How a Boat-Plane Hybrid Shattered the Sound Barrier of Sailing

Seen from across Walvis Bay, the windswept patch of Atlantic Ocean known as Speed Spot is barely more than a sparkle of whitecaps against a long, low sandbar. As we get closer to what is one of the world’s most perfect speed-sailing areas, I scan the shore. It’s featureless save for two small shelters. We motor our zodiac toward the remote beach until we have to kill the outboard and tilt it up to spare the prop. The five of us jump overboard into the waist-deep water, following our guide, Paul Larsen, who is wading toward the shore. The wind howls in our faces, blowing so much sand that it runs down the beach in rivulets, like rain across a windshield. We climb up on the beach, jellyfish at our feet as thick as paving stones. “This is it. This is the Bonneville Salt Flats of speed sailing!” Larsen shouts, gesturing to the water just off the sandbar. The flying sand sticks to our teeth, turning the insides of our mouths to 600-grit with every word. “We’ll have to shovel out the timing hut,” Larsen says, peering into the primitive shelter he built years ago and pointing out animal tracks inside. “Jackal,” he concludes.

There is a shipping port on the far side of the bay, but over here the landscape is so desolate, so extreme, that we could be on an alien planet—Frank Herbert’s Arrakis, George Lucas’ Tatooine. In fact, we are in Namibia, a roughly Texas-sized country at the southwest corner of the African continent. Walvis Bay is one of the Atlantic’s great natural harbors, but it’s surrounded by emptiness: 31,000 square miles of desert. The dunes march right into the sea, setting up an elemental cycle that repeats itself nearly every day of the antipodal summer. Mornings break as clear and sunny as a Baywatch shoot, but in the afternoon, near-gale-force winds descend on the bay. The desert heat meeting the cool Benguela Current coming up from the Cape of Good Hope creates a powerful natural wind machine. It arrives like clockwork, steady and relentless. “No ruffles,” Larsen says, feeling the wind with his hand. The featureless landscape—no vegetation, no terrain, no fences, no buildings apart from the shelters—makes for perfectly organized air. “Attached flow,” he calls it, using the jargon of an aerodynamicist evaluating a successful wind-tunnel test.

Larsen is originally from Australia, but he searched the world for years to find this spot, a perfect natural runway to test a sailboat so radical that it is more at home in an airplane hangar than in any harbor—a futuristic craft that, if he can make it work, will not only capture the outright world speed-sailing record but also open up a new, no-limit era in sailing. “A hundred knots, maybe?” Larsen speculates from inside one of the huts, looking through a sandblasted window at the watery speed-sailing course just beyond the beach. The current record is just over 50.

Floating behind the zodiac is the boat that has brought Larsen to Speed Spot for the tenth time in as many years in pursuit of sailing’s speed record: the Vestas SailRocket Mark 2. Its aeronautical DNA is obvious at a glance. There’s a rigid carbon-fiber “wing” that functions as a sail, an ultra-streamlined 40-foot-long “fuselage,” and even something like landing gear—three pod-shaped floats that keep the wing and fuselage above the chop. Yet what looks at first glance like a water-striding sailplane is, on closer inspection, pure crazytown. For one thing, its wing is inclined at a 30-degree angle to the water and is nowhere near the fuselage. Instead, it’s mounted on the end of a 30-foot-long beam. The pole is, in a sense, an odd sort of mast—except that it runs horizontally. On the opposite side of the boat is a bladelike carbon-fiber fin. Technically this is the keel, or as Larsen calls it, the foil. SailRocket’s foil sprouts from the side of its fuselage, then turns to cut 3 feet down into the water. Critical to any sailboat, a keel keeps a boat from blowing over—or, in this case, from flying away.

“She’s 50 percent plane, 50 percent boat,” Larsen explains. Indeed, if SailRocket were dropped from a great height, it would glide down rather than fall. Larsen designed in aerodynamic stability as a safety measure. “If for some reason she lost the keel at speed,” Larsen explains, “than she really would be a plane, wouldn’t she?” The prototype version of SailRocket, Mark 1, actually did take off into the air, and Larsen survived what may be the most spectacular crash in sailing history.

It was 2008 and he was at Speed Spot putting the Mark 1 through its paces when a gust got under the boat and launched it clear into the sky. The half-plane/half-boat hit an altitude of between 40 and 50 feet while cartwheeling through a flip—before crash-landing upside down and backward. “It just kept going up and up,” Larsen said at the time, “then it hit bloody hard on my head.”

