500 meters in the Olympics because the Games’ all-male guardians long harbored antiquated views of femininity and what the female body could do. If Samuelson struggled to the line, or worse yet dropped to the ground after crossing it, that would validate those views and set back for years the fight for gender equality in the Olympics. “They might have taken the Olympic marathon off the schedule,” Samuelson said by phone two days before Thanksgiving. “This is an elite athlete struggling to finish a marathon. It never happened, thank goodness. But that could have changed the course of history for women’s marathoning.” Actually, that race did change the course of history because nothing remained the same after a joyous Samuelson, wearing a wide smile and waving her white cap to the sold-out crowd, crossed the finish line. This year marked the 40th anniversary of that victory, and when the Olympics return to Los Angeles in four years, the Games will be different in many ways because of it. Since 1984, the number of Summer Olympic events for women has nearly tripled, to 151, while last summer’s Paris Games was the first to reach gender parity, with women accounting for half of the 10,500 athletes in France. Fittingly the women’s marathon was given a place of honor on the calendar there, run as the final event of the track and field competition and one of the last medal events of the Games. None of that seemed likely — or even possible — before Samuelson’s win. “I sort of use marathoning as a way to storytell,” Samuelson said from her home in Maine. “And I tell people LA 84 and the first women’s Olympic marathon was certainly the biggest win of my life.” It was life-changing for many other women as well. Until 1960, the longest Olympic track race for women was 200 meters. The 1,500 meters was added in 1972, yet it wasn’t until the L.A. Games that the leaders of the International Olympic Committee, who had long cited rampant myths and dubious sports-medicine studies about the dangers of exercise for women, approved the addition of two distance races, the 3,000 meters and marathon. Which isn’t to say women had never run long distances in the Olympics. At the first modern Games in Athens in 1896, a Greek woman named Stamata Revithi, denied a place on the starting line on race day, ran the course alone a day later, finishing in 5 hours and 30 minutes, an accomplishment witnesses confirmed in writing. Her performance was better than at least seven of the 17 male runners, who didn’t complete the race. But she was barred from entering Panathenaic Stadium and her achievement was never recognized. Eighty-eight years passed before a woman was allowed to run the Olympic marathon. “There are men that are raised with resentment for women, except for their own mothers. That’s just a part of their nature,” Hall of Fame track coach Bob Larsen said. “A lot of good things have happened in the last couple of decades. Old men are passing away and opening doors [for] people who have a more modern understanding of what women are capable of.” In between Revithi and Samuelson, women routinely were banned even from public races like the Boston Marathon, which didn’t allow females to run officially until 1972. Even then, women had to bring a doctor’s note declaring them fit to run, said Maggie Mertens, author of “Better, Faster, Farther: How Running Changed Everything We Know About Women.” Seven years later Norway’s Grete Waitz became the first woman to break 2:30 in the marathon, running 2:27.32 in New York, a time that would have been good for second in the elite men’s race in Chicago that same day. Because of that, Samuelson said she hardly was blazing a trail in L.A. Instead she was running in the wake of pioneers such as Kathrine Switzer, Bobbi Gibb and Waitz. “I ran because there was an opportunity, not because I wanted to prove that women could run marathons,” said Samuelson, who still is running at 67. “Women had been proving themselves long before the ’84 Games. “If anything, maybe my win inspired women to realize that if marathoning were a metaphor for life, anything in life is possible.” Still, when Samuelson beat Waitz in Los Angeles, running in prime time during a race that was beamed to television viewers around the world, “that was the game-changer,” Switzer, the first woman to run Boston as an official competitor, told Mertens. “When people saw it on television ... they said, ‘Oh my God, women can do anything.’ “ A barrier had fallen and there was no going back. “You could make the argument that in women’s sports in general, we had to see, we had to have these women prove on the biggest stage possible that they were capable so that these gatekeepers would let women come in and play sports and be part of this world,” Mertens said. “I think it really did help burst open those ideas about what we could do and what we could see.” As a result, the elite runners who have followed in Samuelson’s footsteps never have known a world in which women were barred from long-distance races. “I grew up believing that women ran the marathon and that it wasn’t a big deal,” said Kara Goucher, a two-time Olympian and a world championship silver medalist who was 6 when Samuelson won in L.A. “I grew up seeing women run the marathon as the norm. That 100 percent is a credit to Joanie going out there on the world’s biggest stage and normalizing it.” Paige Wood, a former U.S. marathon champion, said her high school coach was inspired to run marathons by Samuelson’s story