How could I NOT know about this!!!!! I cannot believe JANET JACKSON AND JERMAINE DUPRI!!!!!!!! What is this world coming to!?!?!?!?!?
Janet Jackson and boyfriend ENGAGED - NEWS - Moono.com
Janet Jackson and Jermaine Dupri ENGAGED
Janet Jackson, who is out promoting her new album "Damita Jo," has been blinding the press with a doorknob-sized 20-carat yellow diamond ring surrounded by white diamonds.
Who's the lucky guy? Of course beau, Jermaine Dupri.
Jackson insiders have confirmed her engagement to Jermaine, reports the New York Post, which claims the couple plans to tie the knot quietly this summer. For now, the pop star's rep is mum.
"Jermaine is the guy," Janet told Entertainment Tonight this week. "The most important thing is to me, obviously, is the happiness," she said, adding coyly of her rumored aisle walk, "It's up to Jermaine."
During a recent radio interview with the perpetually stubbly Ryan Seacrest, the diminutive Dupri boldly proclaimed, "I want to marry her ... I'm not going to mess this up. I would like to be with her forever."
You'll recall that Chris Rock gently reminded Dupri just what a lucky guy he is when he joked at the MTV Video Music Awards, "Seeing Janet Jackson with Jermaine Dupri is like finding out about a sale a day too late."
Janet has been through the holy-matrimony-ceremony twice before. At the age of 18, she eloped with singer James DeBarge, but her parents made her annul the union. In 1991, she said "I do" with Rene Elizondo but kept the marriage secret for nearly a decade. It was finally revealed when the two began battling in divorce court.
"I need someone who is willing, who is working on himself and continuing to grow ...," Janet told Ebony in 2001, describing the qualities she looks for in a man. "I need someone to also be there for me, to be there for each other, to be able to carry his own. Because I am going to carry mine." You go girl!
We hope if this marriage happens, it will last- unlike Janet's previous attempts.
9/29/04
news @ nature.com?-?Human populations are tightly interwovenbreaking science news headlines
news @ nature.com?-?Human populations are tightly interwovenbreaking science news headlines
News
Published online: 29 September 2004; | doi:10.1038/news040927-10
Human populations are tightly interwoven
Michael Hopkin
Family tree shows our common ancestor lived just 3,500 years ago.
The person from whom everyone today is descended may have lived around 1,500 BC.
© Getty
The most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived just a few thousand years ago, according to a computer model of our family tree. Researchers have calculated that the mystery person, from whom everyone alive today is directly descended, probably lived around 1,500 BC in eastern Asia.
Douglas Rohde of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and his colleagues devised the computer program to simulate the migration and breeding of humans across the world. By estimating how different groups intermingle, the researchers built up a picture of how tightly the world's ancestral lines are linked.
The figure of 1,500 BC might sound surprisingly recent. But think how wide your own family tree would be if you extended it back that far. Lurking somewhere in your many hundreds of ancestors at that date is likely to be somebody who crops up in the corresponding family tree for anyone alive in 2004.
In fact, if it were not for the fact that oceans helped to keep populations apart, the human race would have mingled even more freely, the researchers argue. "The most recent common ancestor for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past," they write in this week's Nature1.
Striking out
To work out how much different groups of humans mingled, Rohde's team simulated the rates at which a few pioneering people made journeys across the world to meet and breed with other populations. Their model gave each individual a certain probability of quitting their home town, country or continent and striking out for pastures new.
They were then able to name a time and place at which our most recent common ancestor lived. But who was this person? He or she must have had a flourishing family, says Rohde. "Maybe it was someone who happened to have 40 children or some such astronomical number," he says. "But it could equally have been someone with above-average productivity for a few generations." Instead of two kids, Rohde suggests, maybe the person and his or her direct descendants had three.
The fact that the person probably lived in Asia is down to its prime position along the most commonly used migration routes, Rohde suggests. "East Asia is at a crossroads," he says. "It's close to the Bering Strait and the Pacific."
No isolation
Rohde's simulation aims to include everyone alive today, and therefore relies on the assumption that no population has remained completely isolated for any significant length of time. Rohde is confident that this is the case; even Tasmania, once thought to be isolated by choppy seas, contains no people with purely Tasmanian blood.
If we discount those living in the world's remotest places, the common ancestor becomes more recent still, says Mark Humphrys, who studies human family trees at Dublin City University in Ireland. "Looking at the whole sweep of the Americas, Europe, Asia, right across to Japan, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a common ancestor in the AD years," he says.
A single prolific parent can have a vast influence once their descendants begin to multiply, Humphrys says. "The entire Western world is descended from Charlemagne, for example," he says. "There's really no doubt."
All or nothing
Besides dating our most recent common ancestor, Rohde's team also calculates that in 5,400 BC everyone alive was either an ancestor of all of humanity, or of nobody alive today. The researchers call this the 'identical ancestors' point: the time before which all the family trees of people today are composed of exactly the same individuals.