Larsen is confident enough about the stability of his revised design, the Mark 2, that he included a passenger cockpit behind the driver’s seat. It’s never held a passenger, however. “I haven’t installed the seat yet,” Larsen says, “but I’m going to have to test it out sooner or later …” He cocks an eyebrow in my direction. “Would that be good for your story?”

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 View All

Read More..

Relativity Buys Into Jim Carrey Heist Comedy ”Loomis Fargo”

NEW YORK (TheWrap.com) – Relativity Media has acquired worldwide rights to the Jim Carrey heist comedy “Loomis Fargo,” which it will finance, produce and distribute, the studio announced on Thursday.

Jared Hess, who co-wrote and directed “Napoleon Dynamite,” will direct the movie from a script by Emily Spivey that also counts Chris Bowman and Hubbel Palmer as writers. Inspired by true events, it tells the story of four Southerners who stole nearly $ 20 million from an armed Loomis Fargo truck in 1997.

“Saturday Night Live” creator Lorne Michaels and John Goldwyn are producing the movie while Danny McBride, Jody Hill, Michael Aguilar, Kevin Messick are executive producing with Relativity CEO Ryan Kavanaugh and president Tucker Tooley.

Brett Dahl will oversee the project for Relativity, which is aiming for an April start to production.

Carrey can next be seen in “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” which will premiere at South by Southwest before it theatrical release. Relativity just acquired Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut “Don Jon’s Addiction” at Sundance and will next release the romantic thriller “Save Haven.”

Movies News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: Relativity Buys Into Jim Carrey Heist Comedy ”Loomis Fargo”
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/relativity-buys-into-jim-carrey-heist-comedy-loomis-fargo/
Link To Post : Relativity Buys Into Jim Carrey Heist Comedy ”Loomis Fargo”
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Insurance Industry Report Faults High Fees for Out-of-Network Care

Michael Nagle for The New York Times

Angel Gonzalez, 36, faced huge bills after emergency gallbladder surgery, despite having good insurance coverage. “I was on the hook for more than I made in a year.”

Just over a year ago, Angel Gonzalez, 36, awoke with searing chest pain at 2 a.m. A friend drove him to the closest emergency room.

Though he was living on $18,000 a year as a graduate student, Mr. Gonzalez had good insurance and the hospital, St. Charles in Port Jefferson, N.Y., was in his network. But the surgeon who came in to remove Mr. Gonzalez’s gallbladder that Sunday night was not.

He billed Mr. Gonzalez $30,000, and an assistant billed an additional $30,000. Mr. Gonzalez’s policy covered out-of-network providers, but at a rate it considered appropriate: $2,000. “I was on the hook for more than I made in a year,” Mr. Gonzalez said.

A health insurance industry report to be released on Friday highlights the exorbitant fees charged by some doctors to out-of-network patients like Mr. Gonzalez. The report, by America’s Health Insurance Plans, or AHIP, contrasts some of the highest bills charged by non-network providers in 30 states with Medicare rates for the same services. Some of the charges, the insurers assert, are 30, 40 or nearly 100 times greater than Medicare rates.

Insurers hope to spotlight a vexing problem that they say the Affordable Care Act does little to address. “When you’re out of network, it’s a blank check,” said Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive of AHIP. “The consumer is vulnerable to ‘anything goes.’ ”

“Unless we deal with cost, we won’t have affordability,” she added. “And unless we have affordability, we won’t have people participating” under the Affordable Care Act.

Among the fees on the report’s list are a $6,205 outpatient office visit to a doctor in Massachusetts for which Medicare would have paid $152; a $12,000 bill for examining a tissue specimen in New York for which Medicare would have paid $128; and a $48,983 surgeon’s fee for a total hip replacement in New Jersey that Medicare would have reimbursed at $1,543. Many of the highest billers were in New York, Texas, Florida and New Jersey.

Elisabeth R. Benjamin, co-founder of the Health Care for All New York coalition, who is often at odds with the insurance industry, said that “is one area we totally agree on.” She continued, “Out-of-network billing is just out of control.”

Even when out-of-network fees are compared with average commercial insurance reimbursements, which are usually greater than Medicare, she said, “It’s pretty outrageous.”