and passed that inspiration on to her runners. “She used her as an example of why we shouldn’t put any mental limitations on ourselves or shouldn’t let others tell us what we are capable of,” Wood said. Wood was born in 1996 and remembers her mom, who was very athletic, saying that cheerleading was the only sport available to her in high school in the pre-Samuelson days. “It’s undeniable, right? The courage she gave other women to start running and start competing,” Wood continued. “The trickle-down effect, it’s not even limited to running. It affected all sports and just made women less afraid to be athletic and try all different sports.” A year after Samuelson’s victory, the U.S. women’s soccer team played its first game, although it was more than a decade before the WNBA, the country’s first professional women’s league. There are now leagues in six other sports, from ice hockey and lacrosse to rugby and volleyball, and female athletes like Caitlin Clark, Alex Morgan, Simone Biles and Katie Ledecky are household names. Last summer in Paris, Sifan Hassan won the women’s marathon in an Olympic-record 2:22.55 after taking bronze in both the 5,000 and 10,000 meters, events that weren’t even on the Olympic calendar when Samuelson won her race. Two months later Kenyan Ruth Chepng’etich became the first woman to run under 2:10 when she won the Chicago Marathon in 2:09:56, averaging 4:57 a mile. Until 1970, two years before the Boston Marathon was opened to women, only one man had broken 2:10 in the race. “It says so much about sport and the way that humans don’t quite know what we’re capable of until we do it,” Mertens said. “We’re going to keep pushing those goalposts back. We’ve come so far, and I think that’s more to do with just having the opportunities and know that there aren’t really limits. “That’s the power of sports. These people are inspiring us; [they] help us see women as powerful athletes but also powerful in politics, as leaders.” Did Samuelson make that happen? Or did she simply make it happen faster? “You’d have to decide whether it was a huge defining moment or just a general wave of athletic events that made this possible,” Larsen said. “You know, the more times you put someone up at the plate, sooner or later somebody’s going to hit it out. “Now it’s acceptable to have a woman running for president. So things are happening and it’s more acceptable to the general public. Was Joanie a big part of it? I would think so.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC. More articles from the BDN
Some tech industry leaders are pushing the incoming Trump administration to increase visas for highly skilled workers from other nations. Related Articles National Politics | Trump threat to immigrant health care tempered by economic hopes National Politics | In states that ban abortion, social safety net programs often fail families National Politics | Court rules Georgia lawmakers can subpoena Fani Willis for information related to her Trump case National Politics | New 2025 laws hit hot topics from AI in movies to rapid-fire guns National Politics | Trump has pressed for voting changes. GOP majorities in Congress will try to make that happen The heart of the argument is, for America to remain competitive, the country needs to expand the number of skilled visas it gives out. The previous Trump administration did not increase the skilled visa program, instead clamping down on visas for students and educated workers, increasing denial rates. Not everyone in corporate America thinks the skilled worker program is great. Former workers at IT company Cognizant recently won a federal class-action lawsuit that said the company favored Indian employees over Americans from 2013 to 2022. A Bloomberg investigation found Cognizant, and other similar outsourcing companies, mainly used its skilled work visas for lower-level positions. Workers alleged Cognizant preferred Indian workers because they could be paid less and were more willing to accept inconvenient or less-favorable assignments. Question: Should the U.S. increase immigration levels for highly skilled workers? Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy YES: Innovation is our superpower and it relies on people. Sourcing talent from 8 billion people in the world instead of 330 million here makes sense. Nearly half our Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Growing them also relies on expanding our skilled workforce. The cap on skilled-worker visas has hardly changed since the computer age started. With AI on the horizon, attracting and building talent is more important than ever. Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research YES: After years of openly allowing millions of undocumented entrants into the country, why is there controversy over legally increasing somewhat the number having desirable skills? Undocumented immigration significantly impacts lower skill level jobs and wages competing with domestic workers at every skill level. Why should special cases be made against those having higher skills? Could they just not walk across the border anyway, why make it more inconvenient to those with desirable skills? James Hamilton, UC San Diego YES: Knowledge and technology are key drivers of the U.S. economy. Students come from all over the world to learn at U.S. universities, and their spending contributed $50 billion to U.S. exports last year. Technological advantage is what keeps us ahead of the rest of the world. Highly skilled immigrants