This recent date is not really surprising either, Rohde says. Anyone whose lineage survived for a few generations was likely to have descendants spread all over the world. At the identical ancestors point, then, our ancestors came from every corner of the globe, although those from far afield are unlikely to have made a significant contribution to our genetic make-up.
Nonetheless, the results show that we are one big family, Rohde says. As he and his colleagues write: "No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors with those who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."
News
Published online: 29 September 2004; | doi:10.1038/news040927-10
Human populations are tightly interwoven
Michael Hopkin
Family tree shows our common ancestor lived just 3,500 years ago.
The person from whom everyone today is descended may have lived around 1,500 BC.
© Getty
The most recent common ancestor of all humanity lived just a few thousand years ago, according to a computer model of our family tree. Researchers have calculated that the mystery person, from whom everyone alive today is directly descended, probably lived around 1,500 BC in eastern Asia.
Douglas Rohde of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and his colleagues devised the computer program to simulate the migration and breeding of humans across the world. By estimating how different groups intermingle, the researchers built up a picture of how tightly the world's ancestral lines are linked.
The figure of 1,500 BC might sound surprisingly recent. But think how wide your own family tree would be if you extended it back that far. Lurking somewhere in your many hundreds of ancestors at that date is likely to be somebody who crops up in the corresponding family tree for anyone alive in 2004.
In fact, if it were not for the fact that oceans helped to keep populations apart, the human race would have mingled even more freely, the researchers argue. "The most recent common ancestor for a randomly mating population would have lived in the very recent past," they write in this week's Nature1.
Striking out
To work out how much different groups of humans mingled, Rohde's team simulated the rates at which a few pioneering people made journeys across the world to meet and breed with other populations. Their model gave each individual a certain probability of quitting their home town, country or continent and striking out for pastures new.
They were then able to name a time and place at which our most recent common ancestor lived. But who was this person? He or she must have had a flourishing family, says Rohde. "Maybe it was someone who happened to have 40 children or some such astronomical number," he says. "But it could equally have been someone with above-average productivity for a few generations." Instead of two kids, Rohde suggests, maybe the person and his or her direct descendants had three.
The fact that the person probably lived in Asia is down to its prime position along the most commonly used migration routes, Rohde suggests. "East Asia is at a crossroads," he says. "It's close to the Bering Strait and the Pacific."
No isolation
Rohde's simulation aims to include everyone alive today, and therefore relies on the assumption that no population has remained completely isolated for any significant length of time. Rohde is confident that this is the case; even Tasmania, once thought to be isolated by choppy seas, contains no people with purely Tasmanian blood.
If we discount those living in the world's remotest places, the common ancestor becomes more recent still, says Mark Humphrys, who studies human family trees at Dublin City University in Ireland. "Looking at the whole sweep of the Americas, Europe, Asia, right across to Japan, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a common ancestor in the AD years," he says.
A single prolific parent can have a vast influence once their descendants begin to multiply, Humphrys says. "The entire Western world is descended from Charlemagne, for example," he says. "There's really no doubt."
All or nothing
Besides dating our most recent common ancestor, Rohde's team also calculates that in 5,400 BC everyone alive was either an ancestor of all of humanity, or of nobody alive today. The researchers call this the 'identical ancestors' point: the time before which all the family trees of people today are composed of exactly the same individuals.
This recent date is not really surprising either, Rohde says. Anyone whose lineage survived for a few generations was likely to have descendants spread all over the world. At the identical ancestors point, then, our ancestors came from every corner of the globe, although those from far afield are unlikely to have made a significant contribution to our genetic make-up.
Nonetheless, the results show that we are one big family, Rohde says. As he and his colleagues write: "No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors with those who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who first domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forests of North and South America, and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."
9/27/04
Gmail - Fifth Third Bank-CSR Position,Woodhaven
Another disappointing email:(
~~~~~~~
"Dear Jazmyn:
Thank you for taking the time to submit your resume to Fifth Third. Your qualifications have been updated and reviewed against our openings. Unfortunately, we have identified other candidates who more closely meet our requirements at the present time. If your skill set is identified as a potential fit for future opportunities, you will be contacted promptly for further discussion.
Again, thank you for your time and interest in Fifth Third and we would like to strongly encourage you to apply for other positions. I wish you success in finding a challenging and rewarding opportunity.
Sincerely,
Fifth Third
Recruiting Department
"
~~~~~~~
"Dear Jazmyn:
Thank you for taking the time to submit your resume to Fifth Third. Your qualifications have been updated and reviewed against our openings. Unfortunately, we have identified other candidates who more closely meet our requirements at the present time. If your skill set is identified as a potential fit for future opportunities, you will be contacted promptly for further discussion.
Again, thank you for your time and interest in Fifth Third and we would like to strongly encourage you to apply for other positions. I wish you success in finding a challenging and rewarding opportunity.
Sincerely,
Fifth Third
Recruiting Department
"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)