Doctors say the report is skewed because it focuses on a few dozen cases of overcharging that are not representative of their billing. In response to the insurers’ report, the American Medical Association noted on Thursday that a recent analysis found that doctors’ services account for just 16 percent of health care costs.

“There are outliers in every profession, in every business,” said Dr. Andrew Y. Kleinman, a plastic surgeon who is vice president of the Medical Society of the State of New York.

Dr. Kleinman also noted that insurers had effectively shifted the costs of out-of-network care onto patients by changing reimbursement formulas. Instead of the rates commercial insurers usually pay doctors, insurers increasingly are basing their out-of-network payments on Medicare rates, usually far lower.

A growing number of high-end, flexible health plans offer policies that cover outside providers at, for example, 140 percent of Medicare. “They’re selling you an insurance product you can’t use,” Dr. Kleinman said. “You’re buying an insurance policy where the out-of-network benefit is worthless.”

The industry’s own report suggests that using Medicare rates as a benchmark will lead to patients’ picking up much more of the cost for out-of-network care, whether they carefully select a specialist or, as in the case of Mr. Gonzalez and many others, have no choice in the matter.

Had Mr. Gonzalez been 65 or older, Medicare would have paid only $958 for the surgery. The average commercial price is $12,292, according to FAIR Health, an independent nonprofit group that tracks information on health care costs.

But Mr. Gonzalez’s health plan, United Healthcare, determined the fee should be $1,273, of which the company paid $838. Mr. Gonzalez filed appeals, which were rejected. He then contacted Community Health Advocates at the Community Service Society of New York for help, and the group’s caseworkers negotiated with the surgeon on his behalf.

After months of wrangling, the surgeon agreed to accept a significantly reduced payment: $340.

Consumer advocates and health insurance executives are calling for greater transparency in health care pricing, including upfront disclosure of prices of medical procedures and services.

“The health care industry can give you an estimate, just like any other industry,” said Carrie H. Colla, an assistant professor at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, noting that the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center has a patient price estimator online.  

“It’s just not current practice right now,” Dr. Colla said. “Sometimes a doctor won’t even know. The patient really has to push for it.”

Read More..

DealBook: Doubt Is Cast on Firms Hired to Help Banks

Federal authorities are scrutinizing the private consultants hired by banks to clean up financial misdeeds like money laundering and foreclosure abuses, taking aim at a conflict-riddled, billion-dollar industry.

The well-connected consultants operate with scant supervision and produce mixed results, according to government documents and interviews with prosecutors and regulators. In one case, the consulting firms enabled the wrongdoing. The deficiencies, officials say, can leave consumers vulnerable and allow tainted money to flow through the financial system.

“How can you be independent if you’re hired by the entity you’re reviewing?” said Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee.

The pitfalls were exposed last month when federal regulators halted a broad effort to help millions of homeowners in foreclosure. The regulators reached an $8.5 billion settlement with banks, scuttling a flawed foreclosure review run by eight consulting firms. In the end, borrowers hurt by shoddy practices are likely to receive less money than they deserve, regulators say.

On Thursday, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, announced that they would open an investigation into the foreclosure review, seeking “additional information about the scope of the harms found.”

Critics concede that regulators have little choice but to farm out certain responsibilities. The government does not have the resources to ensure that banks behave. The consultants, with a deep bench of expertise, regularly provide additional oversight and help fix abuses. The less palatable alternative, regulators say, is for banks to police themselves.

Still, consultants like Deloitte & Touche and Promontory Financial Group can add to regulators’ headaches, the government documents and interviews indicate. Some banks that work with consultants continue to run afoul of the law. At other times, consultants underestimate the extent of the misdeeds or facilitate them, preventing regulators from holding institutions accountable.

Now, regulators and lawmakers are rethinking their relationship with the consultants. Officials at the Federal Reserve, which oversees many large banks, are questioning the prudence of relying on consultants so heavily, said two people with direct knowledge of the matter.

When the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency penalized JPMorgan Chase last month for breakdowns in money-laundering controls, it imposed stricter requirements, ordering the bank to hire a consultant with “specialized experience” in money laundering and to ensure that the firm “not be subject to any conflict of interest.” In a separate action against the bank related to a $6 billion trading loss last year, the agency opted not to mandate an outside consultant at all.

While the comptroller’s office will continue requiring consultants in certain cases, some agency officials are worried about the quality of the work, as well as the consultants’ independence, according to three government officials briefed on the matter.