contribute much more in taxes than they receive in public benefits. The skills immigrants bring to America can make us all better off. Norm Miller, University of San Diego YES: According to Forbes, the majority of billion-dollar startups were founded by foreigners. I’ve interviewed dozens of data analysts and programmers from Berkeley, UCSD, USD and a few other schools and 75% of them are foreign. There simply are not enough American graduates to fill the AI and data mining related jobs now exploding in the U.S. If we wish to remain a competitive economy, we need highly skilled and bright immigrants to come here and stay. David Ely, San Diego State University YES: Being able to employ highly skilled workers from a larger pool of candidates would strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. companies by increasing their capacity to perform research and innovate. This would boost the country’s economic output. Skilled workers from other nations that cannot remain in the U.S. will find jobs working for foreign rivals. The demand for H-1B visas far exceeds the current cap of 85,000, demonstrating a need to modify this program. Phil Blair, Manpower YES: Every country needs skilled workers, at all levels, to grow its economy. We should take advantage of the opportunity these workers provide our employers who need these skills. It should be blended into our immigration policies allowing for both short and long term visas. Gary London, London Moeder Advisors YES: San Diego is a premiere example of how highly skilled workers from around the globe enrich a community and its regional economy. Of course Visa levels need to be increased. But let’s go further. Tie visas and immigration with a provision that those who are admitted and educated at a U.S. university be incentivized, or even required, to be employed in the U.S. in exchange for their admittance. Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates NO: While attracting high-skilled immigrants can fill critical gaps in sectors like technology, health care and advanced manufacturing, increasing high-skilled immigration could displace American workers and drive down wages in certain industries. There are already many qualified American workers available for some of these jobs. We should balance the need for specialized skills with the impact on the domestic workforce. I believe we can begin to increase the number of visas after a careful review of abuse. Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth YES: We should expand skilled visas to drive innovation and economic growth. Individuals who perform high-skilled work in labor-restricted industries or graduate from respected colleges with relevant degrees should be prioritized for naturalization. We depend on immigration for GDP growth, tax revenue, research, and so much more. Despite the abhorrent rhetoric and curtailing of visas in the first term, I hope the incoming administration can be persuaded to enact positive changes to a clearly flawed system. Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health YES: But it should be based upon need, not politics. There are several industries that have or could have skilled workforce shortages, especially if the next administration tightens immigration as promised and expected. Over the years, there have been nursing shortages that have been met partially by trained and skilled nurses from other countries. The physician shortage is expected to get worse in the years to come. So, this visa program may very well be needed. Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere NO: While skilled immigration could boost our economy and competitiveness, the U.S. should prioritize developing our domestic workforce. Hiring foreign nationals in sensitive industries or government-related work, especially in advanced technology or defense, raises security concerns. A balanced approach could involve targeted increases in non-sensitive high-demand fields coupled with investment in domestic STEM education and training programs. This could address immediate needs while strengthening the long-term STEM capabilities of the American workforce. Not participating this week: Alan Gin, University of San DiegoHaney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers AssociationRay Major, economist Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com . Follow me on Threads: @phillip020International students urged to return to US before Trump inaugurationBiden is considering preemptive pardons for officials and allies before Trump takes office
Southern Community Bancshares, Inc. ( OTC:SCBS – Get Free Report ) declared a quarterly dividend on Thursday, December 5th, NASDAQ Dividends reports. Stockholders of record on Tuesday, December 31st will be paid a dividend of 0.0938 per share on Monday, January 6th. This represents a $0.38 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 1.92%. The ex-dividend date is Tuesday, December 31st. Southern Community Bancshares Price Performance Shares of SCBS opened at $19.50 on Friday. The stock’s 50 day moving average is $19.50 and its two-hundred day moving average is $18.90. Southern Community Bancshares has a twelve month low of $19.50 and a twelve month high of $19.50. Southern Community Bancshares Company Profile ( Get Free Report ) Read More Receive News & Ratings for Southern Community Bancshares Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Southern Community Bancshares and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