Since the financial crisis, regulators have increasingly relied on consultants. The comptroller’s office ordered banks to hire consultants in more than 130 enforcement actions since 2008, or nearly 15 percent of the cases.

It can be a lucrative business. In 2011, regulators mandated that 14 banks employ consultants to determine whether homeowners were wrongfully evicted. Over 14 months, the consultants collected about $2 billion in fees, according to regulators and bank officials.

Those fees amounted to more than half of what homeowners will receive under the $8.5 billion settlement that ended the review. As part of the deal, officials will disburse $3.3 billion to 3.8 million borrowers in foreclosure.

According to consultants and regulators, the broad review was plagued with inefficiencies. For example, Promontory initially instructed employees to calculate lawyers’ fees for each loan, to assess if borrowers were overcharged. Later, it scrapped the original procedure, only to reverse the policy again two weeks later, according to two reviewers who worked for Promontory.

“From Day 1, Promontory strove to conduct its review work as thoroughly and independently as possible,” a spokesman for the firm, Christopher Winans, said in a statement. “Our overarching concern at all times was to serve the best interests of borrowers.”

Some lawmakers question whether a consultant’s regulatory connections helped it secure contracts. PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has a stable of former Securities and Exchange Commission officials, won much of the foreclosure review work, signing deals with four banks, including Citigroup. Promontory — the firm examining loans for Wells Fargo, Bank of America and PNC — was founded in 2000 by the former head of the comptroller’s office, Eugene A. Ludwig.

When the contracts were initially awarded, some housing advocates complained that consulting firms could not objectively evaluate banks with which they had pre-existing business relationships. The comptroller’s office said it vetted the firms to spot such potential conflicts, and argued that the process provided swifter relief for homeowners than if the government had hired the companies directly through a lengthy contracting process.

But concerns persisted. Deloitte, which won the contract to review JPMorgan’s loans, had previously audited Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns, two firms JPMorgan scooped up during the financial crisis. In May, the comptroller’s office replaced Allonhill, the consultant for Aurora Bank, after the firm disclosed that it had already reviewed some “of the same pool of loans” as part of an earlier contract.

“It’s clear from the foreclosure settlement that oversight over consultants was inadequate and the review process was deeply flawed,” said Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, who recently pressed regulators to detail how consultants were paid. People close to the review say consultants relied on a process that the comptroller’s office designed in 2011, under previous leadership.

“This was a very complex process,” said a spokesman for the comptroller. “Throughout the process, regulators provided continuous oversight, guidance and were available to discuss issues.” The agency also performs spot checks on the consultants.

Still, the foreclosure review highlighted broader concerns about the role consultants play.

Since the financial crisis, the comptroller’s office has issued nearly 20 enforcement actions against banks that had already hired consultants to help iron out problems, according to government documents. While consultants cannot be expected to remedy every last issue at the banks, the actions raise questions about the efficacy of their work.

When HSBC, the British bank, was sanctioned in 2003 over porous money-laundering controls, the bank turned to Deloitte to review its compliance, an official briefed on the matter said. Deloitte also worked for HSBC from 2006 to 2008, the person said, building a system to monitor money flows more effectively. But the bank ran into trouble in 2010 over similar issues, as highlighted in a recent scathing report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

As part of a regulatory order, HSBC again hired Deloitte, this time to assess the number of times the bank failed to report suspicious transactions. Deloitte, three officials said, generously bundled hundreds of missed transfers into a single report. That helped save the bank from some government fines.

Despite the undercounting, HSBC still paid a record $1.9 billion last year to settle accusations that it enabled drug cartels to move money through its American subsidiaries.

In a statement, a spokesman for the firm said, “Deloitte fully stands behind the quality and integrity of its work on behalf of regulatory authorities.”

Deloitte has also been suspected of helping institutions cloak illicit transfers of money to rogue nations around the globe. In August, New York’s top banking regulator, Benjamin M. Lawsky, accused Deloitte of helping the British bank Standard Chartered flout American sanctions.

The consulting firm was hired to flag suspicious transfers routed through Standard Chartered’s New York branches. Instead, it instructed bankers on how to escape regulatory scrutiny, according to state court documents.

Deloitte turned over “highly confidential information” from which the bank gleaned insight into “regulators’ concerns and strategies,” the court documents said. The firm later doctored its report to regulators, Mr. Lawsky said, deliberately removing some illegal transfers on behalf of Iranian clients. In an e-mail, a Deloitte partner admitted that a report on the transactions was a “watered-down version.”

The authorities never took legal action against Deloitte, and federal officials noted in a separate settlement agreement that Standard Chartered employees withheld critical information from the consulting firm.

Despite these concerns, regulators are turning to a familiar source to help Standard Chartered. As part of a $327 million settlement last year, the bank is required to hire “an independent consultant.”

Read More..

Sen. Robert Menendez denies consorting with prostitutes

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a key player in the effort to overhaul immigration laws, denied allegations that he consorted with prostitutes during trips to the Dominican Republic with a longtime friend and campaign donor whose South Florida office was raided by the FBI.

FBI agents carted away records from the West Palm Beach office of Dr. Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist, on Tuesday night. A federal law enforcement official said Melgen was “one of their targets” in an investigation into healthcare fraud by the FBI and the U.S. attorney’s office in Miami.

The FBI declined to say Wednesday whether it was investigating Menendez, a Democrat who was reelected last year to his second Senate term.

Menendez is one of eight senators -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- who unveiled proposals Monday for sweeping changes to immigration laws, including a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. He is on tap to chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In a statement issued by his office Wednesday, Menendez described Melgen as a “friend and political supporter … for many years,” and said he had traveled on Melgen’s plane on three occasions, “all of which have been paid for and reported appropriately.”

The statement added, “Any allegations of engaging with prostitutes are manufactured by a politically motivated right-wing blog and are false.”

The allegations were first published last fall by the Daily Caller, a conservative website, and were based on emails from a Yahoo account.

A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, obtained the emails last April. Melanie Sloan, executive director of the group, said her staff could not verify the information, and the sender of the emails, who called himself Peter Williams, never agreed to meet or talk on the phone.

In July, Sloan forwarded the emails to the FBI and the Justice Department.

“I’m still withholding judgment on what really happened,” Sloan said Wednesday.

A Miami-based FBI agent corresponded with Williams, according to emails published on a separate website. Reached on his cellphone Wednesday, the FBI agent declined to comment.

Melgen and his wife have contributed $427,000 to political candidates and campaigns since 1992, including $33,700 to benefit Menendez, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Melgen owns a $2.3-million home and a Canadair CL-600 Challenger corporate jet that has made frequent trips to the Dominican Republic, even as he has tangled with the Internal Revenue Service. Last May, the IRS filed an $11.1-million lien for back taxes, according to Florida court records.

joseph.tanfani@latimes.com 

richard.serrano@latimes.com

Maloy Moore in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

Read More..

Kim Dotcom's Mega Gets Third-Party Search Engine

The file-sharing site Mega, introduced two weeks ago by infamous file-sharing kingpin Kim Dotcom, just became a lot more useful to content pirates, thanks to a community-fed search engine of links to content hosted on Mega’s servers.

The search engine doesn’t crawl Mega content — which is not possible because of Mega’s architecture. Instead, it relies on Mega users voluntarily providing links to files hosted on Mega’s service. Then downloaders can click and pull the content into their own Mega stash, or download it to their hard drives.

And the downloads are fast — way faster than a typical BitTorrent download.

Combined with Mega, the mega-search.me search engine — which is hosted from an anonymous domain — makes for a full blown piracy site, closer to what Megaupload was before it was brought down. Dotcom’s lawyer, Ira Rothken, said “no” when asked if his client had anything to do with the search engine.

The number of users for the Mega service is unclear, but Dotcom said it surpassed one million members one day following its initial launch two weeks ago from New Zealand.

Mega was launched one year after police shuttered Dotcom’s Megaupload, and arrested founder Dotcom and top lieutenants who were running the service. They were charged with criminal copyright infringement, money laundering and other crimes and are awaiting a possible extradition to the United States from New Zealand to face trial while free on bail.

Megaupload, which had some 150 million registered members, was on the recording and movie industries’ most-hated lists, often being accused of facilitating wanton infringement of their members’ copyrights. The year-old indictment claims Megaupload paid users to upload copyrighted works for others to download, and that it often failed to comply with removal notices from rights holders under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

David Kravets is a senior staff writer for Wired.com and founder of the fake news site TheYellowDailyNews.com. He's a dad of two boys and has been a reporter since the manual typewriter days.

Read more by David Kravets

Follow @dmkravets and @ThreatLevel on Twitter.

Read More..

UK’s Prince Charles takes first “Tube” trip since 1986

LONDON (Reuters) – Four million Londoners cram onto the city’s Underground passenger railway nearly every day, but it is a rarer event for Prince Charles. He rode the British capital’s bustling commuter network on Wednesday for the first time since 1986.

The heir to the British throne and his wife Camilla took a one-stop journey from Farringdon to King’s Cross on the Metropolitan Line as part of celebrations to mark the 150th anniversary of a transport service affectionately known to Britons as the “Tube”.

The short journey was a rare enough event to cause some confusion at the prince’s press office, which initially said he had last ventured onto the Tube in 1979.

“This is just to let you know that it has come to our attention that The Prince of Wales has travelled on the London Underground more recently than 1979. In 1986 The Prince and Princess of Wales travelled by tube to Heathrow Airport to open Terminal 4,” a spokeswoman said in an email to media.

“We’re sorry that our previous information was incorrect. Our archives of Royal engagements prior to 1988 are not computerized and in this particular instance a search under ‘The Prince of Wales takes the Tube’ did not bring up an event which had been logged as the ‘official opening of Terminal 4′.”

(Reporting By Estelle Shirbon, editing by Paul Casciato)

Celebrity News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Title Post: UK’s Prince Charles takes first “Tube” trip since 1986
Url Post: http://www.news.fluser.com/uks-prince-charles-takes-first-tube-trip-since-1986/
Link To Post : UK’s Prince Charles takes first “Tube” trip since 1986
Rating:
100%

based on 99998 ratings.
5 user reviews.
Author: Fluser SeoLink
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment

Read More..

Phys Ed: Helmets for Ski and Snowboard Safety

Phys Ed

Gretchen Reynolds on the science of fitness.

Recently, researchers from the department of sport science at the University of Innsbruck in Austria stood on the slopes at a local ski resort and trained a radar gun on a group of about 500 skiers and snowboarders, each of whom had completed a lengthy personality questionnaire about whether he or she tended to be cautious or a risk taker.

The researchers had asked their volunteers to wear their normal ski gear and schuss or ride down the slopes at their preferred speed. Although they hadn’t informed the volunteers, their primary aim was to determine whether wearing a helmet increased people’s willingness to take risks, in which case helmets could actually decrease safety on the slopes.

What they found was reassuring.

To many of us who hit the slopes with, in my case, literal regularity — I’m an ungainly novice snowboarder — the value of wearing a helmet can seem self-evident. They protect your head from severe injury. During the Big Air finals at the Winter X Games in Aspen, Colo., this past weekend, for instance, 23-year-old Icelandic snowboarder Halldor Helgason over-rotated on a triple back flip, landed head-first on the snow, and was briefly knocked unconscious. But like the other competitors he was wearing a helmet, and didn’t fracture his skull.

Indeed, studies have concluded that helmets reduce the risk of a serious head injury by as much as 60 percent. But a surprising number of safety experts and snowsport enthusiasts remain unconvinced that helmets reduce overall injury risk.

Why? A telling 2009 survey of ski patrollers from across the country found that 77 percent did not wear helmets because they worried that the headgear could reduce their peripheral vision, hearing and response times, making them slower and clumsier. In addition, many worried that if they wore helmets, less-adept skiers and snowboarders might do likewise, feel invulnerable and engage in riskier behavior on the slopes.

In the past several years, a number of researchers have attempted to resolve these concerns, for or against helmets. And in almost all instances, helmets have proved their value.

In the Innsbruck speed experiment, the researchers found that people whom the questionnaires showed to be risk takers skied and rode faster than those who were by nature cautious. No surprise.

But wearing a helmet did not increase people’s speed, as would be expected if the headgear encouraged risk taking. Cautious people were slower than risk-takers, whether they wore helmets or not; and risk-takers were fast, whether their heads were helmeted or bare.

Interestingly, the skiers and riders who were the most likely, in general, to don a helmet were the most expert, the men and women with the most talent and hours on the slopes. Experience seemed to have taught them the value of a helmet.

Off of the slopes, other new studies have brought skiers and snowboarders into the lab to test their reaction times and vision with and without helmets. Peripheral vision and response times are a serious safety concern in a sport where skiers and riders rapidly converge from multiple directions.

But when researchers asked snowboarders and skiers to wear caps, helmets, goggles or various combinations of each for a 2011 study and then had them sit before a computer screen and press a button when certain images popped up, they found that volunteers’ peripheral vision and reaction times were virtually unchanged when they wore a helmet, compared with wearing a hat. Goggles slightly reduced peripheral vision and increased response times. But helmets had no significant effect.

Even when researchers added music, testing snowboarders and skiers wearing Bluetooth-audio equipped helmets, response times did not increase significantly from when they wore wool caps.

So why do up to 40 percent of skiers and snowboarders still avoid helmets?

“The biggest reason, I think, is that many people never expect to fall,” says Dr. Adil H. Haider, a trauma surgeon and associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and co-author of a major new review of studies related to winter helmet use. “That attitude is especially common in people, like me, who are comfortable on blue runs but maybe not on blacks, and even more so in beginners.”

But a study published last spring detailing snowboarding injuries over the course of 18 seasons at a Vermont ski resort found that the riders at greatest risk of hurting themselves were female beginners. I sympathize.

The takeaway from the growing body of science about ski helmets is in fact unequivocal, Dr. Haider said. “Helmets are safe. They don’t seem to increase risk taking. And they protect against serious, even fatal head injuries.”

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, of which Dr. Haider is a member, has issued a recommendation that “all recreational skiers and snowboarders should wear safety helmets,” making them the first medical group to go on record advocating universal helmet use.

Perhaps even more persuasive, Dr. Haider has given helmets to all of his family members and colleagues who ski or ride. “As a trauma surgeon, I know how difficult it is to fix a brain,” he said. “So everyone I care about wears a helmet.”

Read More..

Law Schools’ Applications Fall as Costs Rise and Jobs Are Cut

Law school applications are headed for a 30-year low, reflecting increased concern over soaring tuition, crushing student debt and diminishing prospects of lucrative employment upon graduation.

As of this month, there were 30,000 applicants to law schools for the fall, a 20 percent decrease from the same time last year and a 38 percent decline from 2010, according to the Law School Admission Council. Of some 200 law schools nationwide, only 4 have seen increases in applications this year. In 2004 there were 100,000 applicants to law schools; this year there are likely to be 54,000.

Such startling numbers have plunged law school administrations into soul-searching debate about the future of legal education and the profession over all.

“We are going through a revolution in law with a time bomb on our admissions books,” said William D. Henderson, a professor of law at Indiana University, who has written extensively on the issue. “Thirty years ago if you were looking to get on the escalator to upward mobility, you went to business or law school. Today, the law school escalator is broken.”

Responding to the new environment, schools are planning cutbacks and accepting students they would not have admitted before.

A few schools, like the Vermont Law School, have started layoffs and buyouts of professors. Others, like at the University of Illinois, have offered across-the-board tuition discounts to keep up enrollments. Brian Leiter of the University of Chicago Law School, who runs a blog on the topic, said he expected as many as 10 schools to close over the coming decade, and half to three-quarters of all schools to reduce class size, faculty and staff.

After the normal dropout of some applicants, the number of those matriculating in the fall will be about 38,000, the lowest since 1977, when there were two dozen fewer law schools, according to Brian Z. Tamanaha of Washington University Law School, the author of “Failing Law Schools.”

The drop in applications is widely viewed as directly linked to perceptions of the declining job market. Many of the reasons that law jobs are disappearing are similar to those for disruptions in other knowledge-based professions, namely the growth of the Internet. Research is faster and easier, requiring fewer lawyers, and is being outsourced to less expensive locales, including West Virginia and overseas.

In addition, legal forms are now available online and require training well below a lawyer’s to fill them out.

In recent years there has also been publicity about the debt load and declining job prospects for law graduates, especially of schools that do not generally provide employees to elite firms in major cities. Last spring, the American Bar Association released a study showing that within nine months of graduation in 2011, only 55 percent of those who finished law school found full-time jobs that required passage of the bar exam.

“Students are doing the math,” said Michelle J. Anderson, dean of the City University of New York School of Law. “Most law schools are too expensive, the debt coming out is too high and the prospect of attaining a six-figure-income job is limited.”

Mr. Tamanaha of Washington University said the rise in tuition and debt was central to the decrease in applications. In 2001, he said, the average tuition for private law school was $23,000; in 2012 it was $40,500 (for public law schools the figures were $8,500 and $23,600). He said that 90 percent of law students finance their education by taking on debt. And among private law school graduates, the average debt in 2001 was $70,000; in 2011 it was $125,000.

“We have been sharply increasing tuition during a low-inflation period,” he said of law schools collectively, noting that a year at a New York City law school can run to more than $80,000 including lodging and food. “And we have been maximizing our revenue. There is no other way to describe it. We will continue to need lawyers, but we need to bring the price down.”

Some argue that the drop is an indictment of the legal training itself — a failure to keep up with the profession’s needs.

“We have a significant mismatch between demand and supply,” said Gillian K. Hadfield, professor of law and economics at the University of Southern California. “It’s not a problem of producing too many lawyers. Actually, we have an exploding demand for both ordinary folk lawyers and big corporate ones.”

She said that, given the structure of the legal profession, it was hard to make a living dealing with matters like mortgage and divorce, and that big corporations were dissatisfied with what they see as the overly academic training at elite law schools.

The drop in law school applications is unlike what is happening in almost any other graduate or professional training, except perhaps to veterinarians. Medical school applications have been rising steadily for the past decade.

Debra W. Stewart, president of the Council of Graduate Schools, said applicants to master of business degrees were steady — a 0.8 percent increase among Americans in 2011 after a decade of substantial growth. But growth in foreign student applications — 13 percent over the same period — made up the difference, something from which law schools cannot benefit, since foreigners have less interest in American legal training.

In the legal academy, there has been discussion about how to make training less costly and more relevant, with special emphasis on the last year of law school. A number of schools, including elite ones like Stanford, have increased their attention to clinics, where students get hands-on training. Northeastern Law School in Boston, which has long emphasized in-the-field training, has had one of the smallest decreases in its applicant pool this year, according to Jeremy R. Paul, the new dean.

There is also discussion about permitting students to take the bar after only two years rather than three, a decision that would have to be made by the highest officials of a state court system. In New York, the proposal is under active consideration largely because of a desire to reduce student debt.

Some, including Professor Hadfield of the University of Southern California, have called for one- or two-year training programs to create nonlawyer specialists for many tasks currently done by lawyers. Whether or not such changes occur, for now the decline is creating what many see as a cultural shift.

“In the ’80s and ’90s, a liberal arts graduate who didn’t know what to do went to law school,” Professor Henderson of Indiana said. “Now you get $120,000 in debt and a default plan of last resort whose value is just too speculative. Students are voting with their feet. There are going to be massive layoffs in law schools this fall. We won’t have the bodies we need to meet the payroll.”

Read More..

Santa Ana man accused of stealing dead father's benefits

A Santa Ana man was charged with fraudulently collecting more than $100,000 of his deceased father's Social Security benefits Tuesday after bones believed to be those of his father were found in the backyard of his former home, officials said.

Larry Thomas Dominguez, 65, faces a felony count of theft by embezzlement, with sentencing enhancements for aggravated white-collar crime over $100,000, the Orange County district attorney's office announced. Dominguez's arraignment was postponed Tuesday.

Prosecutors allege that Dominguez collected more than $1,100 a month between his father's death in May 2005 and January of this year. If convicted, he faces a maximum of four years in prison.

Authorities began investigating Dominguez on Sunday after a human skeleton was discovered during a renovation project at a home he used to own in the 2500 block of North Hesperian Street, Santa Ana police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said. Though an autopsy did not immediately identify the remains, Bertagna said Tuesday that they were believed to be those of Dominguez's father, Wallace Benjamin Dominguez.

There is no death certificate for Wallace Dominguez, Bertagna said, and authorities do not know how he died. Investigators were able to pinpoint May 2005 as his date of death.

Wallace Dominguez, in his late 70s at the time of his death, lived at the home with his son, Bertagna said. Larry Dominguez's mother also lived at the home, Bertagna said — but investigators have a death certificate for her.

"As a homicide detective, the question begs: Did he murder him and has been collecting the benefits?" Bertagna said. "Or did he die and he just took that opportunity to bury him and continue on with his benefits?"

Larry Dominguez was originally arrested on suspicion of homicide, but prosecutors filed the embezzlement charges as authorities continue to investigate the manner of death, Bertagna said, adding "there's a lot of work to be done."

"This is a first for me," he said of the case. "I'm sure they exist, but it's the first I know."

kate.mather@latimes.com

Read More..